



Produced by garweyne and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet
Archive/American Libraries.)









TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:

Inconsistencies in hyphenation and spelling, including inconsistencies
in the spelling of the names of tribes, locations, authors, and
aboriginal terms, have not been corrected. Punctuation has been
silently corrected. A list of other corrections can be found at the end
of the document.




THE FAMILY AMONG THE
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES




UNIVERSITY OF LONDON


MONOGRAPHS ON SOCIOLOGY


EDITED BY

PROF. L. T. HOBHOUSE

AND

PROF. E. A. WESTERMARCK


VOL. II




THE FAMILY AMONG THE
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES

A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY


BY

B. MALINOWSKI

PH.D. (CRACOW)


London: University of London Press
PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, LTD.
BY HODDER & STOUGHTON, WARWICK SQUARE, E. C.
1913




HODDER AND STOUGHTON

PUBLISHERS TO

THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS




FOREWORD


The importance of the subject treated in this study, as well as the
prominent part played by the Australian evidence in the problem of
kinship, will, it is believed, amply justify a detailed inquiry into
the institution of the family in Australia. It is, however, always
desirable for a monograph like the present one, besides being a mere
collection and description of facts, to have a sufficiently wide
theoretical scope. It ought to demonstrate some general principle upon
the particular example treated, and to approach the problem from a new
standpoint.

I wish here shortly to indicate how far a slight and imperfect attempt
in this direction has been made. In describing the facts of family life
in Australia I have tried to show that even if the problems of origins
and development of an institution be put aside and the inquiry be
limited to the actual facts (in this case to the actual working of the
aboriginal kinship organization), there are plenty of subjects of great
theoretical importance, some of which, as yet not fully considered by
sociologists. On the other hand, I have tried to show that in dealing
with purely sociological problems it is necessary, in order to do
justice to the complexity and fulness of social phenomena, to draw into
the field of inquiry a series of facts often hitherto partially or
completely neglected. The facts of daily life, the emotional side of
family relations, the magico-religious ideas of the aborigines about
kinship and sexual relations, customary as well as legal norms--all
these factors must be taken impartially into careful consideration
in order to give the full picture of an institution as it embraces
living man in a living society. In other words each social institution
must be studied in all its complex social functions as well as in its
reflexion in the collective psychology.

As a matter of fact, by a certain tendency to fanciful construction,
natural in all early speculations about a new domain of facts, many
problems in the study of primitive kinship have been artificially
simplified, others unduly complicated and obscured. Thus, for instance,
when in the discussion of primitive forms of marriage the whole problem
of the position of the children and of the emotional attitude of the
parents towards them has been neglected; or when different legal
terms have been applied to undifferentiated societies and legal ideas
attributed to primitive man, without asking how far and under what
conditions this may be done; or, again, when the sexual aspect has
been treated as the only essential feature of marriage. On the other
hand, the concepts of "primitive promiscuity," "descent through females
only," "mother-right" and "father-right" have proved meaningless and
abstruse; the two latter, of course, as far only as they have been used
in the majority of cases without a satisfactory definition.

It is easy to see why such somewhat artificial conceptions have found
their way into the study of primitive marriage and kinship. In the
early days of these studies work had been done not by specialists,
who would try to apply to a new set of problems new methods, but
by men learned in other branches of science, who looked at the
facts, not full in the face, but from a peculiar and often remote
standpoint. The illustrious founder of these studies on the Continent,
the Swiss _savant_ Bachofen, was a student of history of law and
classical culture, and he was chiefly concerned with establishing
the primitive mother-right of the prehistoric Greeks and Romans. The
chief theoretical interest of the eminent ethnographer Morgan was the
unravelling of the riddle of primitive forms of marriage out of the
invaluable material contained in his tables of kinship terms. McLennan
assigns a prominent place in his investigations to factors which had
hardly ever played a very important part in primitive society, as,
for instance, marriage by capture, female infanticide and levirate.
It is evident that in all these and similar speculations the chief
attention was not drawn to the actual working of the social mechanism,
but to survivals, rudiments and fictitious primeval conditions. And
the method of sociological thinking has not been developed upon
living social forms, but upon shadows and petrified remains. Whenever
concrete institutions have been theoretically treated, they were
approached with preconceived ideas, as, for instance, in the well-known
monograph of Fison and Howitt, and in the book of Herr H. Cunow--both
works relating to Australian kinship organization. When reading the
theoretical chapters of the latter, one has the impression that the
Australian tribes were a museum of sociological fossils from various
ancient epochs of which the petrified form has been rigidly preserved,
but into whose inner nature it is quite hopeless to inquire. The
understanding of actual facts is sacrificed to sterile speculation upon
a hypothetical earlier state of things.

Prof. Tylor's well-known article (_Journ. Anthrop. Inst._ xviii.) was,
perhaps, the first protest against this loose and far-fetched treatment
of the subject. He based his method of research on the firm ground
of a statistical survey of facts, and his method of reasoning on the
philosophically sound principle of inquiring into the mutual dependence
of phenomena.

The whole problem has been set on a new basis and its treatment recast
in the fundamental treatise of Prof. Westermarck on the _History of
Human Marriage_. Several of the most important aspects of the question
which had been omitted in the speculations of the previous writers have
received in it their full treatment; in taking into account, in its
manifold aspects, the biological basis of the problem he has shown how
many of the current conceptions about primitive marriage and kinship
could not hold good in the light of a closer criticism. Besides this
merely critical contribution, and besides the biological argument,
the _History of Human Marriage_ constitutes a valuable addition to
the purely sociological treatment of the problem. By resolving the
problem of marriage into that of family, by pointing to the importance
of the relations between parents and children, of the mode of living,
etc., the author has shown that marriage is rooted in a complex of
sociological conditions, and that there are many points to be treated
before we arrive at definite conclusions and broad generalizations.

Another important aspect of the problem has received its full treatment
by Mr. Crawley in his study of primitive marriage (the _Mystic Rose_;
compare the note in the Addenda at the end of this volume). Working out
thoroughly some conceptions suggested already by Prof. Frazer in his
_Golden Bough_, the author has shown the social importance of the ideas
about human relations and in particular about sexual relations as held
by primitive man.

The tendency towards a reform in the method of sociological treatment
of kinship and family has been shown not only from the side of purely
theoretical writers. Some of the modern field workers, who happily for
our science are at the same time distinguished scholars, have achieved
a considerable advance in the method of collecting evidence. This
refers in the first place to the Cambridge School of Ethnology, whose
members under the lead of Dr. Haddon have obtained such remarkable
results from their work in the Torres Straits Islands. Dr. Rivers, who
specially worked out the chapter on kinship in the joint publication of
this Expedition, has, by the introduction of the genealogical method
of inquiry as well as by the systematic study of the functions of kin,
given perhaps the most useful instruments of inquiry into the social
working of family and kinship organization. Thus both our theoretical
conceptions and our methods of getting at the facts are certainly
approaching more and more the first postulate of scientific study:
the possibility of an adequate description of facts and their mutual
dependences as they exist now in living primitive societies. Only on a
basis of such knowledge are further speculations fruitful.

As regards the general principles of sociological method much has been
done in recent times by the French school of sociology, grouped round
the editor of the _Année Sociologique_. The important question, how
methodically to present evidence, has received its full attention in
the excellent works of Dr. Steinmetz and his pupil, Dr. Nieboer, which
are examples of a clear and conclusive way of utilizing ethnological
sources. I am glad to acknowledge my intellectual indebtedness to both
these schools.

I have tried to collect sufficiently complete evidence, and in this
endeavour have used some of the older sources whose trustworthiness
might perhaps be disputed. But many of their observations are highly
valuable if properly interpreted; and moreover it was necessary to
bring their statements into line with the newer evidence for the sake
of critical comparison, as much of what they say has been uncritically
accepted and given without reference by some secondhand compilers (for
instance, Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi.; Cunow) and hence found its way into
the newer sociological literature.

The statements I have taken from the different authors are quoted at
length, and I do not think that I have thus uselessly increased the
bulk of the volume. By an unprejudiced collection of evidence, which
is, moreover, presented in a manner independent of, and accessible
without reference to, the theoretical discussion, I hope to have given
a useful compilation of observations which may serve for further
theoretical purposes other than those of the present writer.

In order to make short and yet clear references possible a list of the
works quoted is given at the end. With its help the short indications
in the footnotes will be perfectly plain.

In this place I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mr. J. Martin
White, whose munificence has made the publication of this book
possible. As a student of sociology at the University of London I am
indebted to Mr. Martin White, who, as it is well known, has founded the
chairs of Sociology at this university, and furthers these studies in
various ways--not the least by his personal contact with and interest
shown in the students and their work.

I had, while working on the present book, the privilege of personal
intercourse with Prof. Westermarck, a privilege I value more than I
can express. I owe much to Dr. Rivers for the constant aid and counsel
generously given me during my studies. Much assistance was given to me
by Mr. Wheeler, who freely put at my disposal his extensive knowledge
of the subject. I have to thank Dr. Tallqvist for several important
remarks upon some pages of my proofs.

But my debt is the greatest to Miss Helena Hadley, without whose kind
help I could not have overcome the difficulties of writing in what is
for me an acquired tongue. Her advice and criticism, both as regards
style and thought, were quite invaluable for me, and this is only a
feeble acknowledgment of my indebtedness and feelings of gratitude.

                    B. M.




CONTENTS


CHAPTER I

EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD

I. _Exposition of the problem and justification of the task_ (pp. 1
_sqq._).

  Some contradictions and obscurities concerning family and kinship
  in Australia (pp. 1-6).--Necessity of a careful and detailed
  description of all the features of the _individual family_ among
  the Australian aborigines (pp. 6-9).--The sense in which the
  conception of _law_ and _legal_ should be applied to the Australian
  native society indicated (pp. 9-17).

II. _Method of dealing with the evidence_ (pp. 17 _sqq._).

  At the outset only a general definition of "family" adopted; on
  the other hand raw ethnographical material given. Necessity of
  continually checking these two data with each other (p. 17).--In
  dealing with the ethnographical evidence _three_ points to be
  taken into consideration (pp. 17 _sqq._).--(1) Criticisms of
  each statement (pp. 18 _sqq._).--Verbal criticism (hermeneutic)
  (pp. 18-19).--Criticism of contents (pp. 19 _sqq._).--Different
  elements which might possibly have been the source of errors; and
  upon an analysis of which criticism in question may in part be
  based; (_a_) Material which the author had under observation
  (pp. 20-22).--(_b_) Circumstances and method of obtaining information
  (pp. 22, 23).--(_c_) Personal character and profession of the
  writer (pp. 23, 24).--(_d_) Purpose for which the book was written
  (p. 24).--(_e_) Form and quality of the writer's generalizations
  and abstract formulation (pp. 24, 25).--(2) Geographical
  localization of statements (pp. 26 sqq.).--Condition under which
  local differences may be safely assumed (pp. 26, 27).--(3)
  Final inferences from the evidence (pp. 27 _sqq._).--Character
  of this operation; analytical division of the information on a
  given subject under different headings. Separate discussion of
  each point. Contradictions emphasized and not concealed
  (pp. 27-29).--Conclusion drawn (pp. 29, 30).--Its confrontation with
  kindred facts (pp. 30, 31).--The chief methodological aim: general
  and complete clearness of all the operations of inference and
  argument (pp. 31-33).


CHAPTER II

MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES

  Prof. Westermarck's definition of marriage and family accepted
  at the outset as starting-point (pp. 34, 35).--Inquiry first
  directed towards the legal aspect of marriage and ideas on
  marriage, as expressed and embodied in the aboriginal modes of
  obtaining wives (pp. 35, 36).--Statements concerning these facts
  (pp. 36-47).--Rough survey (pp. 47, 48).--(1) _Normal forms of
  marriage_ (pp. 48 _sqq._).--Chief features and forms of the normal
  methods: betrothal in infancy (p. 48);--exchange of sisters or
  relatives (pp. 48, 49);--obligations of contracting parties (pp.
  49, 50);--some traces of marriage by purchase (pp. 50-52);--public,
  tribal character of marriage arrangements (p. 52);--betrothal
  and marriage ceremonies (pp. 52-53).--(2) _The violent forms of
  marriage_ (pp. 53-55).--Capture (pp. 54, 55).--Elopement (pp.
  55, 56).--_Theoretical inferences drawn from these facts_ (pp.
  56 _sqq._).--The legal aspect of marriage (pp. 56-58).--The
  elements enforcing _ipso facto_ the validity of marriage (pp.
  58, 59).--Collective ideas expressed by the facts analyzed (pp.
  60-62).--Marital bonds not lax, but on the whole strong and
  permanent (pp. 62-66).--Summary (p. 66).


CHAPTER III

HUSBAND AND WIFE

  Exposition of the problem (pp. 67, 68).--Statements
  (pp. 68-74).--Numerous contradictions extant on this subject. Some
  apparently trustworthy statements, affirming a very extensive
  authority on the part of the husband, combined with a certain
  mutual attachment (pp. 74, 75).--Division of the subject under
  three headings for the purpose of securing more definite answers
  (pp. 76, 77).--(1) The authority of the husband over his wife
  nearly absolute, limited only in cases of wilful murder
  (pp. 77-79).--(2) Ill-treatment not the rule; from this, combined
  with the foregoing point, follows (pp. 79-82).--(3) Existence of
  some affection and attachment between the aboriginal married couples
  (pp. 82-84).--On the whole the information in this chapter very
  contradictory (p. 84).--Strength of marital bond, as expressed by
  mourning and burial ceremonies and customs (pp. 84-88).


CHAPTER IV

SEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE

  General character of the information on this subject indicated,
  and some controversy contained in this chapter justified
  (pp. 89-91).--Problem set forth (pp. 91, 92).--Statements
  (pp. 92-100).--Local differences between different groups of tribes
  in sexual matters (pp. 100, 101).--Three points investigated:
  (1) The husband's definite sexual over-right and control over
  his wife involving his consent in all cases. Otherwise adultery
  considered a crime (pp. 101-103).--(2) Chastity in general; its
  slight recognition (pp. 104, 105).--(3) Regulated licence
  (pp. 105-107).--Its chief form: the Pirrauru practice (pp. 108,
  109).--A detailed discussion of the latter showing its lack of the
  features of "group marriage" (pp. 109-123).--In general all sexual
  licence _regulated_ and devoid of the character of promiscuity and
  disorder (pp. 123, 124).--Digression on sexual jealousy among the
  Australian aborigines (pp. 124-131).


CHAPTER V

MODE OF LIVING

I. _The relation of the family unit to the tribal and territorial
organization of the aboriginal society_ (pp. 132 _sqq._).

  Terminology (pp. 134, 135).--Statements (pp. 136-149).--Rough
  survey (pp. 149, 150).--The _territorial_ unit, the _local group_
  a body of people possessing in common a tract of country and
  inhabiting it to the exclusion of anybody else (pp. 150-152).--Three
  different forms of possession of land in Australia (pp. 152,
  153).--Idea of rights in a portion of land probably to a great
  extent of magico-religious character (p. 153).--The mode of living,
  the tribal division varying according to local conditions and with
  opportunities of food-supply. In the majority of tribes (especially
  those of the arid regions) small groupings of about one to three
  families usual (pp. 150-157).

II. _The internal structure of the local group, with reference to
single families_ (pp. 158 _sqq._).

  Statements (pp. 158-165).--Disposition of camps, the mode of
  occupying the huts and other functions of daily life subject to
  strict rules pointing to the isolation of the single families
  (pp. 165-167).


CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION OF KINSHIP

I. _Theoretical analysis of this concept_ (pp. 168 _sqq._).

  Importance of adapting sociological concepts to those social
  conditions to which they are applied, exemplified on the concept
  of kinship (pp. 168, 169).--Necessity of giving a definition of
  kinship for scientific use (pp. 169-171).--The present discussion
  specially directed to suit the Australian evidence (pp. 171,
  172).--Necessary and sufficient conditions for admitting the
  _existence_ of _individual parental kinship_ in any given society
  (pp. 172-174).--Further features thereof to be looked for in
  the variable social conditions and in the data of "collective
  psychology"; "collective ideas" held about kinship and "collective
  feelings" referring to it (pp. 174-176).--Preliminary definition of
  kinship (p. 176).--_Analysis of the concept of consanguinity_
  (pp. 176 _sqq._).--Modern European idea of kinship conceived in terms
  of consanguinity (p. 177).--Physiological and social consanguinity
  (pp. 178-182).--Exact definition of the latter (p. 182).--Kinship
  not always based upon ideas of community of blood. Common features
  of the ideas underlying kinship (pp. 182, 183).--Normative ideas
  referring to kinship. Descent (pp. 183-185).--_Analysis of the
  legal side of kinship_ (pp. 185, _sqq._).--_Legal_ only one of the
  aspects of kinship (p. 185).--In primitive societies in particular
  kinship not a legal relationship (pp. 185, 186).--Discussion of
  some opinions thereon (Mr. Thomas, Prof. Dargun, Prof. Frazer)
  (pp. 186-190).--Restricted use of the term _legal_ in the Australian
  aboriginal society (pp. 190, 191).--_Justification of the
  study of the emotional characteristics of kinship_ (pp. 191
  _sqq._).--Importance of feelings in the task of characterizing any
  personal relationship. "Collective feelings" (pp. 191, 192).--The
  presence in the Australian ethnographic material of objective
  facts which express the collective feelings referring to kinship
  (pp. 192-194).--Analysis of these facts (pp. 194-197).--Mutual
  dependence of collective ideas and collective feelings referring to
  kinship (pp. 197, 198).--Summary (pp. 198, 199).--Critical survey
  of some definitions of kinship given by other authors (Morgan,
  MacLennan, Mr. E. S. Hartland, Dr. Rivers, Fison and Howitt, M. von
  Gennep, Prof. Durkheim, Prof. Westermarck, Sir Laurence Gomme)
  (pp. 199-206).--Two additional remarks (pp. 206, 207).

II. _Some examples of kinship ideas suggested by the Australian
folklore_ (pp. 207 _sqq._).

  Introductory remarks (p. 207).--Belief in totemic conception
  existing among the Central tribes (pp. 208, 209).--Absence
  of knowledge concerning physiological procreation (pp. 209,
  210).--Some important points discussed (pp. 210 _sqq._)--(1)
  The ignorance in question complete (pp. 210, 211).--(2) In
  particular no idea of _individual paternal_ consanguinity (pp. 211,
  212).--(3) Analysis of the aboriginal ideas about reincarnation
  (pp. 212-217).--Conclusion: absence of "consanguinity"
  (in the social sense) among the Central tribes (pp. 217,
  218).--_Beliefs in which some kinship ideas are expressed_
  (pp. 218 _sqq._).--Among the Northern tribes special close
  tie between spirit-child and father (Gnanji, Umbaia and other
  Northern-Central tribes) (pp. 218-220).--Pre-established kinship
  involved in the belief concerning reincarnation and return of dead
  people (pp. 220-225).--Customs of the _couvade_ type (pp. 225,
  226).--Geographical extension of the nescience of physiological
  fatherhood (pp. 226, 227).--Two North Queensland beliefs involving
  a clear idea of spiritual tie between a father and his child
  (pp. 227-229).--Other examples (pp. 229, 230).--Survey of the beliefs
  of the South-Eastern tribes possessing the idea of paternal
  consanguinity (in the social sense) (pp. 230-232).--Summary
  (pp. 232, 233).


CHAPTER VII

PARENTS AND CHILDREN

I. _The first maternal cares and suckling of the infant_ (pp. 234
_sqq._).

  Statements (pp. 235, 236).--Close ties between mother and her
  offspring during infancy and early childhood (pp. 236, 237).

II. _The relation between parents and children during childhood_
(pp. 238 _sqq._).

  Statements (pp. 238-249).--Affirmation of a close tie of
  affection and devotion between parents and children (pp. 249,
  250).--Illustrations drawn from concrete facts (pp. 250,
  251).--Applicable to both the father and mother; to female as well
  as to male children (p. 251).--Great leniency of treatment
  (pp. 252, 253).--Bearing of the affection of both parents to their
  children upon the relation between husband and wife (pp. 253,
  254).--No data for assuming the existence in Australia of _patria
  potestas_ as a legal form (p. 254).--Lack of information as to
  the actual character of the paternal authority in Australia
  (pp. 254-256).--Rudiments of education (pp. 256, 257).

III. _Children at puberty removed from their parents' camp, and
consequent weakening of the relationship_ (pp. 257 _sqq._).

  Marriage of females at puberty (pp. 257-259).--Great disparity
  of age between husband and wife (pp. 259, 260).--Statements
  (pp. 260-262).--Boys at puberty and afterwards (pp. 262
  _sqq._).--Statements (pp. 262-267).--Boys undergoing initiation;
  their life in a special camp ("bachelors' camp") (pp. 267-269).

IV. _The life-long permanence, nevertheless, of the tie between parents and
children_ (pp. 269 _sqq._).

  Statements (pp. 269-272).--Lack of information as to the
  relationship between sisters and brothers (pp. 272, 273).


CHAPTER VIII

ECONOMICS

  The individual family an economic unit (p. 274).--Statements
  (pp. 275-281).--Sexual division of labour a marked feature of
  Australian marriage (p. 281).--The woman's share of work harder,
  more important and indispensable than the man's (pp. 282-283).--The
  man's share not devoted to the exclusive benefit of his family
  (p. 283). Statements concerning the aboriginal communism in food
  (pp. 283-286).--Their bearing upon the economics of the household
  (pp. 286, 287).--Sociological features of this sexual division of
  labour (pp. 287, 288).--Division of consumption within the family
  (pp. 288, 289).--Description of some minor economic features
  concerning the household (pp. 289-291).


CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS      pp. 292-304


ADDENDA                       "  305-309

BIBLIOGRAPHY                  "  310-316

INDEX                         "  317-326




THE FAMILY AMONG THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES




CHAPTER I

EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD


I

The problem of the social forms of family life still presents some
obscurities. What appears to be most urgently needed is a careful
investigation of facts in all the different ethnographical areas. I
propose in this study to undertake this task for Australia. I shall
avoid making any hypothetical assumptions, or discussing general
problems which refer to the origin or evolution of the family. I wish
only to describe in correct terms and as thoroughly as possible all
that refers to actual family life in Australia. In other words I intend
to give in outline the social morphology of the Australian family.

It may be well to show briefly the necessity for this task, which to
some may appear superfluous, and to indicate the lines on which it will
be attempted. In the first place there are some contradictions with
regard to the problem of relationship or kinship in Australia, which
can be reduced to the question: Is kinship in Australia exclusively
individual; or is it exclusively group kinship (or tribal kinship, as
it often is called); and, further, do these two forms exclude each
other or do they perhaps exist side by side? When Howitt says: "The
social unit is not the individual, but the group; the former merely
takes the relationships of his group, which are of group to group,"[1]
this obviously means that there is no individual relationship,
consequently no individual family in Australia. It is important to note
that the passage just quoted is placed in the chapter on Relationship
in Howitt's chief work on Australia, and that consequently it refers
to all the tribes described by the author, _i. e._ to the majority
of the known Australian tribes. The same opinion that there is only
group relationship and no individual family is supported by another
passage, no less important and general, for it is placed at the
conclusion of Howitt's article on the organization of the Australian
tribes in general: "It has been shown that the fundamental idea in the
conception of an Australian community is its division into two groups.
The relationships which obtain between the members of them are also
those of group to group."[2] And again: "The unit of aboriginal society
is, therefore, not the individual, but the group. It is the group
which marries the group and which begets the group."[3] There are also
a few passages in Spencer and Gillen which deny the existence of the
individual family, at least in some tribes.[4]

     [1] _Nat. Tribes_, p. 157. It is hardly necessary to point
     out that this phrase is without a precise sense, unless it
     be evident in what sense the author uses the conception
     "social unit." One looks in vain for such a definition in
     Howitt.

     [2] Howitt, _Trans. R.S.V._, _l.c._, p. 134.

     [3] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 135.

     [4] Compare the passage quoted by A. Lang, just below,
     and the passage quoted by us, pp. 108 _sqq._, and p. 243.
     How far Spencer and Gillen have the right to deny the
     existence of the individual family among the Urabunna will
     be discussed in detail below.

Thus the impression drawn from the passages just quoted[5] is that
there is no individual relationship and, what follows as an immediate
consequence, no individual marriage, nor individual family in
Australia. Such a conclusion would be absolutely false. For the same
author (Howitt) writes: "Individual marriage in Australian tribes has
been evident to everyone."[6] Curr speaks in still more positive terms:
"No relationship but that of blood is known amongst Australians."[7]
The social relations which exist amongst the Australian aborigines are
of five sorts; first, those of family; second, those of the tribe;
third, those between associated tribes; fourth, those of neighbours
who belong to different associations; fifth, all other persons.[8]
We see that in Curr's statements there is again no room for any kind
of group relationship. Obviously Curr's information contradicts in
plain terms the foregoing set of statements, and such a contradiction
among our best informants is truly puzzling. There seems to be some
misunderstanding in the present problem.

     [5] I have quoted the best first-hand authorities;
     instances could easily be multiplied as well from their
     works as also from other sources.

     [6] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115.

     [7] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. iii.

     [8] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 60.

This is not only my own opinion. Mr. A. Lang discusses the same
question and finds it necessary to prove in a short article that
individual relationship exists in Australia. He says: "It is certain
that 'blood' or 'own' relations are perfectly recognized. Messrs.
Spencer and Gillen inadvertently deny this, saying: 'The savage
Australian, it may be said with truth, has no idea of relationships
as we understand them.'" This example is not the only one, as has
been shown above, and indeed their number could be easily multiplied.
Mr. Lang proves by several instances that this opinion of Spencer
and Gillen is erroneous, and concludes: "The savage Australian
does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations. It
was necessary to make this fact clear and certain, as it has been
denied."[9] The same contradiction has also been pointed out by Dr.
Westermarck: "As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison's statements have
caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert
that among the Australian savages groups of males are actually found
united to groups of females."[10] And in a footnote Dr. Westermarck
quotes Lubbock, Morgan, Kohler, Kovalevsky. With such views Dr.
Westermarck contrasts Curr's[11] opinion that strict monogamy obtains,
and that of the Rev. J. Mathew,[12] "who fails to see that group
marriage 'has been proven to exist in the past and certainly does not
occur in Australia now.'"

     [9] _Procs. B. Academy_, vol. iii. 1908, May report, p. 4.

     [10] Westermarck Ed. _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 56.

     [11] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 126.

     [12] Mathew, _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxiii. p. 404, quoted from
     Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 57.

Again E. Grosse in his well-known book, speaking of Howitt's work on
the Kurnai says that this author "... hat sich so gründlich in seine
Hypothese einer Gruppenehe ... der prähistorischen Australier vertieft,
dass er darüber ganz vergisst, seine Leser darauf aufmerksam zu machen,
dass die historischen Australier in Einzelnehe leben."[13] This is
quite true, especially the remark that one of the chief sources of
error in sociology is speculating on the origins and prehistory of an
institution before this institution is thoroughly known in the present
state.

     [13] E. Grosse, p. 6.

And it seems as if in the present case a good many of the difficulties
may be solved by understanding some of the statements made as referring
to hypothetical earlier stages. As a matter of fact the passage quoted
above, where the existence of group relationship is affirmed, is
continued thus: "The idea of the relation of individual to individual,
and of individual parentage, without reference to the group, is of
later origin, and is the result of a number of social forces acting in
the same general direction and producing change."[14] It is evident
therefore that group relationship is supposed by Howitt to be the
former state, and individual relationship a kind of innovation. But
there is such a lack of clearness, such a confusion of the past and
present tenses, that we are here again at a loss. Take for example
the following passage: "The latest advance which has been made in
the subject of Australian marriage was the conception of marriage in
the group, and of group to group, and of the filial relation of one
group to another."[15] This last phrase should be, in all probability,
understood in the past tense, as referring to prehistoric times. But
the author gives absolutely no hint whether this be so or otherwise.
And when he on the next page refers to Mr. Curr's assertion, that there
is actually no group relationship in Australia, and criticizes this
assertion, a suspicion is aroused that this view of the existence of
marital and filial groups is meant to express the actual status. This
is enough to show how vague and puzzling the question of the individual
family and individual relationship still is.

     [14] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 135.

     [15] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 113.

It is unnecessary to insist on the bewilderment, but the polemical mood
in which our informants always approached the problem of relationship
and family has had its unfortunate consequences. In the first place it
is easy to see that these two groups of facts--individual relationship
and group relationship--are treated by the writers as if they excluded
each other, or at least as if one of them were gradually encroaching
upon the other. Whereas it is quite possible that both individual and
group relationship might exist side by side, originating from different
sources, and expressing two different sets of social relationships.
In the second place, the polemical attitude of our best informants
(Howitt, and Spencer and Gillen) against individual relationship
resulted in their giving very meagre information about the individual
family. As a matter of fact, in all theoretical passages of works
devoted to the social organization of the Australian tribes, the
individual family is passed over in absolute silence.[16] As this
unit obviously plays a foremost part in the social life of Australian
tribes, I submit it is quite justifiable that in these pages some
information about this unit should be gathered and its importance
brought out. Special attention has been devoted to the facts of actual
family life.

     [16] As _e. g._ in the general treatises of Spencer and
     Gillen, _Nat. Tr., Nor. Tr._, Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, Howitt
     and Fison, _K.K. Idem_ in _J.A.J._, xii. p. 33. Howitt in
     _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 100, and in _Smithsonian Reports_,
     p. 79.

To sum up, it may be said that the defects in our information as to
the individual family, and the contradiction and confusion surrounding
it, do of themselves justify an examination of this institution.
These contradictions are due probably not to any intrinsic reasons,
but to certain theoretical postulates and axioms adopted by some of
our informants. And as the exact description of actual facts seems to
suffer therefrom, a revision of the theoretical side of the problem, as
well as a collection of evidence from a somewhat extensive number of
sources appears advisable.

But over and above clearing up some contradictions, solving some
difficulties, and filling up a gap in the information concerning
Australian kinship organization, there is a much deeper justification
for a detailed collection and classification of facts referring to the
individual family in Australia. I mean, it is only such a proceeding
that can give us a scientific, correct and useful definition of the
Australian individual family (or any other social unit in general). _A
priori_ only a vague meaning can be attached to the term "individual
family," when it refers to a society different from ours. For the
essential features of the individual family, as of all other social
institutions, depend upon the general structure of a given society and
upon the conditions of life therein. A careful and detailed analysis
of the family life and of the different aspects of the family unit in
connection with other social phenomena is therefore necessary. Such an
analysis enables us to describe the said unit in a complete and exact
way.

It is Dr. Rivers to whom we are indebted for emphasizing the
methodological standpoint in this connection. In his article[17] he
points out that we cannot _a priori_ assert the existence of even such
an apparently unquestionable fact as individual motherhood in every
human society whether actual or hypothetical. To affirm that in a given
society motherhood is individual and not communal (group motherhood),
a strict analysis of a whole series of circumstances is necessary.
Applying Dr. Rivers' argument to the other family relationships, we may
say that all the circumstances referring to the relation between man
and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, must be submitted
to a careful and detailed analysis; and that only such an examination
can give us the right idea of what may be called the individual family
in a given society--in this case the Australian individual family.[18]

     [17] _Anthrop. Essays_, pp. 309 _sqq._

     [18] Comp. below, p. 206, the second paragraph of footnote
     1.

As mentioned above, many authors, who have contributed so much in
other respects to our knowledge of Australian kinship organization,
have not entered into details as to the family life, or actual
relationship. Even Mr. Thomas, although he quite acknowledges the
existence of individual relationship, confines himself to the remark
that in Australia exists "the family in the European sense." But this
expression is not adequate. We cannot possibly find in Australia any
social unit that would exactly fit the forms of our individual family;
for this is intimately connected with the structure of our society,
and none of the social conditions it requires are found in Australia.
We can only say a unit which is _analogous_ to our individual family,
and even then we would be more metaphorical than exact. Mr. Lang,
on the other hand, is not exhaustive enough for our purpose--which
is a description of the family unit that will define it fully for
sociological use. Nevertheless as he writes in reply to Dr. Rivers
he has accepted the latter's methodological standpoint, and he gives
a series of apposite remarks and examples. But he concludes: "It is
needless to give more examples; the savage Australian does discriminate
between his actual and his tribal relations." This conclusion is quite
correct, but it is not sufficient. The mere affirmation that the actual
relationship exists and is recognized by the natives is not enough.
This has been obvious to every careful, unprejudiced reader of the
first-hand ethnographical material.

The aim of the present study is to _define what_ this individual
relationship is; to describe its different aspects and features; how
it manifests itself in its different social functions and, as far
as can be ascertained, how it must impress itself upon the native
mind. And here lies the important methodological point on which some
stress must be laid. It is not _the_ actual relationship, or _the_
individual family, or "family in the European sense" which we have
to look for in Australia. It is the aboriginal Australian individual
family, with all its peculiarities and characteristic features, which
must be reconstructed from the evidence. It will be necessary to
describe minutely all the relationships generally embraced by the term
Family,[19] and to describe them in terms taken from the native social
life. In other words we have to look for the connection between the
facts of family life and the general structure of society and forms of
native life; and to take into account all psychological data available,
such as ideas on procreation and reincarnation.

     [19] Defining that term only broadly at the outset.

Only by such a description can we reach a correct and scientific
definition of a given institution in a given society. It is essential
that the elements of this definition should be taken from the
conditions of social life in the given society. As an example we may
take the legal side of marriage. Amongst us marriage is a legal act
enforced on the one hand by the authority of the law with all its
complicated social working and the power of the State at its back;
on the other hand by the authority of the Church, which exercises a
profound moral pressure in relation to this institution. These or even
analogous factors will be sought in the Australian tribes in vain.
And yet marriage there is not deprived of its legal validity and of
its social sanction. It is not an act of mere fancy, brutal force or
accident, but the legal factors have there quite a specific character,
and can be found and understood only in connection with the general
tribal structure and government.

Besides all that has been said above against a general offhand
affirmation, that the individual family exists in Australia, it may
be added here that such an assertion is practically quite useless.
No further conclusions or inferences can be drawn from such a vague
statement. Only by knowing exactly and minutely all the features and
characters of the said unit can the different questions attached
to this problem be answered; only so can it be judged whether
the individual family or certain features of it are survivals or
innovations; or whether they are so deeply rooted and connected with
the social life and the whole organization of the tribes, that neither
of these suppositions is justifiable. Such special and concrete
definitions of a given social phenomenon in a given ethnic area, as the
one which it is intended to give here for the Australian individual
family, can serve also as a basis to form by induction a general
conception of the individual family; and only from a rich collection
of such material from different peoples can any sociological laws be
constructed. As said above, a general working definition of the word
individual family may be accepted at the outset of our investigations.
After a careful analysis of all particular relationships concerned; and
further, of the economic unity of the family, division of labour within
it, legal sanction, etc., content can be given to the rough definition
laid down at the beginning, and scientific exactness can be given to
our conception of the individual family in Australia.

It seems desirable in this place to make a digression in order to
consider the problem of law and the legal side of social phenomena in
the Australian aboriginal society, as we shall often have to use these
concepts. A more detailed and exhaustive discussion of it would involve
a treatise on primitive law, but as I am unable to indicate any place
where the concepts in question are defined in a way satisfactory for
the present purpose, I define them here briefly.[20]

     [20] In the treatises on primitive law and on family
     law such general concepts as "legal" or "law" are never
     explicitly defined. Perhaps such a definition is
     superfluous for a specialist, but I think that especially
     in the ethnology of primitive peoples precise concepts and
     explicit definitions are necessary. I may, however, mention
     the following places where there are some attempts at
     definition--

     _Post_, _l.c._, i. sec. 3, pp. 8-10. The author gives a
     few remarks about the beginnings of law. He maintains it
     existed as _Rechtsgefühl_, feeling of legality, and was
     evolved through a system of juridical verdicts, given
     according to this sentiment. There were no legal norms
     at the beginning.--This passage is unsatisfactory, both
     because it does not give any strict definition and because
     it does not seem to be in agreement with the facts.

     _Kohler_, _l.c._, p. 323. No strict definition given.
     Besides the author says that there is no organization
     (_staatliche Organisation_), no tribunal, and no executive
     among the Australian aborigines. This assertion may be
     questioned; compare below.

     _Durkheim, D.T.S._, pp. 28 _sqq._ and 108 _sqq._ There are
     some interesting remarks bearing upon our subject; but
     there are no sufficiently clear definitions, especially
     none to suit the laws of quite primitive peoples.

     _Lord Avebury_, _l.c._, chap. xi. pp. 464 _sqq._ No
     definition of what "law," "legal," should mean in very low
     societies, attempted. Law and custom are not discriminated.
     Some interesting remarks on punishment (pp. 495 _sqq._) are
     not utilized in order to afford strict concepts.

All social organization implies a series of norms, which extend over
the whole social life and regulate more or less strictly all the social
relations. We find such norms and rules in the Australian aboriginal
society, different kinds being enforced by different forms of social
sanction. The validity of some is due to the evil results which are
intrinsically connected with their violation. So _e. g._ we know that
the breaking of certain food taboos has as an inevitable consequence
premature grey hair, eruptions on the skin, or some other mishap. There
are other rules, which are observed because any departure from them
would bring general contempt and ridicule upon the culprit; a form of
chastisement to which the natives are said to be extremely sensitive.
There are still other types of social norms, sanctioned by a more
direct collective action. In some cases the magicians of the tribe will
use the dreaded method of "pointing the bone," thus bringing about the
illness and death of the culprit; or a regulated fight ensues; or a
man has to undergo a definite ordeal. Occasionally a group of people
organize an armed party on their own account, but with the consent of
the community; and so on.

Briefly it may be said that different types of social norms have
different kinds of collective sanction and that we may suitably
classify the norms and regulations according to the kind of sanction
they enjoy. Here seems the proper place to introduce the concept of
Law, Legal. We can agree to call such norms Legal, which enjoy an
organized, more or less regulated and active social sanction. To make
this definition plausible, we may remark that it makes the Australian
legal institutions correspond to what we call law and legal in higher
societies. Further it would be necessary, in order fully to justify our
definition, to show: (1) that among the Australian blacks there exist
such modes of regulated, organized and direct social sanction; (2) that
they differ from other modes of sanction and that the collective mind
is quite aware which norms enjoy just this form of sanction.

In answer to the first problem we may generally point to the existence
of tribal government. That a kind of centralized authority exists in
Australia and that it has well-determined functions has been shown at
full length by Howitt.[21]

     [21] _Trans. R.S.V._, pp. 103 _sqq._; _J.A.I._, xii, p. 35;
     J.A.I, xiii, p. 282. And especially _Nat. Tr._, chap. vi.
     pp. 295-354. The elucidation of the problem of authority
     and justice in Australia is one of Howitt's chief merits.
     In the passages quoted, there will be found ample material
     to exemplify all that is said in the text. I shall give,
     however, a few more detailed references on some special
     points. Howitt does not classify the facts according
     to the principle just enunciated. But all he says fits
     perfectly well into our scheme, and he puts stress on some
     essential points; viz. that there is a tribal as well as a
     supernatural punishment; that there is a central authority,
     and that it had means to enforce and execute its decrees.
     Curr (_A.R._, vol. i. pp. 53 _sqq._) emphatically denies
     the existence of any kind of government; but his polemic
     is due to the misunderstanding of the word _government_ as
     it should be applied to the Australian aboriginal society.
     For general discussion of this problem compare also
     G. C. Wheeler, pp. 46-52. Interesting details, corroborating
     Howitt's opinion may be found also in the following places:
     Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 12 _sqq._, p. 324,
     p. 477, pp. 491 _sqq._ _Nor. Tr._, pp. 26 _sqq._ R. Dawson,
     pp. 64-65. Hodgson, p. 204. J. D. Lang, p. 331. G. S. Lang,
     pp. 9-10. Grey, ii. p. 222. Eyre, ii. pp. 214, 318, 385.
     Woods, p. 8. L. Schultze, p. 225. J. B. Gribble, p. 114.
     J. Mathew, p. 129. Compare also the following extracts, where
     I shortly indicate what is to be found--

     Ch. Wilkes, ii. 204. Obedience to elders. _Idem_, i. 222.
     Regulated fights. Wilson, 144. Reverence towards old men.
     Bennett, pp. 177-178. Chiefs chosen for personal qualities.
     Turnbull, p. 91. Ordeals as punishment for crime, p. 101.
     Respect for and authority of old men and magicians.
     Barrington, 81. Pacific settlement of differences.
     Henderson, pp. 107, 158. No chiefs: only "doctors" wield
     some authority; p. 160, Duel as redress of injuries.
     Macgillivray, i. 151. Power and authority of old and
     experienced men; p. 152, Important instances of justice.
     _Idem_, ii. p. 27. Authority wielded by some important and
     privileged men. G. W. Earl, p. 275. Alleged powerful chiefs
     (unreliable). Campbell, 171. Instances of important and
     influential men. B. Field, 67. Description of two regulated
     fights. Krichauff, p. 77. Old men and doctors in council:
     they carry out the resolutions arrived at, or see that
     these are carried out; p. 78, Laws, which the warriors or
     old men uphold. Penalties: reprimand, exit, and ordeal.
     Sutton, p. 18. Hereditary "kingship." Wilhelmi, p. 183.
     No chiefs. Respect for old men and their magical powers.
     D. Mathews, p. 49. Council of old men. S. Newland. _Proc.
     R.G.S.S.A._, iii. p. 40 _sqq._ Examples of important and
     powerful men. Mrs. Bates, p. 52. Regulation of offences by
     ordeals.

     All these references bear indiscriminately on one or the
     other of the important features of government and of legal
     or other norms discussed in the text.

This government consists roughly speaking of headmen and a tribal
council, composed in the first place of old men of the tribe, skilled
magicians and experienced warriors. This camp council seems as a rule
the more influential factor, and only in few cases are we informed of
chiefs with extensive powers.[22] What is important for us is that
one of the main functions--if not the chief one--of those central
authorities is to decide in case of difficulties in tribal affairs and
to give sentence, a function which is that both of a legislator and of
a judge.[23] The old men are the only depositories of tribal lore; they
also know the rules and norms and how to apply them. We are informed
in many places that they discuss important matters and decide vital
questions; and especially in cases where any law has been transgressed.
They possess also executive power; they can organize an armed party;
they arrange and control the regulated fights; and they have also in
their hands the personal power of punishment by magic.[24] It may
therefore be said in general that the rudimentary form of central
authority, as found in Australia, possesses quite clearly traceable
features of juridical functions and executive power; it forms a kind of
tribunal, and it has its organs to carry out the sentence. It is hardly
necessary to add, that those institutions exist only in a rudimentary
form; but they appear to be quite unmistakable. Besides this central
authority, which sometimes takes the juridical functions upon itself,
there are other forms of organized action, carried out by groups
of individuals, personally interested in the case. Here the legal
character, _i. e._ the feature that distinguishes such action and the
underlying norm from mere violence, fancy or custom--lies in the fact
that such an action is regulated by strict rules and prescriptions. And
it is in just such a mutual connection of a norm and social enforcement
that the fundamental feature of legality may be seen. So _e. g._ in
the Central Tribes a man who has by magic charmed away a woman can
reckon upon the actual support of a definite group of his kindred. The
legality of his act is based upon the existence of a certain norm and
the existence of a form of active and regulated social support which
enforces this norm. Without the norm the social action would be mere
violence. Without the social enforcement the norm would be a moral or
customary rule; so enforced, it may properly be called a law.[25] It is
impossible, for want of space, to deal here more in detail with this
question, which could correctly be answered only by collecting all the
evidence available, and bringing the results into connection with the
general features of Australian society, such as age grades and tribal
secret societies. I only indicate here the point of view, and I shall
in what follows refer to it and exemplify it by concrete instances.

     [22] Chiefs are reported by Taplin (Woods, p. 32); J. Dawson,
     pp. 5 _sqq._ But these statements, especially the latter,
     seem subject to doubt. Compare Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 55 and
     58. Howitt and his correspondents report chiefs among the
     Dieri, Tongaranka, Wiimbaio, Theddora, Yuin, Wiradjuri,
     Gurnditch Mara, Kulin, etc., _Nat. Tr._, pp. 297-320.
     Compare also Waitz Gerland, p. 790. But the term "Chief"
     appears somewhat vague; probably it is usually applied to
     influential individuals, whose importance is due to their
     personal qualities and not to their social position. The
     influence of old men, magicians and "doctors," is almost
     universally reported, and the council made up of them seems
     to wield the real power in the tribe. Compare Howitt, _Nat.
     Tr._, pp. 320-326, for some of the above references.

     [23] See Wheeler, p. 122, where it is said that offences
     like murder by magic, breaches of the marriage regulations,
     and the revealing of ceremonial secrets are dealt with by
     the elders and headmen. The legislative powers of old and
     influential men is mentioned: Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 89
     _sqq._ (new norms introduced by individuals under alleged
     supernatural command or vision). Spencer and Gillen,
     _Nat. Tr._, pp. 12 _sqq._ (important changes in custom,
     law, organization by individual initiative), _idem_,
     _Nat. Tr._, p. 324. _Nor. Tr._, pp. 26 _sqq._ (a kind of
     tribunal formed by old and influential men). Spencer and
     Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 477 (old men in council assembled
     decide); p. 490 (Atninga, avenging party, despatched by old
     men, whenever vengeance is to be taken); pp. 491 (old men
     discuss and settle matters with an Atninga party). Howitt,
     _Nat. Tr._, pp. 297, 298 (Council of Pinnaru described);
     pp. 320 _sqq._ (deliberating in all important matters).

     [24] For the methods of carrying out justice, _i. e._ for
     the executive organs, see Wheeler, pp. 131-139, where the
     "authorized agents" (avenging parties, etc.), regulated
     fights, expiatory ordeals and blood revenge, methods which,
     as different forms of carrying out justice, are more or
     less executions of a sentence and have the character of
     legal proceedings.

     See also under the heading "Executive power of tribal
     councils of old men," in Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, chap. vi.
     pp. 295 _sqq._--The Pinya party of the Dieri tribe. _Ibid._,
     pp. 297, 321 and 326.--An atonement of the offence by
     barter, p. 329. Direct action of magicians, _ibid._ p. 343.
     Compare also the Kurdaitcha, Illapurinja, and Atninga
     parties of the Arunta. Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._,
     chap. xiii. p. 475. All these parties are more or less
     under the control of the tribal council of old men.

     [25] Compare Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 554: "...
     a man's right to woman secured by means" of magic "is
     supported by the men of his own local group." Compare also
     the description of this method of charming away a woman in
     _Proc. R. Geogr. Soc. S. Australia_, vol. iv. p. 26, by
     F. Gillen.

The second problem, viz. whether the distinction between the
customary and religious rules and legal norms may be considered as
well defined in Australia, is still more difficult to answer. The
small differentiation of that society hardly allows any very clear
and definite sociological distinctions. But, broadly speaking, it
seems that the distinction between (1) a trespass, whose punishment
is supernaturally entailed by its very committal; (2) a trespass,
punished by ridicule and public contempt; and (3) a crime, punished by
the decision of the community, acting as a whole, or by its central
organs, or certain groups of it--that this distinction between sin,
improper conduct and crime (as we can call those three categories) is
quite well marked in different features of aboriginal social life. What
might fully elucidate this question, would be a collection of facts,
classified according to these categories.[26]

     [26] So _e. g._ there could be placed in the _first
     category_ different kinds of food taboos. In the Arunta,
     food procured or handled by certain relatives may not
     be eaten by a man; nor may be eaten any food in their
     immediate presence. Such food would disagree with the man.
     Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 469.--If certain food
     taboos were transgressed during initiation by the boys,
     their wounds would inflame. _Ibid._ p. 470.--Certain taboos
     must be observed during pregnancy both by the woman and
     her husband; if they were transgressed the sickness of
     the woman would be worse and the man would lose his skill
     in hunting. _Ibid._ p. 471.--Compare also Mitchell, ii.
     p. 29, and Wilhelmi, p. 176. If the man should transgress
     the mother-in-law taboo, his hair would prematurely grow
     grey, or he would soon become bald. This belief is very
     widespread. Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 296. D. Mathews, p. 49.
     Mrs. Bates, p. 50. Compare also Waitz Gerland, p. 795,
     where different norms, enforced by supernatural
     punishment, are mentioned, and also MacGillivray, ii. 10,
     Eyre ii. 339, Stanbridge, p. 289. Different ceremonies
     and ordeals at mourning and burial are regulated by
     _custom_; the same thing may probably be said of some of
     the initiatory ordeals. Noncompliance would involve the
     general ridicule or contempt of the tribesmen: Spencer and
     Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 510. As _crimes_ may be mentioned:
     transgression of the class rule as well in marriage as in
     sexual intercourse. Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 495,
     say that the usual punishment is death. Killing by magic:
     Spencer and Gillen, p. 476; Waitz Gerland, p. 794. In some
     cases the transgression of the mother-in-law taboo seems
     to be punished by expulsion from the local group: Howitt,
     _Nat. Tr._, p. 296.--Salvado says that marriage under
     thirty years is punished by death (p. 267). Such examples
     could be indefinitely multiplied.

These few remarks are merely made to settle the terminology. By
definition a given norm or rule is Legal if it is enforced by a direct,
organized, and definite social action. And by the word legal will be
designated this side or aspect of a given social relation which is
regulated by laws, as just defined.

Our considerations indicate also in what direction an analysis of the
social conditions in Australia would be interesting from the point of
view of primitive jurisprudence. In the first place, there is a great
variety of modes in which the different legal norms are preserved,
impressed upon the social mind, and taught to different members of
the society. Here the connection of different norms with religion,
myth, totemic cultus, organization of the secret society, etc., might
be discussed. In the second place a careful investigation of the
different forms of social sanction, based partly on belief, partly
on collective ideas and feelings, partly on actual institutions and
direct enforcement, might be carried out. In connection with it there
might be a classification of the norms; and the domain of the purely
legal norms, or rather the properly legal aspect of norms and different
social phenomena could be exactly traced. In other words each norm
should be studied in connection with the way in which it is "codified"
(_i. e._ preserved for and imparted to social knowledge); and in
connection with its sanction. In the case of a legal norm the tribunal
and the executive organs should be indicated as far as possible.
Undoubtedly we find in such a primitive society as the Australian many
institutions still in a state of confusion, which on a higher level
are quite well determined and differentiated. But the more confused
the phenomena, the clearer our conceptions must be in order exactly
to follow the different ways in which the elements are interwoven and
combined. What is an isolated and defined institution in a higher
society, may be merely a side or aspect of social phenomena in a lower
one. But it is highly important to use definite concepts to denote such
aspects or sides in undifferentiated societies, because it often widens
our horizon and puts our ideas to a crucial test.

I wish to add that in the present case it is only the necessity for
clearness and convenience that makes a definition necessary. The domain
of primitive jurisprudence cannot be considered fully explored yet;
the chief aim of a good definition is to state the proper problems and
to show the groups of facts that must be inquired into in order to give
right answers to the problems proposed.


II

Having thus justified the scope of the present book and indicated the
general lines on which its task should be carried out, a few words must
be devoted to the method of dealing with the evidence. We start our
investigations with (1) the Australian first-hand information, and (2)
a general idea of the object of our research, that is a general idea of
the individual family. This implies that during the process of research
these two sets of data must be checked against each other. On the one
hand we must continually extract from the evidence all that corresponds
to our general idea of the individual family; on the other hand this
idea must be specialized and determined according to the evidence.

It is clear enough what, broadly speaking, is meant by the Individual
Family. But what exactly will be the features of this institution in
Australia, that must be extracted from the evidence. This evidence
is, on the other hand, given in the majority of cases in a very crude
state, without reference to any theoretical points of view. The facts
are often given in a purely casual and colloquial way. It is part of
the task to sift out each one of them, and to ask if it can have any
bearing on the present subject. Many facts that seemed not to bear
immediately on it, yet furnished some very useful inferences. In
short, the first duty of such a work as the present is to ask from the
evidence right questions in the right way.

But even if a certain point has been settled upon as essentially
important to be inquired into, and information referring to it has been
gathered, the task is not yet finished. The statements collected on
this point will as a rule present more or less radical discrepancies.
After we have heard twenty opinions on the same subject which by
no means agree with each other, to which shall we adhere? A method
of dealing with evidence must be fixed upon. In the first place the
statements are of the most heterogeneous character and value. They must
be submitted to some criticism before use can be made of them.

After the degree of their reliability has been settled, and after, by
a criticism of each statement, some of the contradictions have been
removed, it must be considered how far the differences between the
statements may be regarded as due to irreducible, local variations of
the given institution; in other words, the problem must be discussed
from the geographical standpoint.

Finally a certain system of weighing the evidence must be chosen, so as
to draw from it the most correct conclusions, and never to prove too
much or too little. So there are three different processes: criticism,
localization of differences, and drawing of conclusions; all of which
must be done according to a careful and conscientious method.

A few remarks about the latter must be given here without any attempt
at completeness. That preliminary criticism is necessary seems hardly
to need justification; to look at the irreducible inconsistencies and
contradictions of a series of statements concerning any given point is
enough. But such criticism must not be arbitrary; it must conform to
strict rules.[27]

     [27] The ethnographic sources do not differ essentially
     from the historical ones. The purpose of a descriptive
     ethnography (such as is adopted in this monograph) is
     also nearly identical with the historian's task so far as
     positive statement of an actual state of things is the aim
     of both. The rules of criticism of sources apply therefore
     to our subject as well as to any other historic science.
     This will become obvious to every ethnographer who reads
     the excellent manual of MM. Langlois et Seignobos. The
     proof of the indispensability of such a criticism is to
     be found there, too. The method of criticism of sources
     adopted in this paper was accepted after a careful study of
     this useful book.

The first point to which attention must be paid, is to ascertain the
exact meaning of a given statement. As many of our informants do not
use exact terminology but write in a colloquial language, often spoilt
by literary pretensions, we occasionally run the risk of being misled
by a word or by a turn of expression.[28] In other words, it never
seems advisable to cling blindly to the verbal meaning of a statement
before having put it to the test. So, for instance, in the problem
whether the natives live in families or tribes--the _family_ and
_tribe_ having been exactly defined, a phrase like "the aborigines live
in families" may not be accepted as argument, for by the word "family"
the author may possibly have understood what we have designated by the
word tribe.[29] I shall, as a rule, quote each statement _in extenso_,
and give, if necessary, an interpretation or correction.[30] The sense
in which a word is used may be, in the majority of cases, easily
settled from the context, examples given by the author, and other
instances where he uses the same word. When a phrase is hopelessly
ambiguous, it is wrong to make any use of it.

     [28] We obviously do not speak here of such writers as
     Howitt, W. E. Roth, Spencer and Gillen, authors who had
     a theoretical training. But, as may be pointed out here,
     in the present work no writer is excluded, provided that
     he has had opportunities of first-hand observation, or
     opportunities of private information from first-hand
     observers.

     [29] See below the discussion of this topic, Chap. V., I.

     [30] Much weight has been attached to a very extensive
     reproduction of the original text. More important
     statements are always adduced verbatim; less important, or
     too cumbersome ones, are abridged, but keeping as closely
     to the original words as possible.

After the sense of a statement has been settled more or less reliably,
two cases must be discriminated. If the statement is purely a record
of facts, and, still better, if it is exemplified by concrete
instances, there is generally no reason to disbelieve it, especially
if in the general character of the author there is a guarantee of
his trustworthiness; and if he actually has had good opportunities
of observing the natives. But if the statement involves a judgment,
a generalization, or abstraction, we must be much more careful.
Broadly speaking, statements of this latter kind are generally much
more contradictory than mere statements of fact. It will be seen that
the information concerning the treatment of women by their husbands,
concerning sexual matters, and concerning the authority of husbands,
will present many more discrepancies than the information concerning
the modes of obtaining wives, economics, and other concrete questions.
The first category implies much more abstraction and qualifying
judgment than the second. It must be borne in mind that statements of
the first category are the result of a long and complicated series
of mental processes, and that their quality and value is dependent
upon many conditions. All these conditions must be mentally analyzed
and each of them must be taken into account in order to ascertain
its bearing upon the final form in which we find the statement. The
conditions in question may be shortly set forth as follows: Did the
author possess all the qualities necessary for a good ethnographer? Had
he good opportunities to observe the natives and a good method of doing
so? Were the latter still in a primitive condition, or in an advanced
state of decay? A few words may be said in the first place about this
last point.

Only in exceptional cases is it possible to say anything definite
on the state of the natives the author had under observation.[31]
In general, it may be taken as a rule that all writers who were in
any close contact with aborigines, had to do with fairly degenerated
specimens. They were usually squatters or missionaries, and had to do
with blacks hanging round farms or with remnants of tribes gathered in
missions.[32] Their immediate observations, especially in sociological
matters, which are at once affected, when conditions of life change,
and when blacks become degenerate, could be of little value. But there
was still the possibility of gathering information from the natives
themselves, who could, properly questioned, give their recollections of
the bygone times. This was the way in which probably A. W. Howitt got
so much of the most valuable information on the Kurnai tribe, which he
never saw in its primitive state. But only few writers had the mental
training and the opportunities of the writer just mentioned. And the
majority probably communicated to us simply what they saw--not even
considering the problem how far the conditions then present tallied
with the primitive normal state of things in the aboriginal society.
Allowance must therefore be always made for the degeneration of the
blacks as a possible factor affecting ethnographical evidence. In many
cases there will be no room for doubt. For instance, in sexual matters
it is obvious that contact with the white man invariably fosters a
great deal of depravity. An improvement in sexual morality may, on
the other hand, take place if the natives are gathered in a mission
station.[33] But this cannot have any connection with aboriginal custom.

     [31] For instance, we can judge this from Curr's
     _Recollections_; we know pretty well the state of the
     different tribes investigated by Howitt, Spencer and
     Gillen, and by Roth. In many other cases a general idea may
     be formed from different hints.

     [32] The aborigines in their natural uncorrupted state
     appear to have been extremely shy, and great difficulties
     would undoubtedly have arisen had any one attempted to come
     into more intimate contact with them. But in the early days
     of the settlement of Australia there was nobody with such
     intentions. It is sufficient to read very early accounts,
     such as the voyages of Gov. Phillip, Barrington; as also
     accounts of explorers like Grey, Eyre, Leichardt, Mitchell,
     Sturt, etc., to see how shy and inaccessible were the
     blacks in their really savage state.

     [33] For examples how natives on mission stations may be
     forced into morality, legal and Christian marriages, etc.,
     the reader may be referred to the personal diaries of
     missionaries. Compare _e. g._ the article by the missionary
     D. Mathews, _l.c._ pp. 48 _sqq._

If, therefore, it is found, as is in fact the case, that all writers,
who either inquired into the matter with really scientific precautions,
or had to do with pure, primitive material, inform us that, speaking
broadly, the sexual relations were strictly regulated; and on the
other hand, all settlers, casual observers, and people who obviously
had already corrupted blacks under observation, speak of unrestricted
immorality and even of incest,[34] it may be safely said that the
second type of statements refer to degenerate blacks. Here the general
_a priori_ suppositions quite harmonize with what is to be found
in the evidence; the second type of statements may be therefore
fittingly discarded. In the same way it may be assumed that with a
general dissolution and corruption in the aboriginal society, and with
all kinds of vices engrafted upon it the general level of conjugal
affection and the standard of treatment of the wife by her husband went
down. The contrary cannot possibly be assumed.

     [34] See below, the statements, pp. 92 _sqq._

So it appears that, even from the quality of the material the observer
had at his disposal, some useful hints may be obtained as to the
direction in which our statements need correction. Furthermore it
was said above that useful indications can be gathered from the way
in which the observer was in contact with the natives; whether the
observer was a long time in contact with the natives or only a short
time; whether he made his observations with deliberate scientific aim,
or whether they were made casually and recollected afterwards; whether
he had good opportunities for observation, and under what conditions
this was carried on, and so forth.

All these questions may throw much light upon the relation between the
writer's statement in its final form and the actual state of things
to which it refers. These questions are also in close connection with
the point mentioned below, touching the profession of an observer.
For it is usually the privilege of the missionaries to be in a long
and intimate contact with the natives, to have their confidence,
and sometimes to understand even their language, while it is the
ethnographer's privilege to understand the aim of his inquiries. In
some cases there are fairly detailed data about these points, and such
information about the conditions and circumstances under which the
writer got his evidence greatly increases its value. In all cases where
the evidence is contained in memoirs, diaries, descriptions of travels,
expeditions, etc., it is possible to form an idea as to what kind of
relation existed between the respective author and the material of his
observation. So it appears that Curr and Salvado had especially good
opportunities; it is possible to picture the way in which authors like
Collins, Taplin, Grey, Eyre, Lumholtz, Angas, Strehlow and others,
came into contact with the natives. This is much more difficult to
say in the case of writers who wrote only short articles (Oldfield,
Stanbridge, Bonney, Palmer, Cameron and others), which merely give
information without any details as to how it was gathered. In the case
of ethnographers, observing themselves or collecting the observations
of others--like Howitt, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, and some others--we
might expect to be informed minutely about the way in which they
obtained their information. Unfortunately this is only partly the case.

The questions how the condition of the natives, and how the method of
observation can affect the final statements have been discussed at
length. It was done in order to exemplify how from such considerations
may be gathered useful hints, nay even positive indications, as to
the direction along which the given statement may be corrected, if
corrected at all. There are, besides these points, several other
important points referring to the qualifications of the ethnographer
that cannot be omitted when any correction of statement is made.
There is no room to discuss them in detail; they would lead us too
far into the domains of methodology, of ethnographic research. They
must be enumerated briefly. So it is quite clear, that not only the
personal character but also the profession or occupation of the writer
influences very considerably the value and trustworthiness and the
character of the information given. The personal character of the
ethnographer is a rather delicate matter, but nobody could deny that
some authors inspire us with the belief that everything they say is
their real conviction, based on solid foundations of facts, while other
authors fail to produce the same impression on the reader. It is also
clear that a missionary, a police trooper, or an ethnologist, will each
look with different eyes upon the same facts; each of them will group
the essential features and generalize quite differently, and will
express himself in terms which are by no means of the same degree of
exactness and clearness. Ultimately each man will have his professional
bias: the missionary will be influenced by his creeds and his moral
ideas, the ethnologist by his theories, and the squatter or police
trooper will sometimes, where there is room for it, allow play to his
feelings, which usually are not ones of pure sympathy for the natives.
As a matter of fact, it is allowable to speak without exaggeration
of professional types of information. That the utmost caution is
necessary, and that thus only are to be found indications of the
directions in which it is possible to interpret some possible error, is
an almost superfluous statement. Of course a careful and complete study
of the whole work of an author enables one to judge much better how far
his profession or personality may have affected his statements. And
this is also the reason why an ethnologist confining himself to a small
ethnic area is in a better position than the general one. For he is
able to know his sources better, having a much more restricted number
to deal with.

Not less important as regards our attitude towards a given writer's
statements is the purpose with which his book is written. The
greatest confidence of course is inspired by books written with a
purely scientific aim. Even the articles of observers who are not men
of science are apparently much more carefully written if they are
intended for purely scientific use in serious scientific journals (as
some articles in the _Journal of the Ethnological Society_, _Jour.
Anthrop. Inst._, etc.). Memoirs, descriptions of travel, and so on,
give--_ceteris paribus_--less guarantee; often much more room is left
to phantasy, to a tendency to amuse, perhaps puzzle or interest.
Concrete instances of this could be easily adduced.

At the end of all his mental operations, each observer had to
generalize his observations, to express their common features, and
formulate these in abstract and exact language. Here the most important
points are personal intelligence and some mental training. The first
is to be found even among the casual writers; for only people of a
somewhat higher level of mentality would care to observe and write down
their observations. But mental training in a scientific direction is
exclusively to be found among the ethnographers; some of them stand far
above all our other informants in matters of rather theoretical aspect,
especially if social phenomena are concerned. And we may usually, in
case of contradiction, take this information as the firm basis from
which to start the operation of criticism. But on the other hand, there
are reasons to mistrust general opinions laid down by professional
ethnologists, for they are very often not simple generalizations, but
theoretical inferences. Cases will be often met with where a general
remark, which could be taken as a statement of fact--and often is given
in such a form--appears after a more careful analysis to be quite a
conjectural deduction from purely hypothetical premisses, or from
incorrect definition. In all cases--_e. g._ where actual existence
of group marriage is alleged--it will appear that this statement is
a deduction from certain phenomena, which allow of quite a different
interpretation, and that the term "marriage" is defined somewhat
loosely.[35]

     [35] Compare also above, pp. 2-5.

To sum up briefly: criticism of statements has in the first place to
ascertain the exact and correct verbal meaning of each of them. In the
second place many general but sure hints are afforded by a detailed
analysis of the conditions under which the evidence was obtained and
set forth by the author. The important points here are: quality of the
material under observation; modes in which evidence was obtained (by
inquiries from natives, by immediate observation, etc.); character,
profession, and training of the informant, including possible bias,
theoretical, moral, and personal. All these points appear at first
sight rather impalpable, but as shown above they may afford good hints,
especially if taken into account simultaneously.

Now we pass to the second point indicated above on page 18, namely, the
discussion of the local differences which may introduce some apparent
contradictions into the statements. Assuming the possession of a series
of statements, the correctness of which we accept within certain
limits, there may still be some contradictions between them, due to the
differences between the tribes, to which these statements refer. The
task will be consequently to indicate these differences and to give
certain reasons why some of the contradictions may be dealt with in
this way and why others cannot be reduced to local differences. In the
first place, in order to facilitate the application of the geographical
point of view, the survey of the statements will always be made in
the same geographical order. I begin with the south-east end of the
continent and proceed then westwards and northwards, enumerating first
the tribes of Victoria, then the tribes of the South territory of South
Australia. I proceed over New South Wales to the Central and Northern
tribes; then to Queensland, ending with West Australia. The order is
kept only roughly without pedantic accuracy, which cannot be achieved,
as many writers do not even trouble to localize their statements with
anything approaching exactitude.

It may now be laid down in which cases it is possible to point with
certainty to local differences between the different tribes and reduce
to these factors the contradictions which are found. If the same
author, who is known to be well-informed concerning the whole area
(either personally or through reliable informants), points expressly
to such differences, there is no reason to disbelieve him. Many such
local differences are indicated in the extensive works of Spencer and
Gillen, and Howitt. As an example may be quoted the differences in
sexual matters, pointed out by Howitt in _Reports of the Smithsonian
Institution_ (compare below, pp. 100 and 101). But even in the case
of such reliable authors as the ones just mentioned it should always
be carefully considered whether they knew with the same degree
of exactness all the tribes they compare. Further, when there is
independent information about geographically-separated tribes from
reliable authors of the same degree of exactness, to whose information
we have reason to ascribe the same weight, we may also safely point,
if there are any contradictions, to local differences. But if quite
contradictory statements about some tribe or tribes living in close
neighbourhood are given, we hardly feel inclined to attribute these
contradictions to local differences. A very important indication of the
advisability of introducing the element of geographical differences
is further the question whether the tribes in question are in general
different from each other, and whether they belong to different types
of culture. Although very little can be said on that point, still on
quite broad lines we must, _e. g._ acknowledge that the Kurnai were a
tribe with many singularities, that the Arunta and other Central tribes
clearly differ from the S.E. tribes, etc. As we shall make very little
use of the geographical factor, what is said above may be considered
sufficient on that point.[36]

     [36] As far as I see, in the present state of our
     knowledge, it is only admissible to speak with greatest
     care and in very broad lines of the Australian types
     of culture. Interesting attempts have been made in this
     direction by Dr. Graebner, Mr. N. W. Thomas, and Father
     Schmidt. The two latter especially base their work
     on a profound and extensive knowledge, and formulate
     their results with the utmost reserve and carefulness.
     Fr. W. Schmidt has at his disposal the powerful instrument
     of linguistic knowledge. Mr. W. N. Thomas knows the
     Australian facts as nobody else does. Their conclusions are
     therefore of much weight. The present investigations afford
     little opportunity to point out geographic differences.
     Compare Fr. W. Schmidt, "Die Stellung, d. Aranda," etc.,
     _Z.f.E._, 1908, pp. 866 _sqq._; F. Graebner, _Ibid._, 1905,
     pp. 28 _sqq._; _Globus_, xc. Consult also N. W. Thomas,
     _Kinship_, and the same, _Z.f.E._, 1905.

Passing now to the third and perhaps most important methodological
point, we may say a few words as to what method should be adopted
for the drawing of conclusions from evidence considered as reliable.
This is neither a logical proceeding, nor is it a kind of induction.
Properly speaking, a witness's statement may be either accepted or
rejected. But in this book importance has been laid on presenting the
evidence in a quite definite way. Evidence is not used in order to
exemplify or to prove a given assertion on a special point. Such a
proceeding appears to be rather dogmatic, for usually in such cases the
author gives preference to an _a priori_ opinion, and looks afterwards
for its confirmation in the ethnographic first-hand literature. Owing
to the contradictory character of the latter, practically anything can
be proved from it. In the present book the author merely sets forth the
problem; for instance, such quite general questions are asked, as: How
are wives obtained in Australia? What is the treatment of the wife by
her husband? What are the sexual relations in general? and so forth.
On each of those general topics evidence is afterwards collected,
without prejudice or preference given to any type of opinion. There
is, therefore, much less risk of bias or one-sidedness; the whole
care is to make the best of the evidence thus collected; and a series
of statements upon a given subject is presented. Each of them gives
information on several points at once; at any rate each of them may
usually be analyzed into a series of simpler statements. And this
analytical operation will be our first task. There is always one or
more assertion sufficiently general, or simple, which will be contained
in all or in the majority of our statements and will be contradicted by
none. These may be considered as established by our evidence. On other
points there will be contradictions. Often these contradictions will be
only apparent, due to a confusion in terminology, or to the defective
way in which the writers have expressed themselves. Here recourse must
be had to our first form of criticism, to the ascertainment of the
exact meaning of each statement (verbal criticism). If that fails, the
contradictions must be recognized as real ones. In case they cannot be
attributed to any local differences, we must try to eliminate them. And
on this point recourse must be had to the criticism of the statements
from the point of view laid down above (p. 25). Some of the statements
may be discarded as untrustworthy; the correct interpretation of others
may be determined; and thus the contradictions will vanish. Sometimes
this is impossible; the contradictions remain irreducible. Then they
must be simply pointed out, and there is nothing further to be done.
Undoubtedly much greater service is rendered to science by pointing out
really irresolvable contradictions and obscurities than by establishing
fallacious certitude.

Especially if on the part of the field ethnographers there could be
expected some interest in the results of theoretical research, such
indications of contradictions on points, the theoretical importance
of which should be proved, would be of real value.[37] Only such a
co-operation between theoretical writers and observers can give us
satisfactory results. To make indifferent observation is easy. To note
essential things and give useful observations is impossible without
theoretical knowledge and an insight into the laws of sociology. It
would be better if field ethnographers would consider the questions
of theoretical writers, and take into account in their scheme of
investigations the utilization subsequently to be made of their work.

     [37] Mr. Thomas in his work on Australian kinship suggests
     at every step questions which apparently are quite within
     the scope of investigation, and upon which our present
     evidence gives no answer. But unhappily I have not been
     able to trace any influence of this important work in the
     recent ethnographic publications.

Returning, after this digression, to our theme, it may be observed
that the method of dealing with evidence is very simple: there is the
analytical operation, of finding the essential points contained in
a series of statements; in other words, the operation of analyzing
these statements into simple factors and stating which are common to
all the statements and may be accepted as well established. A further
task consists in pointing out the irreducible contradictions. This
operation obviously contains all the others--criticism of the text
and contents of the statement, and reduction of contradictions to
local differences. It is evident also that, although theoretically
the criticism of statements was dealt with first, then the question
of geographical differences, and in the third place the problem of
handling a series of statements, as a matter of fact, the first step
is to make a survey of all our evidence, resolving it into a set of
problems, and then to take each problem separately; in this way we
shall find contradictions and endeavour to eliminate them, and we shall
be compelled to exercise criticism on the statements.

I would like to add here that to help us in the decision between
several contradictory opinions, there is still one criterion beside the
hints enunciated above (which refer to the character of each individual
statement). I mean the criterion whether the final opinion drawn from
the evidence is compatible or not with the other well-established
features of Australian sociology. When deciding to adhere to some view,
which is not established by a unanimous and categoric opinion of all
our informers, it is always necessary to put this view to the test of
other well-established facts. There are some views which are quite
incompatible with the general conditions of life in the Australian
aboriginal society and with the resulting mode of living. As a good
example of such deductive demonstrations we may quote the passage in
Curr, where he arithmetically proves that the statement of Dawson about
the Australian chiefs and their court cannot be true.[38] Another
example is afforded by the interesting passage of Howitt quoted below
_in extenso_ (pp. 113 and 114), which relates how the author thinks
that our ideas on group marriage should be modified by what we know
about the aboriginal mode of living and about the natural character
of men. As a rule it is well always to try to ascertain whether our
conclusion does not stand in contradiction with some part of our
well-founded knowledge. Thus in practice it is always necessary to
start with a crude series of facts, and in any attempt at criticism to
be guided by the contradictions found in them. If then criticism and
corrections, made according to our rules, remove the contradictions, we
have another guarantee that our corrections were good. For if a series
of statements, which at first sight seemed to present irreconcilable
contradictions, do agree after we have applied to such of them as were
either in a minority or appeared vague or came from uncertain sources,
corrections or interpretations (the latter based on principles laid
down quite independently), it may be concluded that our reason for
applying the correction and the way in which we have done it, were
sufficiently correct and justified.

     [38] Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 53 _sqq._

To use a series of statements as they are given would be in the
majority of cases quite impossible. All the contradictions imaginable
would be present, and we should either helplessly drop any attempt at
forming an opinion, or we should get out of the difficulty by a purely
arbitrary act. We could by an act of faith believe in some of our
writers and accept only what they say or what confirms their opinion,
and completely ignore any contradictory information. That would even
enable us to form a much more certain and detailed view on many points.
Our way of proceeding compels us often to relinquish a very precise,
definite opinion, which we could hold if we accepted one statement to
be ultimately true, and neglected the others; but it gives us at least
the conviction that any more precise conclusion would be unfounded.
That all the corrections must be carried out on grounds of ample
justification and in the most discreet way is quite clear. It will be
seen that in the subsequent pages only rarely have statements been
amended, and then the reasons are always given. But it is important
that even these few corrections should be done systematically. The
above indications will, I trust, help to a certain degree to justify
the method adopted in dealing with evidence.

Our methodological considerations were necessarily taken on broad
lines. To give a detailed and precise description of the method of
treating the Australian material would require a whole volume, for
there are in all individual cases so many influences and possibilities
that may be considered as sources of error, and so many elements to
take into consideration, that it would be nearly impossible to trace
all the mental processes that have to be followed here. I found it
also impossible to give explicitly all my reasons in each place where
I ventured to correct a statement. Nevertheless, I have not thought
it superfluous to give in outline the chief points adopted in this
criticism. In the first place even these general hints will be quite
sufficient to indicate the writer's motives to every one who has had to
deal in an analogous way with ethnographical materials. And then they
will serve as a proof that these questions, doubts, and precautions,
were present to his mind while weighing the evidence. In the last
place, as science is essentially based on mutual help and mutual
agreement, if we had a whole series of workers on a given ethnographic
material, a certain general assent, if such could be obtained, would
undoubtedly be the best criterion of reliability of sources. But
matters should be openly and explicitly discussed.

To sum up, the chief methodological principle which we have striven
to keep always before us, is a thorough clearness about every step of
our reasoning. In the first place, therefore, care has been taken to
give an explicit and a perfectly clear survey of the statements; and to
draw conclusions in such a way that all our reasons for drawing them
shall be as clear as possible to the reader, so as to enable every
one to apply his own criticism as easily as possible at any stage of
our reasoning. Necessarily in a study such as the present one, some
allowance must be made for a subjective element in the final judgments
on the value of the evidence. But just as the writer must ask for a
certain amount of trust in his scientific judgment, so he is bound to
give every means to the reader to enable him always fully to judge and
exercise his criticism on the use the author is making of this liberty.

In order to achieve this as far as in us lies, the methodological
principles set forth above have been adopted. They are in short, as
follows: We accept as facts those points in which all statements agree.
On controversial points we try to eliminate the contradictions by
applying textual criticism to the statements, or by pointing out the
possible sources of error, or by showing that these contradictions
must be set down to local differences between the tribes. In drawing
conclusions, we shall point out those facts which are well established,
and also point out those which are more or less uncertain or
contradictory. The sources used are not very numerous, but it is hoped
that they will be found sufficient. They have been impartially chosen
and include each of the various types of Australian evidence.




CHAPTER II

MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES


Keeping to these general methodological principles, the aim of this
study will be merely an objective, unprejudiced description of the
different forms of the Australian family organization.

In accordance with what has been said above, let us accept at
the outset a general definition, along the lines of which our
investigations will be carried out. My choice for this purpose is
the well-known definition of Dr. Westermarck: "Marriage is a more or
less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the
mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." In
another place (_Moral Ideas_, ii. p. 364) Dr. Westermarck completes
this definition: "As a social institution, on the other hand, it has a
somewhat different meaning: it is a union regulated by custom and law.
Society lays down the rules relating to the selection of partners, to
the mode of contracting marriage, to its form, and to its duration." We
may also remember that Dr. Westermarck first pointed out that "marriage
is rooted in family, rather than family in marriage"[39]; and that he
insists on the importance of economic elements in family life, and
especially on the facts of the rearing of children and the mode of
living.

     [39] (_Hist. H. Marr._, chap. iii.) Dr. Westermarck's work
     was written on much more general lines. He did not aim at
     a purely morphological reconstruction of family life in
     any ethnographical province. I did not, therefore, refer
     to his researches in the methodological sketch; here,
     however, they must serve as a starting point. It is the
     most exhaustive treatise on the individual family; all the
     essential parts of the problem are sketched in a masterly
     manner in this fundamental work, and the outlines of more
     special investigation indicated.

These remarks of Dr. Westermarck, corroborating what has been said
in the introduction, direct our analysis to the relationship between
parents and children as well as between the conjugal parties; resolving
thus the marriage problem into the more general family problem. On the
other hand, Dr. Westermarck, in these short passages quoted, as well as
throughout his work, insists on the general and sociological aspect of
family life. We shall try to apply his points of view systematically to
our Australian material, keeping in mind the addition of the legal side
of the question.

As each relationship is intended to be separately treated, let us begin
with that of man and wife, and especially with its "legal" aspect.
The first point for discussion will be the modes of obtaining wives.
In this the search will be for elements, that enforce _ipso facto_
the validity of marriage; there will probably be found in them the
expression of some collective ideas, referring to the validity, moral
or customary sanction, that marital union enjoys in the eyes of the
native. It is also highly important for the whole question of marriage
and family to ascertain whether the modes of obtaining wives are
subject to any norm, compliance with which was enforced by an active
intervention of society in some form. Such norms, according to the
definition given above, would be legal ones, and they, necessarily,
involve and presuppose a series of collective ideas, the knowledge of
which would afford a deep insight into the primitive social mechanism.

Betrothal or marriage ceremonies that would express a sanction of
purely social or even _mystic_ or moral character are few, although not
quite absent. Nevertheless the widespread practice of allotting young
girls even in infancy, or before birth sometimes, shows _ipso facto_
how deeply rooted the idea of the individual right of a man to a woman
is in the native mind. Also in the case when wives are obtained by
elopement or capture, there are certain ordeals, formalities or duties,
that give to such a marriage its social sanction.

The following statements it will be seen present but little field for
correction. What we are asking for in this place are merely facts which
are evident and palpable enough not to escape the attention of even
ordinary observers. Only the betrothal ceremonies and acts seem to
have been more esoteric, and therefore they are reported in only a few
cases, where the authors were more intimately acquainted with native
customs and ideas.

  _Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai marriage was brought about
  generally by elopement; sometimes by capture; and less frequently
  by exchange or by gift.[40] In cases of elopement "the male
  relatives searched for her (the fugitive), sometimes with success,
  sometimes without success. If the couple could remain away till
  the girl was with child ... she would be forgiven."[41] Otherwise,
  if found, she was badly chastised, and the man had to fight her
  relatives. If they should persevere in their plans and elope two or
  three times ... they would be forgiven.[42] The Kurnai are the only
  people among whom elopement was the general rule. The punishment
  was there accordingly not very severe, and the marriage legalized
  in case of perseverance, or if the couple were skilful enough not
  to allow themselves to be soon caught.

     [40] Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 343. See also their
     modes of getting females by capture. Compare pp. 200 _sq._
     and pp. 348 _sq._

     [41] p. 202.

     [42] _Ibid._

  J. Bulmer, Lake Tyers, Gippsland, says that among the
  Gournditch-Mara the majority of wives were obtained by exchanging
  a sister or a near relative. Elopement was always followed by
  bloodshed.[43] "Marriage was by betrothal of children by their
  respective parents, therefore by exchange of sisters," says
  Howitt[44] of the same tribe.

     [43] In Brough Smyth, i. p. 77. Compare also Howitt,
     _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350.

     [44] _Nat. Tr._, p. 249.

  Exchange of sisters (own or tribal) was practised by the Youin;
  the marriage being arranged by the fathers; there was a mutual
  public agreement between them. "The two being thus promised to
  each other, the girl is looked upon as the future wife of the
  boy." In cases of elopement, if there was a baby the marriage
  was legalized, especially if a sister (tribal or own) could be
  given in exchange.[45] Here we may note that the arrangement was
  made publicly, during one of the tribal gatherings. The future
  brothers-in-law exchange gifts, and on the day of the arrangement
  keep ostentatiously the whole time together. Thus the whole affair
  was known to everybody and had a sort of tribal approval.

     [45] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 263 264. Compare also _Trans.
     R.S.V._, p. 117.

  Among the Woeworung girls were promised in infancy. The arrangement
  was entered into by the respective fathers, then made public.
  The old men of the tribe had to decide when the girl was to be
  handed over to her husband. There was a kind of betrothal ceremony
  consisting in a public giving up of the bride to the bridegroom.[46]

     [46] Howitt in _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.

  In the Bangerang tribe "wives were obtained by the exchange of
  females with any other tribe; so that a man who had a daughter,
  exchanged her for a wife, for himself or his son, as he thought
  proper." The custom of exchange of females was a check on abusive
  cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband. A Black said once to
  Curr, "If he beats my sister, I'll beat my wife."[47]

     [47] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 248.

  In the Victorian tribes described by Beveridge, girls were usually
  exchanged. It was the father who had to dispose of his girl;
  there was no betrothal ceremony. Only the woman was bound by the
  marriage; the man could always send her away.[48]

     [48] Beveridge, p. 22.

  Amongst the South-west Victorian tribes "parents betroth their
  children when just able to walk."[49] The arrangement was carried
  out by the respective fathers. As a sign the boy's father gives
  the girl an opossum rug, shows her attention, and gives her
  "nice things to eat." The girl's father visits sometimes her
  intended husband. "No marriage or betrothal is permitted without
  the approval of the chief of each party."[50] The girl's mother
  and aunts must not look at her intended husband from the moment
  of betrothal.[51] In cases of elopement against the wishes of
  parents fights take place. A second elopement makes the marriage
  lawful.[52] Exchange of sisters exists also, with consent of
  chiefs. The ceremony of betrothal is described at length by the
  same author.[53] The bride and the bridegroom are painted and
  specially dressed. Food is stored for the purpose, as feasting and
  amusement accompany the ceremony. The chief is present and gives
  his consent. Two months after the betrothal the two do not sleep
  alone, but with the bridemaid and brideman. The alleged approval
  of the chief in this statement would be interesting, but here we
  may mistrust our author, for the general information about the
  chiefs, their power, etc., seems to be not quite correct (see Curr,
  _A.R._, i. p. 53). Besides, the whole style of the book is not
  strictly scientific, and shows signs of literary embellishments.
  We must also attach some caution to the detailed description of
  the betrothal ceremony. It is the only account of a detailed and
  elaborate ceremony of this kind, with feasting, chief, abstinency,
  etc. Interesting and important as it is, we may attribute it to
  local exception, but we cannot consider it as established beyond
  doubt.

     [49] J. Dawson, p. 28.

     [50] _Ibid._, p. 28.

     [51] _Ibid._, p. 29.

     [52] _Ibid._, p. 34.

     [53] _Loc. cit._, p. 31.

  Amongst the Wotjobaluk (S. Victoria) girls were exchanged in
  infancy by the elder brother. The father's consent was essential:
  he could also dispose otherwise of his daughter. The marriage
  arrangements and agreements were publicly made at large tribal
  gatherings.[54]

     [54] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 241. Also _Trans. R.S.V._,
     p. 116.

  Stanbridge says that "females are generally betrothed in early
  infancy," either to friends, or to those whose friendship is
  solicited. Although the father decides when she has to be given
  away, "the bridegroom is sure of obtaining his bride, as the honour
  of the family and of the tribe is considered to be involved in the
  fulfilment of the betrothal." In case of subsequent elopement it
  is the duty of the family to chastise the guilty pair.[55] This
  statement is not quite clear, inasmuch as we scarcely understand
  how the mediæval idea of honour is to be applied to Australian
  Blacks. Probably it means that the family and local group of the
  girl have some reason to keep the promise; whether this reason be
  of magical, legal, or customary character is an open question. But
  inferring by analogy we may say that all these factors are coercive
  here, as in the other tribes. The family must also support the
  husband in case of elopement.

     [55] _Loc. cit._, p. 288. (Mount Gambier tribes.)

  "Whenever a female child was promised in marriage to any man, from
  that very hour neither he nor the child's mother were permitted
  to look upon or hear each other speak, nor hear their names
  mentioned by others; for, if they did, they would immediately grow
  prematurely old and die." This statement refers to the Jajaurung
  tribe of Victoria.[56]

     [56] Brough Smyth, ii. p. 156, on the authority of some
     first-hand observer. Brough Smyth gives also (i. pp. 83,
     84) a detailed account of courtship and betrothal. But
     according to our criterion we do not accept it as a
     first-hand evidence; nevertheless, it may be useful as
     illustration.

  "Female children are betrothed usually from early infancy, and
  such arrangements are usually adhered to," with rare exceptions.
  Exchange of sisters is commonly practised, but the parents' consent
  is essential. "If a wife be stolen, war is always continued until
  she is given up, or another female exchanged." These statements
  refer to the Lower Murray and Adelaide tribes.[57]

     [57] Eyre, ii. p. 319.

  There is a very plain and primitive form of betrothal, performed
  by the "principal old man in the camp" amongst the Lower Darling
  natives. They usually exchange sisters, and girls are promised in
  infancy.[58]

     [58] F. Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 129.

  Among the Parkengee tribe of the Darling River, "A brother had the
  right of giving away his sister, which he usually did with a view
  to his own matrimonial interests. They were in this way promised
  when quite children, and in the event of the death of the claimant,
  his nearest of kin became possessed of his rights."[59] This means
  that levirate was valid in case of betrothal.

     [59] S. Newland, _loc. cit._, p. 21.

  Exchange was the chief feature of the Narrinyeri marriage.
  Sometimes the father, usually the brother, disposed of the girl.
  There is a simple ceremony, consisting in a formal handing over
  of the bride, who seems usually to be rather unwilling.[60] It is
  a social disgrace for a girl not to be given away; if she goes by
  herself and lives by her own choice with a man, she is "regarded
  as very little better than a prostitute."[61] A woman is supposed
  to signify her consent to the marriage by carrying fire to her
  husband's wurley and making his fire for him.[62]

     [60] H. E. A. Meyer, quoted by Rev. Taplin, _loc. cit._,
     p. 10.

     [61] _Ibid._, p. 11.

     [62] _Ibid._, p. 12. Taplin's own remark. See also
     _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350, where it is added that in
     cases of unsuccessful elopement against the parents' will,
     the couple were severely punished; the offender being even
     put to death.

  Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula, "Betrothal took place in
  infancy, and the marriage ceremony after circumcision and other
  rites performed on the male."[63]

     [63] Sutton, p. 17.

  "In the Geawe Gal tribe marriage was ordinarily by the gift[64] of
  the woman and by consent of both fathers ... and would be arranged
  years before the time of marriage." In cases of elopement the
  offender had to fight the female's relatives; he retained her only
  if victor. In cases of capture, only a woman of the right class
  could be retained.[65]

     [64] I think it means not by exchange.

     [65] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 216. Geawe Gal, Hunter River,
     New South Wales; possessing the Kamilaroi sub-class. See
     also _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 250.

  In New South Wales marriage was arranged by the parents. If two
  people fell in love, they eloped, but if the family applied to the
  camp council, the latter would interfere and punish the culprit.[66]

     [66] G. S. Lang, p. 11.

  Henderson says that among the Blacks of New South Wales abduction
  always arouses fights.[67] Using legal terms, this means that
  abduction of a woman, whether married or not, was considered a
  crime.

     [67] _Loc. cit._, p. 110.

  Of the courtship in some of the New South Wales tribes we have
  an account by J. Turnbull: "When a young man sees a female to
  his fancy, he informs her she must accompany him home; the lady
  refuses; he not only enforces compliance with threats, but blows:
  thus the gallant, according to the custom, never fails to gain the
  victory, and bears off the willing though struggling pugilist."[68]
  In the following context the author asserts that violence is here a
  mere formality. It is difficult to say anything definite about this
  statement. If it refers merely to the final marriage "ceremony"
  it might be accepted. But if it is to be accepted as describing
  all that refers to marriage, it is obviously false. The author
  was a "circumnavigator," and in his voyage round the world, about
  the year 1800, had probably little opportunities for observing
  the Australian aborigines. Such statements as this, uncritically
  accepted (as this is, _e. g._ in Waitz-Gerland), are usual sources
  of error in ethnology and hence in sociology.

     [68] Turnbull, pp. 98, 99.

  In some other New South Wales tribes "the ceremony of marriage is
  peculiar. In most cases the parties are betrothed at an early age,
  and as soon as they arrive at the proper age, the young man claims
  his 'gin' or wife."[69] "The women are considered as an article of
  property, and are sold or given away by the parents or relatives
  without the least regard to their own wishes."[70] The well-known
  elements of infant betrothal, and a kind of purchase of a female
  from her family, are contained in this statement.

     [69] Wilkes (smaller edition), i. p. 225.

     [70] _Ibid._

  According to another author, who has written about the New South
  Wales tribes, the girls are given away at a corroboree. Sometimes
  they are "stolen," but then fights always ensue.[71] This statement
  contains the feature of publicity of marriage. It does not say
  anything about the conditions preceding such a public allotment.

     [71] Hodgkinson, _loc. cit._, pp. 229, 230.

  According to Tench, capture was the prevalent form in which
  marriage was brought about in the Port Jackson tribes.[72] Tench
  was in very early times at the settlement, but being a military man
  and making only a short stay, he hardly had very good opportunities
  of observing the natives. His statement cannot outweigh all the
  contrary ones.

     [72] _Loc. cit._, p. 199.

  The statement of Barrington, who says that among the Port Jackson
  natives blows are the usual mode of courtship and that they are
  well accepted as a token of tenderness,[73] can only be understood
  if we accept these facts as a kind of pretended marriage by
  capture. But much importance cannot be attached to it.

     [73] _Loc. cit._, p. 168.

  Amongst some tribes in the neighbourhood of Sydney[74] small
  children are betrothed, and as a sign of that the girl wears a
  necklace. In another place[75] the same author says that marriage
  by capture occurs.

     [74] C. P. Hodgson, p. 220.

     [75] _Ibid._, p. 243.

  Among the tribes of the South-east coast of New South Wales
  (Hawkesbury River to Cape Howe) the "marriages are regulated by
  a system of betrothal." "The old men assemble in council," and
  establish the relation of _Nanarree_ between a boy and a girl or
  woman. The boy then marries eventually the woman's daughter. The
  _Nanarree_ couple "theoretically occupy the position of son-in-law
  and mother-in-law." They are tabooed to each other. A man and woman
  may be _Nanarree_ to several individuals.[76]

     [76] R. H. Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxxiv. pp. 263, 264.

  We read of an instance of a formal betrothal (called _Bahumul_),
  although meagre in its ceremonial, among the Euahlayi tribe. A
  baby girl is destined by her parents to be "given to a man." She
  is brought to him, some feathers are taken off the baby's head
  and put on the man's. Her grandmother says, "Look at him and
  remember him, because you are promised to him." "That makes it
  a formal betrothal, binding to both sides." "I have heard great
  camp rows, because girls made a struggle for independence, having
  found out they had only been promised, not formally betrothed, to
  some old chap whom they did not wish to marry." Here we meet with
  an instance of a formality, which has in itself much more than a
  simple promise, that is "binding for both sides."[77]

     [77] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 55.

  Amongst the Wiradjuri the girl was promised in infancy and sisters
  were exchanged.[78]

     [78] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 211.

  Amongst the Dieri the individual or _Tippa Malku_ marriage was
  established when girls were quite young, and upon the basis
  of exchange, the decision lying in the hands of the mother's
  brother. In another place we read that the _Tippa Malku_ marriage
  was brought about sometimes also by the council of old men.[79]
  _Pirrauru_ "wives" were allotted by the council of old men.[80] In
  cases of elopement the offender was pursued by the kindred.[81]

     [79] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. p. 55, and Frazer, _ibid._,
     xxiv. p. 169.

     [80] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 177, and _J.A.I._, xx. pp. 57
     _sq._

     [81] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 350.

  The German missionary, L. Schultze, informs us about the Central
  tribes that "the betrothal is solely and absolutely arranged by the
  father of the girl. He promises and contracts his daughter, within
  the limits of the class, to whomsoever he pleases." "A youth cannot
  select a bride for himself, or a girl a bridegroom." "The betrothal
  is often made by the father, soon after the girl is born, from
  mercenary motives," for the future son-in-law is obliged to hunt
  and provide his father-in-law with food.[82]

     [82] _Loc. cit._, p. 236.

  We are informed about the Central tribes that "girl-stealing is not
  a trifling matter." Fights always ensue as the result of it.[83]

     [83] W. H. Willshire, _loc. cit._, p. 27.

  By the detailed data given by Spencer and Gillen[84] we get a
  good insight into the legal and customary side of the modes of
  obtaining wives amongst the Central tribes of the Arunta nation.
  Methods of securing a woman are (_a_) charming by means of magic,
  (_b_) capture, (_c_) elopement, (_d_) the custom of _Tualcha-Mura_,
  by means of which a man secures a wife for his son by making an
  arrangement with some other man, with regard to the latter's
  daughter. The legal side of the first method is shown by the fact
  that a man's right to a woman, secured by means "of magic, is
  supported by the men of his own local group."[85] Capture is the
  "very rarest way in which a Central Australian secures a wife." If
  captured by an avenging party, the woman must be lawfully allotted
  to one of the men (who has exclusive right to her afterwards).[86]
  There is an accompanying ceremony, and the decision lies in the
  hand of an old man, the leader of the party.[87] In cases of
  elopement there was always a fight, sometimes between the two
  parties only, sometimes their local groups taking part. There
  were some (tribal) relatives having a special duty of supporting
  the eloper. Sometimes the aggrieved husband will consent to hand
  over the wife; the offender has then an ordeal to undergo.[88] "The
  fourth and most usual method of obtaining a wife is that which is
  connected with the well-established custom" of _Tualcha-Mura_.[89]
  This is a relation between a man and his mother-in-law[90]
  established by a simple ceremony,[91] and it signifies that the man
  has the right to take as wife the daughter of the woman. In this
  way "practically every man in the tribe is provided with at least
  one woman to whom he is lawfully entitled."[92] He has a definite
  right over her; he may waive it or exchange it for another right
  over his mother-in-law's son.[93] He stands in a definite relation
  to his _Tualcha-Mura_ (mother-in-law); receives her hair to make
  his hair girdle,[94] and may not speak to her. He has the duty of
  providing his father-in-law with food, which is a condition for the
  obligations to be kept.[95] It is seldom that these obligations
  are broken; and if the parents give the girl to someone else,
  the latter is sure to have to undergo a struggle with the former
  fiancé.[96] All this holds good also in respect to the Northern
  Central tribes.[97] There, too, "as a general rule women are
  obtained quite peacefully by the system of betrothal."[98]

     [84] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. xvii, _Methods
     of obtaining Wives_, pp. 554 _sqq._ Compare also _Nor.
     Tr._, pp. 32 and 33.

     [85] Compare also the detailed description of charming by
     magic (different methods) given by J. Gillen in _Proc.
     R.G.S.S.A._, iv. pp. 25 _sqq._

     [86] No other man of the party having any access to her.
     _Nat. Tr._, p. 556.

     [87] _Nat. Tr._, p. 555. The story related in this place is
     given by the author as an illustration of a general custom.

     [88] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 556, 557. The story told, pp. 557,
     558, where both the eloped woman and her actual husband
     have an ordeal to submit to from the former husband. After
     having renounced her in this way she became the property of
     the man with whom she had eloped.

     [89] _Ibid._, p. 558.

     [90] Who is often of the very same age as he, pp. 558, 559.

     [91] _Ibid._, p. 559.

     [92] _Ibid._, 554. As also _Nor. Tr._, p. 33.

     [93] _Ibid._, p. 559.

     [94] _Nat. Tr._, p. 559.

     [95] _Ibid._, p. 555.

     [96] _Ibid._, p. 560.

     [97] _Nor. Tr._, p. 77.

     [98] _Ibid._, p. 33.

  Among all the tribes, described by Spencer and Gillen, there
  seem to be some marriage ceremonies.[99] In their first work
  (_Nat. Tr._) these authors describe such ceremonies among nine
  tribes.[100] In the main these ceremonies consisted of a ritual
  defloration of the girl by men standing to her in a definite
  relationship. In each case the girl had to submit to sexual
  intercourse with a series of men standing to her also in a definite
  relationship. Men of forbidden degrees have on these occasions
  access to women. The girl was afterwards painted and decorated
  and handed over to her husband, to whom she was allotted.[101]
  In the _Northern Tribes_ there is also a detailed description of
  this ceremony among the Warramunga,[102] where the husband keeps
  abstinence for three days after marriage. Among the Binbinga, Anula
  and Mara tribes the ritual defloration seems not to be a marriage
  ceremony, _i. e._ seems not to be connected with the handing over
  of the girl to her allotted husband.[103] Messrs. Spencer and
  Gillen state the existence of this ceremony among sixteen tribes.
  It is to be noted that these ceremonies do not seem to express any
  special sanction of the marriage to which they lead, unless they
  are viewed as "expiation for marriage."[104] Then they might be
  interpreted as the renouncement of all men's rights and claims to a
  woman for the benefit of her future owner. The ceremonial handing
  over of a woman may be also regarded as expressing the public
  sanction of marriage. We must still notice an interesting ceremony
  amongst the Warramunga, Tjinjilli, Gnanji, Binbinga, Mara, which
  consists of some hair being given by the maternal uncle of the girl
  to her future husband. This hair is worn by him under his arm-band;
  "it is a simple plan of publicly announcing the fact" of the
  betrothal.[105] Amongst the Binbinga there is a form of betrothal.
  The future husband must present his father-in-law with boomerangs,
  etc., and must avoid him, but goes on giving him presents.[106]

     [99] Compare _Nat. Tr._, chap, iii., pp. 92 _sqq._, and
     _Nor. Tr._, chap. iv., pp. 133 _sqq._

     [100] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92 _sqq._

     [101] For detailed description see _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92,
     93 (Arunta and Ilpirra), p. 94 (S. Arunta), pp. 94,
     95 (Kaitish), p. 95 (the remaining six tribes). These
     ceremonies differ only in details from each other in
     different tribes.

     [102] _Nor. Tr._, p. 135.

     [103] _Ibid._, p. 135.

     [104] According to Lord Avebury; see _Nat. Tr._, p. 96.

     [105] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 603, 604.

     [106] _Ibid._, p. 77, footnote.

  Among some tribes of South Queensland (Bunya-Bunya country)
  marriage was arranged without any consent of the contracting
  parties. Sometimes it was arranged when the girl was an infant,
  and she was then promised to some man of importance or influence.
  Sometimes exchange of females took place at large tribal
  gatherings. Elopement was known in these tribes, and a fight
  decided whether it was legalized or not.[107]

     [107] Tom Petrie, _loc. cit._, pp. 59, 60.

  We find a ceremony of betrothal among the Kuinmurbura. "The parents
  having painted the girl and dressed her hair with feathers, her
  male cousin takes her to where her future husband is sitting
  cross-legged in silence, and seats her at his back and close to
  him. He who has brought the girl after a time removes the feathers
  from her hair and places them in the hair of her future husband,
  and then leads the girl back to her parents." The future son-in-law
  must give presents of game to the father of his promised wife.[108]

     [108] Howitt, _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118.

  We read about the natives of Moreton Bay, that marriage is
  generally contracted with the consent of the relatives of both
  parties and the approval of the tribe. As a form of betrothal they
  join their hands. The stealing of women from neighbouring tribes
  ends usually in war.[109]

     [109] J. D. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 337.

  Among the Herbert River natives, exchange of sisters or daughters
  is the commonest way of obtaining wives.[110] Girls are promised to
  their respective husbands[111] in infancy and delivered at the age
  of nine or ten years.

     [110] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._, p. 154.

     [111] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._, p. 165.

  We find in Brough Smyth an account of a betrothal ceremony, as
  practised by the natives on Fraser Island (Queensland). This
  description is given by a correspondent of the Rev. L. Fison: "The
  bride makes a fire, and the other natives come and place white
  feathers on her head; then the bride places feathers on the head
  of the bridegroom; the bridegroom makes a fire, and every one of
  the blacks present on the occasion brings a firestick and throws it
  down at the bridegroom's fire."[112]

     [112] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 89.

  Girls were betrothed in infancy by their mothers amongst the
  Wakelbura. It was supposed that a girl would be given in exchange
  for her.[113] In case of elopement, there was a severe fight, and
  only after a victory over many adversaries could the man keep his
  wife.

     [113] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 222, and _Trans. R.S.V._,
     p. 117.

  Among the North-West Central Queensland tribes[114] "each male
  can have an official wife" supplied him by the camp in general
  council assembled,[115] and an unofficial one of his own choice.
  "Both share equal rights and responsibilities." The consent of the
  girl's family is in both cases essential.[116] The ceremony of
  betrothal consisted in exchange of firesticks, and "is binding on
  both sides."[117] Exchange of sisters is practised, too.[118] If
  eloping, "both have to run the gauntlet of the outraged community,"
  which gives them a rather harsh reception. After which "the couple
  is now recognized as husband and wife."[119] In cases of elopement
  of a married woman there is a fight, or compensation is granted to
  the injured husband. In another place Roth says that taking a girl
  against the wishes of parents was punished by death.[120]

     [114] W. E. Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, pp. 180, 181, sec. 323.

     [115] See _Ibid._, sec. 238.

     [116] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _a._

     [117] _Ibid._

     [118] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _b._

     [119] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _c._

     [120] W. E. Roth, _N.Q. Ethnog._, Bull. 8, p. 5.

  According to Macgillivray's information, infant betrothal even
  before birth was prevalent in the Port Essington tribes.[121]

     [121] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 151.

  The following account is reported by a Lascar who spent several
  years among the tribes of the North-East coast (Raffles Bay):
  "Their marriage ceremony is performed in the following way: The
  father and mother of a female child lead in one hand between them
  the intended bride (whilst in the other they each carry a piece of
  burning wood) towards the intended husband, he standing with his
  back towards them. When they arrive at the appointed place, the
  parents lay down the burning pieces of wood, beside which the child
  sits down, and the parents retire, on which the husband turns round
  to his wife and takes her home."[122]

     [122] Wilson, p. 144.

  We are informed about the natives of the Cape of York Peninsula and
  Prince of Wales Islands: "In most cases females are betrothed in
  infancy, according to the will of the father, and without regard to
  disparity of age. Thus the future husband may be, and often is, an
  old man with several wives."[123]

     [123] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 8.

  J. Forrest, speaking of the natives of Central and Western
  Australia, says: "Betrothal is very general. A child a year old
  will sometimes be betrothed to an old man, and it will be his duty
  to feed and protect her, and (unless she is stolen by someone else)
  when she is old enough she becomes his wife."[124]

     [124] _Loc. cit._, p. 317.

  "The girls are not the exclusive property of the father until he
  thinks fit to give them in marriage to some of his friends; by the
  law of these people the females, from the time of their birth,
  are appropriated to certain males of the tribe, and not even the
  parents have the right to set aside these obligations." If this man
  dies, the mother may dispose of her daughter.--This refers to the
  Watchandee tribe of West Australia.[125] The same author writes
  that elopement is punished in these tribes by the death of the
  female, and a severe ordeal is imposed on the male; an instance
  is adduced to illustrate this.[126] The statement is quite unique
  in this, that it asserts no right of the family to betroth their
  daughter. On the other hand, we are by no other author informed
  of such a thing as a man having an _a priori_ right to a girl. We
  are led to the supposition that these male individuals are simply
  men belonging to the right marriage class. For undoubtedly in
  an exogamous tribe, having four or eight classes and being not
  too numerous, the number of marriageable individuals must have
  been very limited, and one of them might have had some special
  prerogatives. This supposition would also account for the severe
  punishment inflicted in case of elopement with a man to whom "she
  did not lawfully belong," viz. with an individual of the improper
  class. Otherwise this statement would be contradictory with all the
  others, and we could hardly harmonize it with the general view we
  form of the aboriginal marriage rules.

     [125] Oldfield, p. 249.

     [126] _Ibid._, pp. 249, 250.

  Among the tribes observed by Salvado "Le sauvage demande la
  personne qu'il veut épouser au père de celle-ci, et si celui-ci ne
  l'a promise à aucun autre, et n'y voit pas d'empêchement, il la lui
  accorde. Dès ce moment, la jeune personne appartient au sauvage
  qui l'a demandée, quoiqu'elle reste en compagnie de sa famille,
  jusqu'à l'age de la puberté. Cet engagement est inviolable, et si
  jamais un père y manquait, ce serait la cause de beaucoup de sang
  répandu. Le sauvage pourtant quand il demande une jeune personne en
  mariage, s'il ne se fie pas à la parole du père, l'emmène avec lui
  et lui tient lieu de frère, jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait atteint l'âge
  convenable. Dans aucun cas on ne demande à la jeune personne son
  consentement. Neanmoins j'ai entendu dire à des fiancés: 'Je l'aime
  et elle m'aime aussi.'"[127] "L'autre manière de prendre femme est
  de la ravir à son père, ou à son mari, soit à cause de sa rare
  beauté, soit parce que son mari la maltraite. Mais ensuite si
  celui-ci la trouve, il la tue sans pitié, aussi le ravisseur
  l'emmène-t-il au loin, et tâche de se soustraire à tout jamais à la
  présence de l'offensé."[128]

     [127] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 278.

     [128] _Ibid._, pp. 278, 279.

  In West Australia "female children are always betrothed within a
  few days after their birth; and from the moment they are betrothed
  the parents cease to have any control over the future settlement
  of their child." The woman is kept by her husband as his exclusive
  property. "Stealing a wife is generally punished with death." It
  means that elopement was punished by death, but we are not told if
  of both parties or only one, and which one. This statement agrees
  with our last one. It might be, therefore, that in West Australia
  the rules were in this regard more stringent. But it seems more
  probable that death was the extreme punishment only, and that
  usually an ordeal was sufficient.[129]

     [129] Geo. Grey, ii. pp. 229, 230.

  We are informed in G. F. Moore's vocabulary of West Australian
  languages that the word meaning "firm," "fixed" is "applied to a
  man and wife as firmly united together."[130] It shows that this
  idea must have been strongly inculcated in the aboriginal society,
  if the expression for firmness and marriage were associated in
  their language. By itself, such a linguistic argument might be
  justly designated as futile; but it is a valuable addition to the
  other evidence in our possession. The same author mentions three
  modes of obtaining wives: infant betrothal, inheritance from a
  brother or relative (levirate), and elopement.[131]

     [130] _Loc. cit._, p. 5.

     [131] _Loc. cit._, p. 41.

  We read in Scott Nind's description of the aborigines of King
  George's Sound: "The girls appear to be at the disposal of their
  father and are generally bespoke in their infancy; even before
  they are born we have been told to whom they were betrothed, if
  they prove to be females." Sometimes exchange of relatives is
  practised. In some cases boys are adopted as sons-in-law--a custom
  called _cotertie_.[132] This seems to be analogous to the customs
  reported from Central Australia and New South Wales. "Attentions
  and presents are paid more to her (the bride's) father than
  to herself, and indeed the trifles she receives are generally
  transferred to him. These chiefly consist of game or other articles
  of food; the father, perhaps, receives a cloak, spears or other
  implements."[133] The author says: "I do not think they have any
  nuptial ceremony."[134] Another mode of procuring a wife is to
  carry her off; sometimes against her will, generally by mutual
  agreement. In both cases the couple must beware of the husband's
  revenge. If the female become pregnant and presents are given to
  the husband, she is released from her first engagement.[135] A
  woman may be also betrothed during her husband's lifetime to a man,
  to whom she passes when widowed.[136]

     [132] _Loc. cit._, p. 38.

     [133] _Ibid._

     [134] p. 38.

     [135] _Ibid._

     [136] p. 39.

  Browne relates that girls were often promised in infancy; elopement
  also often took place.[137]

     [137] _Loc. cit._, p. 450.

  We have also six statements in the answers given to Professor
  Frazer's _Questions_ (_J.A.I._, xxiv., pp. 157 _sq._). I have not
  ranged them with the foregoing, for they seem not to be of equal
  accuracy[138] except perhaps that of Police Inspector Foelsche,
  Port Darwin, North Territory, South Australia. And this agrees
  with the majority of our data: girls are promised in infancy to
  men of different ages, and go to live with them when arrived at
  puberty. It is noteworthy that all these six statements deny
  the existence of any betrothal ceremony. Five of them inform us
  that wives were obtained by "purchase" from their parents. The
  word purchase covers, probably, the fact that the girl's parents
  obtained, at the marriage contract, and probably ever after, gifts
  from their future son-in-law. We have such statements already in
  our collection, and it seems that wherever there was no exchange
  of females the girl's family received some compensation for her in
  another form.

     [138] They are given by police troopers, stationmasters,
     etc. One of them is Sam Gason, whose information about the
     Dieri we know from another place. It is crude, but not
     quite useless; here he does not teach us anything new.

According to our already described methodological plan, the area
or range of the facts covered by all this evidence must be divided
into smaller fields. Or, in other words, it is needful to bring our
information under several headings, show the points upon which there is
complete agreement, and discuss the other points in greater detail.

There are forty-nine statements (including one of the six just
summarily mentioned). Not all of them give us full information
concerning the whole of our subject; some mention only one or other
of the methods of obtaining wives, without asserting or denying the
existence of the other forms. But roughly speaking, we may say that
in all tribes there are on the one hand some normal, pacific modes of
obtaining wives (exchange of relatives, promise in infancy, betrothal),
and on the other hand some more or less violent forms (elopement,
capture). About twenty-three of the forty-nine statements, all which
are explicit and reliable, assert the existence of both these forms
amongst the tribes they deal with. The violent forms, elopement and
capture, seem to have been rather the exception than the rule, but
there seems to have been not a single tribe in which elopement was
completely absent.[139] Among the Kurnai elopement was a prevalent
form of marriage. In all other tribes the methods, called here normal
or pacific, were prevalent. The main features of these forms are:
betrothal in infancy, exchange of sisters or relatives, and a series
of obligations and mutual duties which both contracting parties
undertake. All these features may be briefly discussed.

     [139] Compare _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118. Howitt says that in
     all South-Eastern tribes elopement was in use; especially
     if there was any difficulty in finding a relative for
     exchange, or if two people fell in love with each other.
     It was considered a breach of custom and law, but it
     was a valid, recognized form of marriage if legalized
     subsequently. Practically the same may be said of all
     tribes of the continent.

The custom of _betrothing_ females _in infancy_ seems to be very
widespread. That this custom was known in all tribes appears in all
the statements explicitly or implicitly (with the exception of those
statements only which were discarded as unreliable, _e. g._ those
which assert marriage by capture as the most usual form). So in the
tribes described by Howitt and his correspondents (chiefly referring
to Victoria, New South Wales, and South territory of South Australia)
girls were as a rule promised in infancy, and these engagements were
kept. This appears the most usual way of obtaining wives amongst the
Central tribes, in Queensland, and in West Australia (J. Dawson, Curr,
Stanbridge, Howitt, Eyre, F. Bonney, R. H. Mathews, Spencer and Gillen,
T. Petrie, Grey, Browne); whereas according to Oldfield, girls belonged
by birth to a certain man. In Roth's statement we are not informed
whether women were allotted by camp council in infancy or when grown up.

This widespread custom of infant betrothal had its important
consequences, some apparent at first sight. So it is evident, that not
only had the woman no voice as to her husband, but even the latter had
scarcely a choice in the proper sense of the word. For when he entered
into the engagement, although he was often of a mature age, he could
not have any idea how his bride would look when grown up. The legal
importance of this form of marriage and all the mutual obligations
connected therewith will be discussed below.

Another point of importance is that this form of marriage contract was
in many tribes combined with the _exchange_ of sisters or relatives.
Fifteen statements mention this explicitly as the most usual condition
under which a female could be obtained. It must have been prevalent
in the South-Eastern tribes.[140] In the case of exchange it was
usually the sister who was given in exchange for a wife,[141] but
sometimes also a father secured a wife in exchange for his daughter
(Curr, Taplin, Beveridge), which is in perfect accord with the fact
that disparity of age was very frequent in Australian marriages. At any
rate the father's consent was always essential (Stanbridge, Beveridge,
Schultze, Taplin on the Narrinyeri, Rusden on the Geawe Gal, Howitt
on the Wotjobaluk). In general when a girl was promised in infancy it
was always done by her family; or at least with the consent of her
family. As, for instance, in N. Central Queensland, where, according
to Roth, girls were disposed of sometimes by the camp council, but by
agreement with the family. By the word family must be here understood
in the first place the girl's father, whose consent, as just said,
was essential, then her brothers and nearest relatives, who would
eventually have profit from exchanging her. But also other members of
the female's family are interested in the transaction and possibly
benefit by it.

     [140] Speaking of the South-Eastern tribes in general,
     Howitt says: "It may be safely laid down as a broad and
     general proposition that among these savages a wife was
     obtained by the exchange of a female relative, with the
     alternative possibility of obtaining one by inheritance
     (Levirate), by elopement, or by capture."--_Trans. R.S.V._,
     p. 115.

     [141] "It seems to me that the most common practice is the
     exchange of girls by their respective parents, as wives
     for each other's sons, or in some tribes the exchange of
     sisters, or of some female relatives by the young men
     themselves."--_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.

The important _part_ played by the _family_ appears in all our
statements; the only contradictory one is that of Oldfield, who says
that the parents had no right over their daughter from her birth (but
see above our critical remark). From the moment of the "betrothal" the
man or boy enters into a certain relation to his future wife's nearest
relatives; he has certain duties to perform, certain obligations to
fulfil, and certain restrictions to observe. In the case where it is
the male's family which makes the contract for him, the two families
have certain duties towards each other and stand in a certain mutual
relationship. They exchange gifts (Yuin, Woljabaluk, S.W. Victoria
and others); the boy's father has to give presents to the girl, and
the boy is visited from time to time by his future father-in-law (W.
Victoria); the future mother-in-law is tabooed (Jajaurung, New South
Wales, according to R. H. Mathews; Central tribes); in the Central
tribes there is the relation of Tualcha Mara and the duty of hunting
for the future father-in-law. In the Binbinga there is a present at the
betrothal and sometimes duties afterwards.

It seems that in all cases, even when exchange does not take place,
it is the father who disposes of his daughter (compare just above).
This privilege is important: in this way, as we saw above, an old man
may procure a young wife for himself. In other cases by these means
the friendship of an influential man may be gained. It is therefore
probable that the father, who wields all the authority in the family,
enjoys this privilege of disposing of his daughter.

We may view the facts of exchange of females on the one hand, and the
various duties of the husband towards his (future or actual) wife's
family on the other, also in another light; they show distinctly the
features of _marriage by purchase_. In the first place let us remark
that the two forms--exchange of females and exchange of gifts or
duties for a female--seem to be localized in different areas. We saw
that Howitt affirms that exchange is the prominent feature in the
South-eastern tribes with the exception of the Kurnai. In those of our
statements which refer to this area we found with very few exceptions
(J. Dawson, Stanbridge, G. S. Lang, Mrs. Parker) confirmation of his
views. The above exceptions do not deny this fact. They are not very
explicit, so that we can hardly insist on them as negative evidence. On
the other hand, in the Central and Northern area, exchange of females
seems not to take place. Here we have some detailed statements, such as
those about the Dieri by Gason and Howitt, about the Arunta by Spencer
and Gillen, about the other Northern tribes by the same authors,
about the N.W. Queensland tribes by W. E. Roth. In all these explicit
statements there is not a single remark about exchange. Nor is the
latter mentioned in any statement referring to the Central and Northern
area, nor in the four statements which refer to West Australia. We
may therefore conclude with a high degree of probability that we have
here to do with a real geographical difference between the tribes
indicated. As to Queensland, exchange was probably known in the Central
and Southern tribes (Tom Petrie and Lumholtz mention it), whereas,
as we saw, it was absent in the Western part of that colony. But in
nearly all these tribes, where exchange of females is apparently not
in use, there is evidence of the existence of duties and obligations
on the part of the future husband towards his parents-in-law. We may
remember the five statements in which the word purchase was used, and
the statement of Wilkes. Schultze says explicitly that the father often
gave his daughter away from mercenary motives. The same is confirmed
by the more exact and detailed statement of Spencer and Gillen, where
the duties of providing the father-in-law with game are reported to be
a necessary condition for the obligations to be kept. Among some of
the Northern tribes (Binbinga, Anula, Mara) the man has to present his
father-in-law with boomerangs and weapons at the contract, and then to
supply him with game. There is no information about purchase-marriage
either from Queensland or from West Australia. But such a negative
evidence is not convincing. Again among the Kurnai, where exchange
of females happened very seldom, there were duties of supplying the
parents-in-law with game (compare below, pp. 283 _sqq._). So that if
we leave on one side the Western part of Australia and Queensland, and
take into consideration only the Northern, Central and South-Eastern
tribes, we may say that exchange of females and obligations, of gifts
and hunting duties were geographically exclusive. Now it appears to
me that exchange of females was a kind of marriage by purchase. If we
regard as the chief feature of the latter the fact that the bridegroom
has to contribute for his wife something of more or less equal value,
we must agree that exchange of females was such a kind of contribution,
and even a very fair one.[142] Besides, it appears that the exchange
of females was often accompanied by exchange of gifts (compare p. 50,
Yuin, Wotjobaluk). That the facts reported from the Central and
Northern area show a form of marriage by purchase appears quite clear.

     [142] With reference to the Australian facts Dr.
     Westermarck makes the same remark. "The simplest way of
     purchasing a wife is no doubt to give a kinswoman in
     exchange for her."--_H.H.M._, p. 390.

As a further characteristic feature we are told in several instances
that such mutual agreements are made _publicly_, during great tribal
gatherings, so that all the tribe knows about it (Yuin, Woeworung,
New South Wales according to Mathews, New South Wales according to
Hodgkinson). Or else the bride is publicly handed to the bridegroom
(Narrinyeri, Lower Darling, Kuinmurbura, Fraser Island). In the Central
and North Central tribes there are outward signs: the maternal uncle's
hair worn under the arm-band; or hair is procured from the future
mother-in-law. In some New South Wales tribes a necklace is worn as a
sign of engagement (Hodgson).

In some statements we are directly told that there is no _betrothal
or marriage ceremony_ (in the six notes in _J.A.I._, xxiv.). But this
negative evidence seems on one side to result from the slight and
superficial acquaintance these observers had with the aborigines;
on the other side from the fact that even in cases where we have
such ceremonies described by very reliable informants and their
binding power asserted, they are described as being so simple and
insignificant, that it is easy to conceive they might readily escape
the notice of even a good observer, or at least their nature and
importance might be misunderstood. We possess nine statements about
betrothal or marriage ceremonies. We have Dawson's detailed statement,
which seems, nevertheless, not to be absolutely trustworthy. But we
are also informed of the existence of some simple and apparently
insignificant ceremonies by J. Bonney, Taplin, R. H. Mathew,
Mrs. Langloh Parker, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, Fison's anonymous
correspondent, Howitt on the Kuinmurburu, Wilson.[143] Some of these
are our best sources.

     [143] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 107, says also that in some
     tribes there are some insignificant marriage ceremonies.

Turning now to the other, the _violent form_ of obtaining wives, we
may distinguish the _elopement_, when both sides are consenting, and
_capture_ where the woman is secured by a mere act of brutal force.
These latter forms occur, but they are by no means frequent. They
are mentioned by several writers (Hodgson, Rusden, Turnbull, Tench,
Barrington and Collins); and by the two latter as the only form of
marriage. That this is obviously incorrect was mentioned above in
connection with their statements. It is characteristic that all
statements reporting the prevalence of marriage by capture refer to
New South Wales, and more especially to the neighbourhood of Sydney.
But I think that it would be inadvisable to attribute this to a local
peculiarity of those tribes. It appears more probable that as all
those reports date from the early days of the settlement, and were
written nearly at the same time, their opinions cannot be considered as
independent, and they are probably repetitions of the same erroneous
view which may be assumed to have been held by the general public in
the settlement.

This is confirmed by the following comparison of two statements. The
first, that of Collins, stating the existence of a crude form of
marriage by capture runs thus: "These unfortunate victims [the wives]
of lust and cruelty ... are, it is believed, always selected from the
women of a different tribe from that of the males (for they ought
not to be dignified with the title of men), and with whom they are
at enmity.... The poor wretch is stolen upon in the absence of her
protectors. Being first stupefied with blows, inflicted with clubs or
wooden swords, on the head, back and shoulders, every one of which
is followed by a stream of blood, she is then dragged away through
the woods by one arm, with a perseverance and violence that it might
be supposed would displace it from its sockets." In this manner the
woman is said to be dragged to the man's camp, where "a scene ensues
too shocking to relate."[144] The second statement made by one of
Howitt's reliable correspondents, depicts the state of things with
quite different colours: "When a young man has passed a certain number
of Boras (initiations) he has a right to choose a wife from among the
unmarried and otherwise unappropriated women of the tribe who are of
the class permitted to him by the native laws. He claims the girl in
the presence of her parents by saying 'I will come and take you by
and by,' and they cannot refuse her to him unless he be specially
disqualified--as, for instance, if his 'hands are stained with the
blood of any of her kin.' And even in that case he may carry her off
by force if he can in spite of their refusal. For this purpose he
generally comes by stealth and alone. But if he be a very bold warrior,
he sometimes goes openly to the girl's camp and carries her off,
defying the bravest of her friends to meet him in single combat if they
dare to stay him."[145] In this second statement it may be noted that
only the unappropriated girls of the tribe and those who are lawfully
marriageable may be obtained in this way. Besides, this proceeding
appears much more in the light of elopement than capture.

     [144] Howitt in _Smiths. Rep._, p. 798.

     [145] _Ibid._

Important it is to note that in utter contradiction with those few
statements, made by some early observers in New South Wales, _capture_
is usually reported to be merely an exceptional form of contracting
marriage. That it was in existence in nearly all tribes seems beyond
doubt. Spencer and Gillen, Howitt,[146] Curr[147] mention that
marriage by capture occurred. But all these authors add emphatically
that this was the most exceptional mode of acquiring a wife.[148] And
it appears from Spencer and Gillen's account that capture is effected
rather by an avenging party than by an individual enterprise. And even
in the case of capture, possession does not mean right. The woman must
belong in the first place to the right class (Rusden, Spencer and
Gillen), and in the case related by Spencer and Gillen she had to be
especially allotted to one of the men by the leader of the party.

     [146] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 343.

     [147] _A.R._, i. p. 108.

     [148] That capture of females occurs only very seldom is
     affirmed by Palmer, _loc. cit._, p. 301, and by Taplin,
     p. 10. J. Mathew, _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxiii. p. 407, states that
     marriage by capture takes place between members of hostile
     communities. Quoted from Dr. Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 389.

_Elopement_ on the other hand is, as we mentioned above, to be found
in nearly all tribes. In all cases it is considered as an encroachment
on the rights of the family or of the husband over the girl, and it
is punished. But the severity of punishment seems to vary according
to the tribe; in the Kurnai elopement was probably the most usual way
of getting married; it was therefore not so severely punished. The
latter seems to apply to all Victorian and New South Wales tribes.
In the Central tribes charming by magic and subsequent elopement
led to a fight or ordeal, but the matter was apparently not very
serious. Whereas, we read in Roth, Grey, Salvado and Oldfield that
the punishment was death.[149] Nevertheless, as we have come to the
conclusion that these three statements are not quite clear on this
point, we may not take this for granted as a geographical distinction
between the South-Eastern and North-Western (including W. Queensland)
regions. It may be also that abduction of a woman was punished by death
or at any rate more severely in case she belonged to a forbidden class.

     [149] Also Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 108, affirms that elopement
     was usually severely punished and only very seldom
     legalized. He knew only three cases where eloped couples
     were allowed to live together permanently.

In general it may be said that elopement was always punished, and in
the majority of cases afterwards, under certain conditions, legalized
and acknowledged. These conditions are: in the first place that bride
and bridegroom belong to the right class; and then, pregnancy of the
woman or the birth of a child (Kurnai, Yuin); or a victory in the fight
which ensues after the offender has been caught (Kurnai, Yuin, Davis,
Central tribes); or subsequent exchange of a relative (Yuin, L. Murray,
Wakelbura); or a second or third elopement (Kurnai, W. Victoria).
Victory in a combat did not mean that it was by pure force that the
offender kept the woman. For these combats were regulated and often
assumed the form of an ordeal to be undergone (Central and Northern
tribes). It is well to notice that the majority of our informants when
speaking of elopements never observe the point whether the woman was
already married or not.

A few theoretical conclusions from all the facts just enumerated
may now be drawn. We have asked at the outset for all the actual
circumstances, as well as legal factors connected with the modes of
obtaining wives, which express and enforce the validity of marriage. We
asked also how does the mental attitude of the native express itself in
these facts, as far as individual marriage is concerned. Must we admit
that the aborigines have an idea of individual conjugal rights?

In the first place it is quite obvious that according to our
definitions of the word _legal_, the ideas of legal and illegal may
be applied quite legitimately to the Australian marriage. For there
exist different norms, the compliance with which assures to a match its
recognition by society, and actual protection at its hands. Whereas, if
a marriage was brought about outside these legal norms it had either
to be legalized afterwards, whereupon it enjoyed the same privileges,
or it was considered illegal and was interfered with. It appears,
moreover, from all the facts reviewed that it was always a difficult
matter to secure a wife outside the usual forms. The legal norms for
marriage consisted in the bringing about the marriage in one of the
forms discussed above, and consequently in the fulfilment of the series
of conditions, obligations and duties connected therewith. In all
these forms there is involved some kind of control of the social group
concerned, which enforces the mutual obligations, and which in case of
breach of contract had the privilege or the duty of amending the wrong.
In the most frequent form, _i. e._ when a female child is promised in
infancy, her family is under an obligation to keep the arrangement.
Her relatives have not the right to dispose of her otherwise after
they have once promised her (Curr, i. 107), and they must also watch
over her and prevent any attempt at capture or elopement, as they
would have the duty of rescuing her (Curr, Stanbridge). In this case
we are also told that the respective local group would interfere.
The fact that the engagement was made publicly, and so was known and
acknowledged by all the members of the local group and perhaps even
of the whole tribe, emphasized its legal aspect. The cases where the
tribal authority disposed of the girls or had to give consent itself
shows this in a still stronger degree. We see therefore that two social
factors were involved in the legal side of the marriage: the family,
which was responsible for the carrying out of marriage and often for
its maintenance,[150] and the community,[151] which gives its consent
and often controls the right performance of expiatory ordeals. It may
also be remarked that the mere moral sanction, which stamps one act
as right and another as wrong, gives a strong support to the offended
party and paralysed the help that the friends would perhaps like to
give to the offender. Although it is difficult to adduce sufficient
evidence in order to show in detail what were the obligations of
the family and where the tribal supervision began--and it seems that
these matters were possibly settled only roughly and on broad lines
in the Australian society--one thing appears quite clearly from the
whole evidence, viz. that in all tribes only those couples were secure
from any interference who had married according to the legal form or
whose marriage was subsequently legalized. We are informed by Spencer
and Gillen that in some cases (when elopement was brought about by
magic) there were some relatives who were lawfully entitled to help
the eloper. This shows also clearly how little the settlement of these
affairs was arbitrary. Elopement was in this case, and in all others,
considered as a trespass; when it was a girl it was an encroachment on
the rights of the family; when it was a married woman it was an offence
against her husband and also perhaps against her family. According to
circumstances and varying with the tribe, it was considered as a more
or less serious trespass and punished accordingly. In order that an
elopement might result in an acknowledged union, it had to be followed
always and invariably by certain expiatory acts. Even in the case of
capture, we saw in the example given by Spencer and Gillen that the
woman was lawfully allotted to one of the party. Individual capture
seems to occur very seldom; in its legal aspect it would not differ
essentially from the elopement, but it would have had probably less
chances of being made valid.

     [150] Family means here in the first place the father, who
     disposed of his daughter; or in some cases the brother or
     near relative, who got or will get a wife in exchange for
     her.

     [151] Or better, what was called above the tribal
     government.

After the legal aspect of marriage has thus been established, it may
be pointed out that several of the features of Australian marriage
and betrothal set up, besides these legal bonds, other ties which in
themselves lead to the carrying out of marriage, and afterwards keep
husband and wife together.

In the first place, exchange of women. When a man was to receive a
wife in exchange for his relative, it is clear that he felt himself
strongly bound to keep his promise; for he lost as much as his partner
in case he broke the agreement. We saw also that betrothal established
a certain status between the families of the male and the female
respectively. This status, the main feature of which was exchange of
gifts, with a preponderance of the male's gifts and duties, such as
providing food, created certain obligations which further enforced the
validity of the contract.

As pointed out above, we can even find, at least in the Central and
Northern tribes, clear features of marriage by purchase. Equally
important in this light is the fact of exchange of females. This
has its theoretical consequences. The two main facts of collective
psychology, expressed by marriage by purchase, are (1) that there is a
certain value attached to the woman and expressed by the conventional
price; (2) that there is the idea of right of property or at least of
the individual personal right of the husband over his wife, acquired by
him through the fact of purchase. These two facts are very important.
For both these sets of ideas can only have been evolved in a society
where individual marriage was a well-known, well-recognized and
fundamental institution. There would have been no reason to pay for a
wife if the possession of her would confer no positive rights on the
owner.

The following point may also be adduced here, viz. that generally the
old men and other men of influence and power secured the young females
of the tribes. It was easier for influential and important men to
maintain their right over their wives before as well as after actual
possession. Besides, we are informed by all (with the exception of
R. H. Mathews) that the rules of exogamy were very strong, excluding in
the majority of tribes a good number of females from all attempts by
the males of forbidden classes. This undoubtedly contributed also to
increase the security and validity of the marital union, by reducing to
very few the number of the men who were in a position to interfere with
the rights of the husband.

If we now look behind the facts of all these customs, rules and
practices to the underlying social psychology, we see that the idea
of the individual rights of a man to a woman must have been deeply
impressed upon the aboriginal mind. The female, when promised in
infancy, belonged to a certain man, who afterwards took possession
of her. Neither he nor she had a choice; she belonged to him by the
title of obligation; he had no choice, for all the other females were
already distributed. Thus, as infant betrothal was prevalent in the
majority of the tribes, there was a status in which everybody belonged
to somebody or other. At least there were no free females. That such
a state of things is indicative of a deeply-rooted idea of personal,
individual rights over a woman seems clear. If the value of such rights
were not known, nobody would care to secure them so eagerly and so
early, especially as the acquirement of these rights was apparently
never gratuitous. On the other hand, this complete allotment of all
the females of the tribe must have in turn impressed upon the native
mind the idea that marriage is a question of regulated rule, of a
well-established order, and not a question of private initiation and
enterprise. If a man chooses the other way, _i. e._ tries to conquer a
wife, he must be prepared to undergo the consequences of it and thus
expiate for having broken the custom and rule. It must also be borne in
mind that legal norms presuppose the existence, in the society in which
they are in force, of quite clear and definite ideas of the rights
which they involve. It is impossible that in a given society there
would be norms concerning the legality of individual marital rights
without the idea of such individual right being known to the social
mind. In Australia there are such legal norms, as has been shown above.
And _a fortiori_ there must be not only a clear idea of the individual
rights of a man to his wife, but these rights must be highly valued.

Marriage contract in nearly all societies is accompanied by some
ceremonies, which possess in themselves some binding force, generally
of a magical and religious character. This seems to be the case in
Australia too. We are in no place told what in a given ceremony would
have magical power, and how the natives imagine the working of this
power. Nevertheless, we read that in North Central West Queensland
the exchange of fire-sticks is binding, and that among the Euahlayi
the simple promise of a girl does not create any obligation unless
it is strengthened by the act of formal betrothal. It can mean only
that to such acts was attributed some magical power, and that this was
coercive.[152] From whatever form of superstition it may be derived,
it seems beyond doubt that the rudimentary ceremonies described above,
such as exchange of fire-sticks, placing of feathers, joining of
hands publicly, etc., had some inherent force and an importance as
sanctions. They were a form of sacrament. Now I would like to point
out that whenever it happens that a certain legal or social fact is
transformed into a sacrament, _i. e._ is supposed to be accomplished by
the performance of some formality endowed with a supernatural sanction,
we have every reason to suppose that this legal or social fact is very
deeply rooted in the collective mind, that it corresponds to very
inveterate ideas.[153] This seems to be, therefore, also the case in
Australia, where individual marriage has also its kind of sacrament.
This is another fact, another social institution, in which the
collective ideas of the community find their expression. And everywhere
we find not only that the idea of individual marriage exists, but that
it by no means bears the features of anything like recent innovation,
or a subordinate form subservient to the idea of group marriage.
As well in the betrothal ceremonies as in infant engagements, in
the ideas of legality of marriage, exchange of females and purchase
of the wife--in all these facts we find that the aborigines have a
deeply-rooted idea and high appreciation of the individual rights of
the husband to his wife.[154] It is also to be noted that, as Spencer
and Gillen inform us, when a man wished to persuade a woman to elope
with him, he resorted to magic; in this presence of a magical element
lay a certain degree of justification that ensured him the help of some
of his relatives.

     [152] Reasons have been already advanced to support our
     belief that such betrothal ceremonies were in fact more
     frequent than our informants report. Considering now the
     force attached by the natives to what is called infant
     betrothal, we perhaps have another reason to justify this
     supposition.

     [153] There is no room here to discuss this general
     assertion at length. But it may be made plausible
     by pointing out that a certain status must be quite
     fundamental in a society to get the religious sanction (for
     instance monogamy in our country), and that it requires
     undoubtedly a long process in order to transform this
     sanction into a formal act and put into a material form the
     accumulated action of many social forces.

     [154] In what these individual rights consist will be
     discussed in detail below. Evidently it is erroneous,
     though a frequent error, to understand here exclusively the
     sexual rights.

In short the modes of obtaining wives enforced and expressed of
themselves a good deal of the validity of marriage. We have still
to ask if the marriage was binding for both sides or only for the
female. This is an important question and closely connected with the
legal aspect of marriage. For marriage being a kind of obligation,
the question presents itself, whether only one party was bound by
it or both. There is but little direct evidence upon this point in
the statements. Beveridge asserts stoutly the latter; from Dawson's
statement we conclude that the former was the case, as he says that
a man could only under certain conditions repudiate his wife and had
to ask the permission of the Chief. But it must be borne in mind that
marriage had by no means the features of a contract into which both
consorts would enter with mutual agreement. Marriage in Australia
must be much more viewed in the light of a privilege acquired by the
man, and for which, as we saw, he usually has to pay in one way or
the other. It was always a great advantage to a man, both for sexual
and economic reasons, as will be clearly evident in the respective
chapters. The economic advantages persisted even when she grew old
(compare Lumholtz, p. 207). It was therefore scarcely necessary to
compel an individual to fulfil an obligation that was advantageous
to him. It may be therefore said that marriage, being an advantage
for a man--usually acquired by exchange, gifts, or an act of bravery,
sometimes inherited (Levirate)--was an obligation binding on the woman
in the first place. There are practically no reasons to suppose that a
man would ever repudiate a wife. As long as the woman was young, her
husband tried obviously by all means to keep her, and would display all
his personal force and social influence to frustrate any attempt at
abduction. When his wife grew old he would, perhaps, secure a new one
if possible; in two of the few authentic anecdotes told of the natives
a man is represented as possessing one old wife and another quite young
(see Grey, _loc. cit._, ii. pp. 350-361, and Curr, _Recollections_,
pp. 141-145); there was no reason to repudiate the old one, as she would
go on working and providing food for her husband.

In the statements referring to treatment of women, there will be
some which show that husbands sometimes displayed a great affection
towards their old wives. Moreover, Mr. Mathew's statement (on p. 73)
mentions explicitly that marriage bonds lasted usually for life; Roth
and Lumholtz inform us that great respect was often paid to old women,
consequently it can hardly be supposed that they were cast off by their
husbands as useless. We must also remember that usually there was a
great disparity of age between the husband and wife. As infant children
were often betrothed to mature men, when they reached puberty their
husbands were quite old already. Such a woman was kept until the death
of her husband, when she fell to the lot of his younger brother or the
nearest relative (tribal brother) who wished to keep her.

The practice of the Levirate seems to be very widespread.[155] To
us it seems to be in the first place the expression of the idea of
complete right of a man over his wife. With his death this right was
not extinguished, but only passed to his nearest relative. If she were
elderly she would probably become the property of a young boy, as these
were usually deprived of wives. Such couples--of which one was quite
young and the other more than mature--seem to be very frequent. In
these cases marriage lasted till the death of the older party. From
this it may be concluded that it was the husband's interest to keep his
wife. As to the latter, the only way in which she could have dissolved
the marriage bonds appears to be by finding a protector with whom to
elope. This undoubtedly occurred from time to time. But then it was
not a simple pacific dissolution of marriage, only an act of violence,
always pursued with varying vehemence, as shown above.

     [155] Howitt, _S.E. Tr._, pp. 193, 224, 227, 236, 248,
     Kulin tribe, p. 255; Yuin tribe, p. 266; Kurnai tribe,
     _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 204; _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118;
     Wotjobaluk, Wakelbura, Turribul, _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118;
     J. Dawson, p. 27; _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170 (Gason on the
     Dieri); _Ibid._, p. 194 (Inspector Foelsche on the Pt.
     Darwin tribes); Lumholtz, pp. 160, 161; Salvado, p. 278.

From all this we may conclude that marriage was not as a rule an
ephemeric occurrence among the Australian natives. In the majority of
cases it lasted for life; anyhow, for a long period. To supply here
the _experimentum crucis_, let us quote some contradictory instances.
Lumholtz says that the women usually change their husbands so often
that the children do not generally know their fathers and never grow
very attached to them (_loc. cit._, p. 193; comp. below, p. 245).
Salvado, speaking of the unhappy lot of an aboriginal beauty, mentions
that she has very often to pass from hand to hand, being continually
coveted and captured by some new lover who is stronger than her actual
possessor. The same is related by Grey. Lumholtz's cursory statement is
not explicit enough to enable us to judge whether it were not formed
from observations of "civilized blacks." He was only a short time
in personal contact with the natives, and what he gathered from the
settlers applied probably in the main to blacks corrupted by contact
with civilization. Salvado's and Grey's information applies only to
exceptional cases when the belle excited special passions by her
personal charms. Besides, from all we know, elopement, and still more
capture, were not every-day occurrences which would follow each other
in the case of the same woman. On the contrary, if an exceptionally
desirable woman were taken away by some strong and influential
aggressor from her lawful husband, the former would have power enough,
personal and social, to retain her, if he had enough to secure her.
That elopements occurred and that they were more frequent in the case
of a beautiful and useful woman is beyond doubt. Still the picture that
we would form from these three statements does not seem to fit the
framework of the other facts.

The question as to the length of the normal duration of the Australian
marriage is a very important one. And, unhappily, the scanty
evidence does not allow of a sufficiently clear and detailed answer.
Nevertheless, the few statements that say anything about this matter
point to a lifelong duration, or at least to a long period of marriage.
At any rate the view often expressed that the primitive pairing family
is a highly unstable unit, formed and dissolved very frequently,
according to the whim of the moment, without any serious obligation
for a longer duration of the common life--this view appears absolutely
denied by the Australian evidences. It is impossible to find a direct
answer in the evidence to the question whether the general rule was
duration for life, or whether, after the wife became useless both
sexually and economically, she was repudiated. But our short discussion
pointed rather to the first view. Moreover, if marriage were not a
serious matter and if it were possible to form and dissolve it without
further ado, all its features set forth in this chapter (legality,
actual obligations, purchase, etc.) would be absolutely unnecessary; in
fact they would be quite unintelligible. In such a low society as the
Australian especially, when an institution (here individual marriage)
shows so many aspects, even in a rudimentary state, it proves that
this institution has a very firm basis. As the act that brought about
marriage was usually one of importance and subject to many conditions,
so also an attempt to dissolve it was grave in itself and in its
consequences.

Now let us summarize our results in a few words. Marriage was brought
about as a rule in the form of infant betrothal, which was binding on
both parties; it was accompanied by the exchange of relatives; always
there were certain mutual obligations. In cases when a man secured a
wife without her family's approval (but usually with her own consent),
this act was considered a trespass, both in the cases of a girl and of
a married woman. The couple was pursued, and unless the elopement was
in some way expiated and legalized, both were punished. The idea of
legality may be safely applied to Australian marriage in all its forms.
For in all there was the necessity of a previous or subsequent sanction
of society, and if this were absent society used actually to interfere
with the union. The idea of the individuality of marriage was also
quite clear to the aboriginal mind and expressed itself in many of the
facts connected with the marriage contract. It may be added that it was
only in marriage by elopement that the man and woman had a free choice.
In all the normal cases neither of them had any voice in the matter at
the time of actual marriage.




CHAPTER III

HUSBAND AND WIFE


It may be said that marriage in either of its forms makes the woman
the property of her husband. We must, of course, carefully define the
word "property." This we shall do by analyzing the economic duties of
the woman, the sexual rights of the husband, and in general, the limits
of marital authority, and the features of the treatment applied by a
native to his wife. As the economic aspect will be better described
below, in connection with the family life in general (including
relations of parents to children), I shall here pass briefly over this
point, remarking that the economic function of a wife is most important
in the aboriginal life. She has to provide the regular food supply, to
undertake the drudgery of camp life, the care of the children and all
household implements, especially on marches. There remains the sexual
aspect of marital life and the authority of the husband, including the
treatment of the wife.

Let us turn to the latter question and pass in review some statements
illustrating the general character of the marital relations; the limits
of the husband's authority and power; the actual use he makes of his
authority, _i. e._ the treatment of the family; and last, but not
least, what idea may be deduced from our evidence as to the feelings
of the two consorts towards each other. On this subject few reliable
statements will be found, and even these will be rather contradictory.
And it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. We are asking
here not for a report of plain facts, but for a judgment on more or
less complicated and hidden phenomena; this refers especially to the
psychical side of the question, _i. e._ to the problem of conjugal
affection. But even the other aspects of the problem--authority and
treatment--although they are but a sum of facts, are always given in
the form of vague general assertions and in that of qualified judgments.

Very few writers trouble at all about the deeper, underlying phenomena.
What they see is the way in which a woman is treated by her husband;
they often judge this way according to their own moral principles and
sensitiveness. They forget that, using the words of Messrs. Spencer
and Gillen, "what would cause very serious pain to a civilized woman
only results in trifling discomfort to a savage." For all these reasons
there will be more scope for corrections in these statements than in
the series given above.

  _Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai there were certain limits to the
  husband's authority: "Although a man might kill his wife under
  certain circumstances, and his act would be then approved by custom
  and by public opinion, yet, under other circumstances, he might not
  do so without incurring blood feud."[156] All the duties of the
  family were "shared equally" by man and woman.[157] This statement,
  as to the limits of authority, is in agreement with all we shall
  find afterwards: nobody and nothing could interfere with the
  husband if he ill-treated his wife, unless her life was threatened.
  Then her relatives intervened. What the expression of "sharing
  the duties" means, is not quite clear. If it refers to economic
  functions, we shall have a better picture later; but it stands as
  a contrast to such expressions as "slave" or "drudge," used in
  connection with the wife's rôle by so many writers. In another
  place Howitt says: "I have known many instances ... including
  several cases among the Kurnai, of men carrying their wives about
  the country when too old or too sick to walk."[158] This would
  point to a great affection, not only resulting from erotic motives,
  but from real attachment, such as unites human beings who have
  lived and suffered much together.

     [156] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 206.

     [157] See below on economic side of family life.

     [158] _Nat. Tr._, p. 766.

  Among the Bangerang "community of interests between man and wife
  is much less than amongst civilized people. The husband gorges
  himself before he gives the rest of his food to his wife. He is a
  constant check on her free will and inclinations. She regards him
  more as her master and enemy than as her mate. But as she is not
  very sensitive, and educated to her lot, she bears it patiently,
  and after a year or two she is happy on the whole."[159]

     [159] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 259.

  Speaking of the Australian aborigines in general, Curr says:[160]
  "The husband is almost an autocrat. His wife he may ill-treat as
  he chooses. In rare instances he will exchange her for another,
  repudiate, or give her away." He may not kill her; her relatives
  would kill the first of his blood. "Otherwise the husband may treat
  his wife as he likes." "The husband is the absolute owner of his
  wife. He may do as he pleases with her, treat her well or brutally,
  ill-use her at his pleasure; keep her to himself, prostitute her,
  exchange her for another, or give her away." But he adds, "Yet ...
  they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented."

     [160] _A.R._, i. pp. 60, 110. Curr knew personally only
     the Bangerang tribe, and some others in North Victoria
     (Glenbourn and Murray tribes), and his general observations
     must be taken as framed on this material, as he does
     not seem to be sufficiently aware of how many and deep
     differences there might be between different tribes.

  Amongst some West Victorian tribes, "notwithstanding this drudgery
  and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there
  is no want of affection amongst the members of a family."[161]
  The author speaks even of "persistent disrespect and unkindness"
  of a wife towards her husband;[162] he speaks also of women being
  "legally separated"[163] from their husbands; and of magic charms
  worked by husbands for punishment of their wives;[164] all this
  would point rather to a regulated and less brutal treatment. Here
  we have the usual concurrence of "hard usage" and affection.
  Characteristic is the addition of "apparent" to "hard usage." It
  is, perhaps, the whole style of treatment which appears to be hard
  to a European observer: the scale is shifted, but undoubtedly the
  nervous system of the natives is less responsive, too. What Dawson
  says about separation and husbands recurring to magic to influence
  their wives, seems to speak still more in favour of the good
  position of women. But we must remember, that in his whole book,
  Dawson uses rather bright colours to picture the native character,
  and tries never to say anything that could shock a European reader.

     [161] Dawson, p. 37.

     [162] _Ibid._, p. 36.

     [163] _Ibid._, pp. 35, 36.

     [164] _Ibid._, p. 36.

  Bonney asserts that "quarrels between husband and wife are rare,
  and they show much affection for each other in their own way."
  Apparent coolness in their relations is required by custom. He
  gives an example of a couple who "loved each other," and did not
  even greet after a long absence.[165] According to the statement
  the treatment of women was fairly good, and there was also no want
  of mutual affection.

     [165] _Loc. cit._, p. 130.

  Angas writes that among the aborigines, whom he had under
  observation (Lower Murray tribes), the man walks proudly in front,
  the woman following him; she is treated like a slave, and during
  meals receives bones and fragments like a dog.[166]

     [166] _Loc. cit._, i. pp. 82, 83.

  About some of the Lower Murray natives we are told by Eyre, "But
  little real affection exists between husbands and wives." "Women
  are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands," "beaten about the
  head with waddies," "speared in the limbs," etc. Here we have
  bad treatment based on absolute authority and complete want of
  affection. Besides, we are told, "each father of a family rules
  absolutely over his own circle."[167]

     [167] _Loc. cit._, ii. pp. 321, 322.

  A statement of Mitchell (quoted by B. Smyth, i. p. 85), suggests
  that there could not be much affection between husband and wife.
  "... After a battle they (the women) do not always follow the
  fugitives from the field, but not infrequently go over, as a matter
  of course, to the victors, even with young children on their
  backs."[168] This statement sounds not very trustworthy. We never
  hear of open battles, in which fugitives would leave the camp
  unprotected. Besides, even if affection would not bind them to
  the "fugitives," would fear of the stranger and enemy not act in
  this direction? Little weight must be, therefore, attached to this
  evidence.

     [168] This statement refers, probably, to the Murray and
     Darling River tribes, without any exact localization.

  Taplin, about the Narrinyeri, says that sometimes the treatment of
  women by their husbands is very bad; but this is not always the
  case. "I have known as well-matched and loving couples amongst the
  aborigines as I have amongst Europeans."[169] This last comparison
  shows that the ill-treatment was not a clearly distinctive feature
  of the aboriginal married life.

     [169] _Loc. cit._, p. 12.

  The Encounter Bay tribe (Narrinyeri) regarded the wives "more
  as slaves than in any other light."[170] This statement implies
  lack of affection, absolute authority, and probably bad treatment.
  Nevertheless, we cannot be content with such a metaphorical and
  peremptory phrase on such an important subject. It is, therefore,
  useless, and adduced only as an example of how different and
  contradictory the statement of even good informants may be.

     [170] H. E. A. Meyer in Woods, p. 191.

  We are told of a case, where a black woman of the Murrumbidgee
  River tribe, who lived in marital relations with a white
  bushranger, evinced for him the greatest affection and attachment,
  and even several times helped him to escape justice with great
  self-sacrifice. Although she was ill-treated by him in the most
  brutal and revolting way, nothing could alter her feelings.[171]
  This example may serve as an illustration of how attached a black
  woman may be to her husband, even if he ill-treats her.

     [171] Bennett, pp. 248, 249.

  An account of the brutality of a woman's treatment is given by
  Tench (referring to the Port Jackson blacks). "But, indeed, the
  women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned
  not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet
  in return for submission only with blows, kicks, and every other
  mark of brutality."[172] But Tench's statements do not appear to go
  very deeply below the surface of superficial observations.

     [172] _Loc. cit._, pp. 199, 200.

  The same author in another place adduces the wounds and scars of
  women as examples of "ill-treatment."[173] How much weight is to be
  attached to such an inference is well known, after the explanation
  given by Spencer and Gillen.[174] I adduce this statement as one
  which is obviously unreliable, at the same time being typical of a
  whole class of statements based upon insufficient and superficial
  observations.

     [173] _Loc. cit._, p. 181.

     [174] Compare their statement below.

  Interesting is what Turnbull says in his old account: "The women
  appear to attach themselves faithfully to their husbands thus
  chosen: they are exceedingly jealous of them."[175]

     [175] Turnbull, J., p. 99 (concerning some tribes of New
     South Wales, probably of the neighbourhood of Port Jackson).

  C. P. Hodgson,[176] speaking of some New South Wales tribes, says
  that _gins_ were slaves of their men and had all the drudgery of
  camp. The misleading term "slave" is of little use to us.

     [176] _Loc. cit._, p. 217; compare p. 208.

  According to Collins, in the Port Jackson tribes the father enjoyed
  absolute authority over his family.[177]

     [177] Collins, i. p. 544.

  Dr. John Fraser[178] speaks of the bad treatment of the woman by
  her husband amongst the natives of New South Wales. Further he
  says: "In spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married
  couples often live happily and affectionately together...."[179]

     [178] _Abor. N.S.W._, p. 2. This work is not written by a
     first-hand observer; I quote his opinion because the writer
     seems to have got sometimes good personal information, and
     to be an able compiler.

     [179] _Ibid._, p. 35.

  G. W. Rusden writes:[180] "... a man had power of life and death
  over his wife." This asserts absolute authority; we know, that as a
  rule, the man had not the power of death over his wife unless she
  proved especially guilty.

     [180] _Loc. cit._, p. 283. The tribes in question are the
     Geawe Gal, New South Wales, Hunter River.

  Rob. Dawson relates of the Port Stephens blacks, that they treated
  their wives very badly--with club and spear.[181]

     [181] _Loc. cit._, pp. 66, 67.

  Hodgkinson remarks that the women are better treated in the
  River MacLeay tribes than among the other tribes he had under
  observation.[182] This may point to a real difference in the
  treatment of women among different tribes, or to the fact that the
  other tribes which Hodgkinson might have observed were nearer the
  settlements, and therefore more degenerate.

     [182] _Loc. cit._, p. 229.

  As to the Euahlayi, Mrs. Parker remarks only: "In books about
  blacks, you always read of the subjection of the women, but I have
  seen henpecked black husbands."[183] This statement, which implies
  that bad treatment was not universal, is inexact and therefore of
  little use.

     [183] _Loc. cit._, p. 58.

  We read about the Central Australian tribes of Finke River: "Some
  married couples agree very well, live frequently quite alone in
  solitude, and together provide for their wants."[184] The wives are
  only ill-treated in case they elope.

     [184] L. Schultze, p. 237.

  "The women are certainly not treated usually with anything which
  could be called excessive harshness" among the Aruntas.[185] Only
  in cases of infidelity "the treatment of the woman is marked by
  brutal and often revolting severity."[186] The same is repeated of
  the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[187] We are also told
  that the scars that the majority of women possess are due, not to
  the barbarity of their husbands, but to the mourning ceremonies,
  during which the women beat and wound themselves severely. And the
  authors conclude: "Taking everything into account, however, the
  life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of
  her requirements ... is far from being the miserable one that it is
  so often pictured."[188] For what would be a severe pain to a white
  woman is for them merely a trifling discomfort.

     [185] Spencer & Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 50.

     [186] _Ibid._

     [187] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 32, 33.

     [188] _Nor. Tr._, p. 33.

  We read in Barron Field, on the authority of two shipwrecked men,
  who spent some time among the natives of Moreton Bay, that the
  women are there usually well treated by their husbands.[189]

     [189] _Loc. cit._, p. 66.

  Another analogous statement is given on the Moreton Bay tribes:
  "The wife is rather the drudge or slave, than the companion of her
  husband." This (although badly formulated) means bad treatment and
  lack of affection as well. But we read further on that cruelty is
  perpetrated usually under the effect of rum; this corroborates our
  supposition made in connection with Lumholtz's statement. And we
  learn yet: "but instances also of warm and deep affection are not
  infrequent."[190] And the author confirms it by an example.

     [190] J. D. Lang, p. 337.

  Among the Kabi and Wakka: "Husbands were usually affectionate to
  their wives, but when angered they were often brutal, thrashing
  them unmercifully with waddies, sometimes breaking their limbs and
  cracking their skulls. Still the conjugal bond generally held out
  for a lifetime."[191]

     [191] J. Mathew, p. 153.

  Lumholtz says: "The women are the humble servants or rather slaves
  of the native."[192] The women are ill-treated in the most cruel
  manner; he gives an example of a wife being awfully maltreated for
  a trifle.[193] But this happened among "civilized blacks." If she
  elopes she may be even killed. But sometimes they are examples of
  loving couples.[194] In another place we read of love and jealousy
  and of the great affection they are capable of;[195] and an example
  thereof is given. This statement suggests to us that much of the
  ill-treatment was due perhaps to the "civilization" of the blacks.

     [192] Lumholtz, p. 100.

     [193] _Ibid._, p. 161.

     [194] _Ibid._, p. 163.

     [195] _Ibid._, p. 213.

  An analogous statement in this regard is given by Palmer,
  concerning the tribes of Upper Flinders and Cloncurry River. The
  lot of the women is hard and they are often treated with club
  and spear. There are, nevertheless, happy and mutually regardful
  couples.[196]

     [196] Palmer, p. 28.

  Roth says[197] that among the North-West Queensland tribes the
  man has absolute authority over his wife. In another place we are
  informed, that "in the case of a man killing his own gin, he has
  to deliver one of his own sisters" to be put to death. And "... a
  wife has always her 'brothers' to look after her interests." Thus,
  in some extreme cases, the husband's authority seems to be limited
  by his wife's kindred, who protect her.

     [197] Bull. 8, p. 6.

  The women among the Cape York natives are reported to have a very
  hard life, but occasionally there exists a strong attachment
  between a married couple.[198]

     [198] Macgillivray, ii. pp. 8, 9.

  In West Australia the man is said to possess a full and inheritable
  right over his wife.[199] Grey says that they have very much to
  suffer, especially from the jealousy of their masters.[200] The
  authority of the husband appears also in the story, told in Chapter
  XVII, where the husband inflicts a severe beating on his two wives;
  nevertheless, he seems to display also a certain affection for them
  and great care, protecting them as far as possible.[201]

     [199] Grey, ii. p. 230.

     [200] _Ibid._, pp. 248, 249.

     [201] Compare Grey, ii. chap. xvii. p. 350, especially
     pp. 353, 354; point 3, p. 359.

  We learn from Bishop Salvado that: "La méthode qu'il [the husband]
  emploie pour la [his wife] corriger est si barbare, qu'il arrive
  bien souvent que ... il lui traverse une jambe de son Ghici, il
  lui casse la tête de son Danac et lui prodigue mainte autre
  tendresse de ce genre,"[202] in cases of jealousy. In general
  "L'état d'esclavage dans lequel toutes sont retenues est vraiment
  déplorable. La seule présence de leurs maris les fait trembler, et
  la mauvais humeur de ceux-ci se décharge souvent sur elles par des
  coups et des blessures."[203] The barbarous modes of treatment are
  well known to us; what is more important is the great fear they are
  said to have of their husbands. But, in another place, the same
  author speaks of tender and affectionate couples: "I love her and
  she loves me"[204] as a native said to him. So this statement seems
  not so contradictory after all with all the others, although it
  contradicts itself.

     [202] _Loc. cit._, p. 279. (Tribes of South-west Australia,
     New Nurcia, Melbourne and Swan districts.)

     [203] _Ibid._

     [204] _Ibid._, p. 278.

  Among the natives of King George's Sound the women are generally
  very ill-treated by their husbands. But in spite of that they do
  not lack affection and often quarrel among themselves, taking the
  part of their respective husbands.[205]

     [205] Browne, p. 450.

Here we have a great diversity of statements and much contradiction.
We read of barbarous ill-treatment and of deep affection; of drudgery
and slavery imposed on wives, and of henpecked husbands; of fugitive
men having recourse to magic, and of women mercilessly chastised,
prostituted, and so on. Some statements contradict themselves. All this
shows, in the first place, that our authors were lost in the diversity
of facts and could not give an adequate generalization, which should
picture for us the characteristic features of this relation (between
husband and wife) as they distinguish it from the same relation in
other societies. In fact, a good characterization of a given phenomena
can be obtained only by comparing it with other phenomena of the same
kind found under different conditions. Otherwise the observer will
invariably note that aspect of the phenomenon which struck him most
strongly, and not the one that is objectively the most characteristic,
as is found in the present case. This is the more evident in that we do
find a few statements (Howitt on Kurnai, Spencer and Gillen's remark
on the Central tribes, J. Mathew), which contain all the apparently
contradictory elements found in the other statements, but harmonized
with one another. From these few consistent statements it appears that,
although the husband had a nearly unlimited authority, and in some
cases, when he had special reasons (and undoubtedly deemed himself to
be within his rights), he might use his authority for a very brutal and
severe chastisement, nevertheless, there was usually a mutual fondness
and kindness. Taking this picture as a standard, it is possible to
understand and make consistent all the other statements if we assume
that they exaggerate some of the traits of the general picture.[206]

     [206] Illustrating this point is a passage in Nieboer's
     _Slavery_ (pp. 9 _sqq._) bearing very closely on our
     subject. His aim is to discuss whether the position of
     the wife in Australia may be characterized as slavery.
     He arranges the evidence in two contrasting sets: in
     the first he gathers all shadows of the picture, in the
     second the bright spots. So he adduces several instances
     which show that the girl has no voice in the choice of
     her husband; and, on the other hand, he shows that from
     a series of other statements it may be inferred that
     the girl often marries according to her feelings. (In
     our discussion of the modes of obtaining wives, we saw
     that when betrothed normally, by engagement in infancy,
     neither the girl nor, practically, her husband choose in
     the true sense of the word. Whereas marriage by elopement
     is brought about by mutual consent. These two forms of
     marriage would correspond therefore to Nieboer's two
     contradictory series.) Under the second heading, Nieboer
     gathers statements as to barbarous treatment and want of
     affection on one hand, and of affection and rights of the
     woman on the other. Under the third heading the economic
     duties and the importance of the woman are discussed, one
     set of information exaggerating it, the other reducing
     it to small proportions (we shall treat this subject
     beneath). Nieboer's computation is very interesting as an
     illustration of how one can prove _pro_ and _contra_ from
     ethnographical material, even while confining oneself to
     a limited area and subject. All the series of statements
     collected in this book are further examples of the same
     fact. As a result of his discussion, Nieboer dismisses of
     course the term "slave" used by many writers to designate
     the woman's position in Australia.

But we can make still better use of our evidence by asking some
definite questions and seeing how far we get a clear answer to
them. And we shall see that if, in this way, the whole picture be
analytically divided into sections, the evidence will yield a quite
unambiguous answer on some important points concerning the relation
between man and wife in the Australian aboriginal society.

The first inquiry is into the legal aspect of the husband's authority.
In accordance with our definition of "legal," we shall try to ascertain
to what extent the relationship of man and wife was left to follow its
natural course; at what point society interfered; and what form this
intervention assumed.

After the question of authority has been answered, that of treatment
will be dealt with. The legal authority gives us only a knowledge of
the limits which society set to the husband's ill-treatment. But even
if his freedom went very far, and if he was not compelled from outside
to a certain standard of good treatment, he might feel compelled to it
by his own affection.

Therefore we are led, in the third place, to ask the psychological
question concerning mutual feelings between husband and wife.
Affection is, of course, the most important, fundamental characteristic
of any intimate personal relationship between two people. But it is,
at the same time, rather difficult to give any more detailed answer on
that point, when it is a question of savages whom no one has intimately
studied from this point of view, and of whose psychology we have only a
very slight idea. More cannot be expected than to get an answer to the
quite general question: Is there anything like affection between the
consorts, or is their relation based only on the fear of the woman of
her husband? I would also remark that these three points--affection,
treatment, and authority--although closely related, may be separately
analysed, as each of them is of a different character: affection is
a psychological, authority is a social factor; the treatment, being
a result of them both, must be investigated separately, as we cannot
foretell from either of its components the form it will assume; on the
other hand, it is precisely from the treatment that we can best judge
of the affection.

_1. Authority._--It seems beyond doubt that in the aboriginal society
the husband exercised almost complete authority over his wife; she
was entirely in his hands and he might ill-treat her, provided he did
not kill her. Out of our thirty statements, in six cases (Kurnai,
Bangerang, Lower Murray tribes, according to Bonney, Geawe-Gal,
Port Jackson tribes, North-west Central Queenslanders) the absolute
authority of the husband is explicitly affirmed. We read in them
either the bare statement that the husband had an absolute power over
his family; or, in the better of them, we are more exactly informed
that he had only to abstain from inflicting death on his wife. It
was the latter's kinsman who would avenge her (Kurnai, Bangerang,
North-west Central Queenslanders). It is difficult to ascertain in
what form society would interfere with the husband if he transgressed
the limits of his legal authority, _i. e._ killed his wife. Curr
informs us that the woman's relatives would avenge her death. Howitt
says that there would ensue a blood feud, which comes nearly to the
same. It is very probable that the woman's kin retained some rights
of protection.[207] The remaining statements implicitly declare that
the husband's authority was very extensive. (Encounter Bay tribes
according to Meyer; New South Wales tribes according to Hodgson; Port
Stephens tribes according to R. Dawson; Arunta; Herbert River tribes;
Queenslanders according to Palmer; Moreton Bay tribes according to
J. D. Lang; South-Western tribes according to Salvado; West Australians
according to Grey.) It is clear that wherever we read of excessive
harshness and bad treatment, wounds, blows inflicted on women, the
husband must possess the authority to do it; in other words, he
does not find any social barrier preventing him from ill-treatment.
Especially as, in these statements, such ill-treatment is mentioned
to be the rule and not an exception. In two statements we can gather
no information on this point. According to the statement of J. Dawson
on the West Victoria tribes, the husband's authority appears strictly
limited by the potential intervention of the chief, who could even
divorce the woman if she complained. But Curr warns us against Dawson's
information concerning the chief and his power.[208] Curr's arguments
appear to be very conclusive. Too much weight cannot be attached,
therefore, to Dawson's exceptional statement. Discarding it, we see
that we have on this point fairly clear information. We may assume
that society interfered but seldom with the husband, in fact, only in
the extreme case of his killing his wife. Six statements are directly,
and the remainder indirectly, in favour of this view, and the only one
contradictory is not very trustworthy.

     [207] Compare N. W. Thomas, p. 19.

     [208] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 53 _sqq._

But is there nothing in this assumption that would appear to contradict
other well-established features of Australian social life? Against
the husband's authority there could only be the intervention of the
Central Tribal Authority or of the woman's kin. But the former was not
strong enough to enter into questions concerning the private life of a
married couple. The Tribal Government probably had to deal only with
grave offences against the welfare of the whole tribe. And we never
hear that it interfered with any household questions. The woman's kin,
on the other hand, seems to have waived nearly all its rights over the
woman (compare also above what had been said about the betrothal).
Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it was the woman's kin who eventually
intervened. It must also be borne in mind that as marriages were,
without exception, patrilocal,[209] the wife was far away from her
family, and, therefore, much less likely to be protected by her
relatives. And, as we shall see below, when discussing the aboriginal
mode of living, the single families live in considerable isolation, so
that it would appear rather difficult to assume any intervention from
outside in matters of family life. It appears, therefore, that all the
circumstances on which family life depends point very clearly to, and
are in complete agreement with, our assumption of a very extensive
authority of the husband over his wife (or wives), limited only in some
extreme cases by the kin of the woman.

     [209] See N. W. Thomas, p. 16.

2. Passing now to the other point: how far does the husband make use
of his power? in other words, how does he usually _treat_ his wife?
Without entering more in detail into the motives that regulate his
conduct, it is clear that even if we know his authority, we by no
means know how he usually used or misused it. Here our impression when
reading the evidence is undoubtedly that the general way in which wives
are treated in aboriginal Australia is a very barbarous one. In fact,
out of our thirty statements, fourteen speak more or less explicitly of
barbarism, slavery, wounds and scars, etc. Only seven assert that the
average treatment is a fairly good one and that bad treatment is only
a consequence of certain trespasses, which are considered punishable
and consequently punished. The remaining nine statements say that
treatment is sometimes good, sometimes bad, or do not say anything
about the subject. But in this case it is apparently needful to give a
more careful consideration of the quality of the information than of
its quantity. In fact, four[210] out of the seven of the authorities
who affirm good treatment are very clear and explicit, and their
statements are consequently quite consistent with themselves; two of
them are, besides, our best authorities. Schultze and Bonney seem also
in general to be quite trustworthy. From the other part of our evidence
(that which asserts barbarous ill-treatment) only three are fairly
reliable (Curr, Salvado, and, to a certain extent, Eyre). But even
these are not so consistent with themselves: they affirm, that in spite
of the barbarous ill-treatment, the women seem to be rather happy. If
they were happy as a rule, it means that this ill-treatment did not
appear to them cruel, and that they did not suffer under its atrocity.
Consequently that it was only apparently bad (the same expression is
used by Dawson, _loc. cit._) in the eyes of the observers, and was not
bad as measured by the standard of native sensitiveness. The statement
of Spencer and Gillen confirms this view explicitly. The statements
affirming bad treatment (Curr, Salvado, Eyre, etc.) do not distinguish
the important point whether this ill-treatment was a punishment or
not; whether it was inflicted only in definite cases where, according
to the unwritten tribal law, the wife was guilty of an offence, or
whether it was inflicted in fits of bad temper and ungracious mood.
This distinction is very important; in the first case the husband would
have only, so to say, an executive power of the collective, customary
will, and his bad treatment would be only an act of justice; in the
second case he would have been a real tyrant and his ill-treatment a
mere act of brutality. This remark has also an important connection
with the problem of authority discussed above. Howitt's statement, as
well as Spencer and Gillen's, points very clearly to the fact that
the ill-treatment was only an act of justice (from the aboriginal
point of view). Mathew, on the other hand, explicitly says that the
ill-treatment was caused by fits of anger. The other statements keep
silence on the point. Some of them speak, indeed, of a purely arbitrary
harshness without any reason, but this refers to "civilized blacks,"
especially under the influence of rum and other white man's vices.

     [210] Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, F. Bonney, and L. Schultze.

There is a point that must not be forgotten in dealing with this
question. The majority of observations were made on degenerated blacks
(such as were in missions, raised on farms, in the service of white
men, etc.). These blacks may have had quite different manners and
customs from those of the aborigines in their primitive state. And
their manners were not changed in the direction of amelioration, but
the reverse. This conclusion is corroborated by an interesting passage
in Howitt.[211] This author says that examples of alleged contempt and
discourtesy of a man to his wife, as _e. g._ a man gorging himself
with meat and throwing only a bone to his wife, may be partly "the
consequence of the 'new rule' under the influence of civilization."
They sometimes express customary rules of magic origin and are no
sign of contempt at all. And the author adds that when he had the
opportunity of observing the blacks for a week in more primitive
conditions, "this week passed without a single quarrel or dispute."
This all shows that, in case of contradiction, we may suppose that the
statements affirming unusual ill-treatment are affected by errors due
to bad material, insufficient observation, and false inference, rather
than that the statements of kindness are exaggerated.

     [211] _Nat. Tr._, p. 777.

It would be interesting to note what effect the widespread practice
of exchange of relatives (see above) had on the treatment of
wives. Naturally it might be supposed that for his own sisters' (or
relatives') sake every man would probably be more lenient towards his
wife. But as Mr. Thomas justly pointed out, the exchange of females may
be conceived also in the light of a certain family giving up its rights
to a female, and receiving another one in exchange.[212] It would be,
therefore, difficult to say anything _a priori_ on this influence. A
phrase quoted by Curr suggests that the former assumption would be
nearer to truth. A black said once to him, speaking about his sister
given in exchange for his wife: "If he beats my sister I shall beat my
wife." Whether this common-sense idea of justice prevailed in general
in the aboriginal mind it would be difficult to decide without further
knowledge. But possibly exchange of females was also a cause of the
amelioration of the woman's lot.

     [212] _Loc. cit._, p. 20.

To sum up shortly, we have ten against four statements in favour of
indiscriminate ill-treatment of wives. But, if we reduce both these
figures by using only reliable ones, we have four against three in
favour of good treatment. By closer analysis we find that ill-treatment
is--in the primitive state of the aboriginal society--in most cases
probably a form of regulated intra-family justice; and that although
the methods of treatment in general are very harsh, still they are
applied to much more resistant natures and should not be measured by
the standard of our ideas and our nerves. For otherwise we should not
understand how the feature of happiness, which is reported by nearly
all our informants, could be present.

3. These considerations directly lead us up to an answer to our last
question, viz. whether there is a kind of _mutual affection_ or whether
there is only the power of the man, and the legal factors, that bind
the consorts together. In the first place, it is well to bear in mind
that in this respect there must have been a great variety of cases
corresponding to the characters of the individuals concerned. We only
ask here, therefore, the quite general question whether, as implied in
some statements, there was an absolute absence of any kind of personal
feeling in all Australian families and the wife considered her husband
as her master only and her natural enemy, she being merely his slave.
But here we find also that the few statements (Curr, Eyre, Meyer,
Mitchell) that imply such an opinion are not very clear and explicit
(in this category we include all the statements as to slavery and
drudgery which can possibly embrace not only the treatment itself but
the underlying feelings); whereas there are ten statements (Howitt,
Bonney, Dawson, Lumholtz, J. D. Lang, Salvado, Turnbull, Grey, Mathew,
Macgillivray)[213] which affirm that there is real affection between
husband and wife. Some of them come from our most reliable writers and
are very explicit (Howitt, Bonney, Lumholtz, Salvado). As what has been
said of the treatment refers indirectly to this point (for treatment
is regulated by personal feelings and not by tribal authority), we may
say that the assumption of a complete lack of any feelings of affection
or attachment does not seem very plausible. That these feelings would
show themselves in another way than in our society seems beyond doubt.
But that they would be completely absent and their places taken only
by fear and awe--that is not in agreement with our evidence. Even
judging on this question _a priori_, we could hardly suppose that
there would be a complete absence of all factors that tend to create
mutual affection between consorts. In the first place we may remember
that in many cases the motive of sexual love was not absent from the
aboriginal marriages. This was apparently always the case in marriages
by elopement, which occurred in all tribes and was, under certain
conditions, a legal and recognized form of contracting marriage. In
the cases when, following infant betrothal and other circumstances,
the husband was much older than his wife, the motive of sexual love
was probably not reciprocal, but it would operate as a cause for more
tender feelings on the part of the males. In the second place, it
must be remembered that there are no reasons why the blacks should be
completely alien to the feelings of attachment. Husband and wife lived
more or less completely separated from the community, forming a more
or less isolated unit (see below, on the mode of living). They had
many interests in common, and, this being the strongest bond, they had
common children to whom they were usually much attached.

     [213] For examples of conjugal affection see also an
     article written by a "bushman" and one of the members of
     Leichhard's Expedition. _Science of Man_, 1904, p. 47.

To sum up this chapter, it may be said that the husband had a well-nigh
complete authority over his wife; that he treated her in harmony with
the low standard of culture, harshly, but not excessively harshly; that
apparently the more tender feelings of love, affection and attachment
were not entirely absent from the aboriginal household. But it must be
added that, on these two last points, the information is contradictory
and insufficient.


MOURNING AND BURIAL CEREMONIES

Among the duties and obligations which determine the relationship
of husband and wife, there are some which may be mentioned in this
place. I mean the customs and rites connected with mourning. Mourning
expresses a whole complex of feelings and ideas, of which two sets are
important here, inasmuch as they throw light upon the relationship
of the mourner and the mourned. Firstly, mourning always expresses
sorrow and grief (real or feigned) for the deceased; secondly, the
various mourning ceremonies imply the idea that there was a strong tie
between the two persons involved, a tie which persists after death
and which must be broken by the magical virtue of rites.[214] Both
these interpretations of mourning (sorrow for the deceased and the
necessity of breaking the bond) involve the idea that the relationship
between husband and wife was acknowledged by society as an individual
and strong personal tie. As the modes of obtaining wives have shown us
that to bring about a marriage it was necessary to get the sanction
of society; so the long mourning of the widow and the different
formalities she has to perform, before she becomes the property of the
dead man's heir or is allowed to remarry, show that marriage was not
dissolved at once, even by the death of the man. It shows, therefore,
that the tie between husband and wife was not a loose one, and not
merely established by the fact of possession or cohabitation; and that
the appropriation was based not only on legal ideas, but deeply rooted
in magico-religious feelings and representations.

     [214] Compare Levy Bruhl, p. 389.

The idea that mourning is performed in order to express sorrow, apart
from its being obvious in the ceremonies themselves, is realized and
formulated by the natives. When a very old and decrepit woman dies, or
an old man who has lost his memory and is useless in tribal matters,
the natives do not perform any elaborate ceremonies. They allege as a
reason that they "do not feel enough sorrow for them."[215]

     [215] Spencer and Gillen, on the Central and North Central
     tribes (more especially the Kaitish and Unmatjera), _Nor.
     Tr._, p. 506.

Ceremonies involving the motive of sorrow are mentioned in several
places by Spencer and Gillen. Among the Arunta, "when a man dies his
special _Unawa_ or _Unawas_ smear their hair, faces and breasts with
white pipeclay and remain silent for a certain time until a ceremony
called _Aralkililima_ has been performed."[216] The widow has a special
name. In some of the northern tribes she has to keep silence. _E. g._
"Among the Warramunga ... the widows are not allowed to speak for
sometimes as long a period as twelve months, during the whole of which
time they communicate only by means of gesture language."[217] Among
the Arunta the widow has to live in the woman's camp and suspend, to a
large extent, her usual occupations.[218] When she wishes the ban of
silence to be removed, she has to perform a ceremony in public, which
consists in the main in an offering of vegetable food to the younger
brother and sons of the deceased. "The meaning of this ceremony, as
symbolized by the gathering of the tubers or grass seed, is that the
widow is about to resume the ordinary occupations of a woman's life,
which have been to a large extent suspended, while she remained in camp
in what we may call deep mourning."[219] Analogous ceremonies of nearly
the same duration and involving similar ordeals and privations, are in
use in some other tribes: among the Kaitish and Unmatjera the widow has
her hair cut off, she has to smear her body over with ashes, during the
whole time that mourning lasts, _i. e._ several months, she has also
to keep silence.[220] Amongst all these tribes the women inflict upon
themselves the most cruel wounds. "The women seem to work themselves
up into a perfect frenzy, and to become quite careless as to the way
in which they cut and hack themselves about, with, however, this
restriction notable on all such occasions, that however frenzied they
apparently become, no vital part is injured, the cutting being confined
to such parts as the shoulders, scalp, and legs."[221] The authors
give a detailed description of such ordeals undergone by two widows
of deceased men in the Warramunga tribe. "The actual widow scores her
scalp with a red-hot firestick."[222]

     [216] _Nat. Tr._, p. 500.

     [217] _Nat. Tr._, p. 500. Compare also _Nor. Tr._, p. 525.

     [218] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 501, 502.

     [219] _Ibid._, p. 502.

     [220] _Nor. Tr._, p. 507.

     [221] _Nat. Tr._, p. 510.

     [222] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 521 _sqq._

Taking mourning customs as a measure of the intensity of sorrow and
grief, it may be seen that here these feelings are supposed to be
very strong, as the hardship and ordeals are very great. Of course,
there is no question of individual feelings. The widow may be in some
cases really glad that her husband has died, as well in Australia as
in any of our modern societies. What is shown at any rate is, that
society supposes and requires such feelings, and that they are duties
according to the social moral code; in fact, that sorrow and grief for
the deceased are required by the collective ideas and feelings. Whether
these feelings are displayed in order to appease the spirit of the
deceased, whether there is real sorrow as a basis for these customs,
these are questions irrelevant in this place.

Probably many different motives contributed to form the mourning
rites and duties, as they are now in existence. These duties have
in Australia apparently not merely a customary, but also a legal
character. For we read in Spencer and Gillen: "a younger brother
meeting the wife of a dead elder brother out in the bush, performing
the ordinary duties of a woman, such as hunting for 'yams,' within a
short time of her husband's death, would be quite justified in spearing
her."[223] And, again, it is said in another place, that if a woman
would not comply with the severe ordeal which is her duty, "she is
liable to be severely chastised or even killed by her brother."[224]

     [223] _Nat. Tr._, p. 502.

     [224] _Nor. Tr._, p. 522.

Whatever more special explanation might be attempted of all these
laws and customs it is certain that they express the fact that the
marital bonds are very lasting. The obligations last after the death
of the husband, and expiation must be made for the eventual new union.
For Spencer and Gillen give a detailed account of all the complex
formalities and duties to be performed before the widow can remarry, or
rather is given up to the younger brother of the deceased, to whom she
belongs by law.[225] After the performance of several ceremonies and a
long lapse of time, she may still, if she likes, paint a narrow white
band on her forehead, which is regarded as an intimation that she is
not anxious to marry at present, as she still mourns, though to a less
degree than before, for the dead man.[226] "The spirit of the dead man
was supposed to have been watching all these proceedings as he lay at
the bottom of the grave."[227]

     [225] Levirate; see above, p. 63.

     [226] _Nat. Tr._, p. 507.

     [227] _Ibid._

Unfortunately the other authors do not give anything approaching
Spencer and Gillen's full account of burial and mourning. In
particular, if there is any description, the actual and tribal
relatives are not differentiated. All that I have adduced here from
Spencer and Gillen refers to the actual widow. A short remark of Roth
may be quoted: "In the Boulia district when a man dies, his nearer
relatives have special mourning performances. These nearer relatives,
in the case of an adult male, are considered to be the _wife_ and his
brother and sisters by the same mother, not his father or mother; with
an adult woman, only the brothers and sisters by the same mother."[228]
Amongst the Dieri, "a widow is not permitted to speak until the whole
of the white clay which forms her 'mourning' has come off without
assistance" (perhaps some months).[229] There is also a statement
about the husband's mourning. Amongst the Victorian tribes, "when a
married woman dies and her body is burned, the husband puts her pounded
calcined bones into a little opossum skin bag, which he carries in
front of his chest until he marries again, or until the bag is worn
out."

     [228] Roth, p. 164.

     [229] Howitt, p. 724.

To sum up, it may be said, that as far as Spencer and Gillen's evidence
may be taken as typical of what burial and mourning is in Australia,
the legal and customary aspects of the marriage bonds is not less
strongly expressed in the way in which they are dissolved, than it is
in the way in which they are brought about.




CHAPTER IV

SEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE


The next point in our investigation is the sexual aspect of the
Australian marriage. Unfortunately it will not be much easier to draw
a decisive inference from the evidence in this case than it was in the
foregoing one. There is perhaps less patent contradiction between the
statements; and we are able here to reduce many of the incongruities to
geographical differences. But the whole question is very complicated
by the fact that the sexual features of marital life in Australia have
caused much discussion in connection with the hypothesis of primitive
promiscuity and group marriage. They have been very often interpreted
according to this hypothesis. Different customs have been pointed out
as unmistakable survivals of previous states of marital communism or
group marriage. Group marriage has even been said to be in actual
existence amongst some tribes.

In accordance with our opening statement, polemics will be strictly
avoided here, particularly in reference to questions of prehistory;
and, therefore, we need not concern ourselves with the problem whether
certain facts point to the previous existence of group marriage
or promiscuity; nor with the problem whether certain features are
survivals of a similar state of things.[230] Highly objectionable
from our point of view, however, is the fact that our best informants
(especially Howitt and Spencer and Gillen) describe the facts of sexual
life of to-day in terms of their hypothetical assumptions. To gain,
therefore, a clear picture of the actual state of things we shall have
to disintegrate all that is hypothetic in the statements from the
actual facts.

     [230] The solution of this problem would, in the first
     place, require a revision of the concept of _survival_, in
     order to avoid arbitrariness when classifying one custom
     as a survival, another as an innovation. I venture to
     say such classifications have been made too carelessly.
     I think it will be clear from the whole of this book,
     that the individual family should not be considered as a
     mere innovation, and that, accordingly, there is hardly
     any justification for treating the customs in question as
     survivals. But this is only by way of parenthesis; these
     problems lie outside our task. They must be treated on a
     broader basis than that of the Australian ethnographic area
     only.

That is the first reason why it will be necessary to submit here
and there the statements to some discussion. But there is another
reason. Being concerned with the problem of the individual family and
individual relationship, we must keep in mind that although the sexual
aspect of family life is very important, nevertheless, it is only
one side of the picture, and that to outline this picture correctly,
we may not exaggerate one side of it. Now, by a quite illegitimate
silent assumption, the sexual features are often treated as the most
important--in some cases as the exclusive factors of marriage. But
marriage, as we saw and shall have the opportunity to see still more
clearly, is rooted in all the manifold facts that constitute the
family life: mode of living, economics of the household, and above all
the relation of the parents to their children. Unless it is proved,
therefore, that the unity of family life and the individuality of the
family break down on all these points, no general inference as to
group marriage can be drawn from the mere facts of sexual communism.
In other words, sexual licence is nothing like group marriage. How far
we have the right to infer the _actual_ existence of group marriage
(_ergo_ group family) from sexual facts in Australia, must therefore
be discussed now, while we are concerned with the sexual aspect of the
Australian family.

I wish to make it quite clear that any discussion upon our evidence
will be carried out merely with the aim of getting a clear picture
of the actual state of things. It is not our task to polemize with
the general theories as to the previous state of things, origin of
family, etc., set forth by our authors. For a criticism of Howitt's,
and Spencer and Gillen's speculations on the origin of marriage, the
reader may be referred to the excellent chapter in Mr. Thomas's work.
This criticism seems to me to leave no doubts that the general views
expounded by the ethnographers mentioned above are hardly founded on
any of the Australian facts. These views are mere hypotheses, drawn
theoretically from facts. Personal knowledge of these latter could
hardly have enabled the ethnologists to theorize more correctly on
them. From Mr. Thomas's criticism it results also, that it is no
exaggeration to say that the continual application of these hypotheses
to the actual state of things considerably obscures the clearness and
value of their evidence. It is necessary to add, nevertheless, that
Howitt especially always gives very first-rate information concerning
family life, the institution of marriage, etc.; and, according to my
view, his theories are contradicted by the excellent and admirably
rich information he himself gives on social matters. If we can seldom
agree with him as speculative sociologist, we always admire him in his
ethnographic research.

The following statements are intended to give an account of all the
features of sexual life in Australia, especially as far as they bear
upon family life. We shall, therefore, in the first place pay attention
to the way in which sexual intercourse is limited and determined by
marriage. Are the marital relations the exclusive right and privilege
of the husband? Or has he only a certain over-right, modified by some
other factors (which we must endeavour to determine). Or is there (at
least in some tribes) really a sort of group marriage (using the word
"marriage" to designate mainly the sexual side of it)? In the second
place we must also pay some attention to the more general questions of
chastity, licence before marriage, and so on. And finally, the features
of the interesting and important forms of ceremonial and regulated
licence must be traced more in detail.

  _Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai "the husband expected strict
  fidelity from his wife, but he did not admit any reciprocal
  obligation on his part towards her."[231] ... "The expected
  fidelity towards the husband was enforced by severe penalties.
  In cases of elopement her life was in his hands.... Each man not
  only expected his wife to be faithful to himself, but he, on his
  part, never lent her to a friend or to a guest."[232] In another
  place,[233] Howitt says, about the same tribe, that sometimes wives
  were exchanged "by order of the old men" to avert some impending
  danger to the tribe. We see that with these rare exceptions, the
  husband had quite exclusive sexual rights over a woman. Even the
  general practice of wife-lending seems to have been entirely
  absent. Now, as Howitt is a strong adherent of the theory of group
  marriage, we may accept his statements asserting individuality of
  "marriage" as especially trustworthy.

     [231] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 205.

     [232] _Ibid._, p. 202, Latin footnote; p. 205.

     [233] _Smith. Rep._, 1883, p. 810.

  Amongst the Murring[234] "the only occurrence of licence is when a
  visitor from a distance is provided with a temporary wife by the
  hosts.... In cases of elopement, when the woman is captured, she
  becomes for a time the common property of the pursuers. With these
  exceptions, marriage seems to me strictly individual."[235] (We see
  that here again Howitt speaks of individual marriage where there
  are only, in fact, individual sexual rights.) The only exceptions
  were here, wife-lending to visitors and the characteristic form of
  punishment.

     [234] _Ibid._

     [235] As Howitt uses the term "marriage" to denote only
     its sexual side, we must understand that sexual rights are
     strictly individual.

  Curr says:[236] "Amongst Australians there is no community of
  women. The husband is the absolute owner of his wife (or wives)."
  He is very jealous and "usually assumes that his wife has been
  unfaithful to him, whenever there has been an opportunity for
  criminality; hence the laws with respect to women are very
  stringent." A woman is completely isolated.[237] The husband will,
  nevertheless, often "prostitute his wife to his brothers" or
  visitors.[238] Here we see the same: the man can dispose of his
  wife (the term prostitute is here probably used rather in rhetoric
  sense, for it does not seem that the man would receive any direct
  contribution for wife-lending); but he is very jealous in all cases
  where anything might happen behind his back.

     [236] _A.R._, i. p. 109. This may be considered as
     trustworthy only in reference to the North Victorian
     tribes, especially the Bangerang, whom Curr had under
     personal observation.

     [237] See below, Chap. V.

     [238] _A.R._, i. p. 110.

  On the West Victorian aborigines Dawson writes[239] that
  illegitimate children were rare, and the mother was severely
  beaten, sometimes even put to death, by the relatives. "The father
  of the child is also punished with the greatest severity and
  occasionally killed." The woman's relatives do not even accept his
  presents as expiation. "Exchange[240] of wives is permitted only
  after the death of their parents and, of course, with the consent
  of the chiefs, but is not allowed if either of the women has
  children." What is said about illegitimate children, would point
  to sexual morality before marriage. But we can hardly conceive how
  in a society, where females are handed over to their husbands,
  often before, and at the latest at reaching puberty, there could be
  illegitimate children at all. The whole statement is not clear.

     [239] _Loc. cit._, p. 28.

     [240] He doesn't say if temporary or permanent exchange.
     Probably the first, as he speaks below of divorce.

  Beveridge[241] says of the aborigines of Victoria and Riverina:
  "Chastity is quite unknown amongst them." "In their sexual
  intercourse ... they are not in the least bit particular,
  consequently incest of every grade is continually being
  perpetrated."[242]

     [241] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.

     [242] This assertion of incest is quite in contradiction
     with all we know about Australians and undoubtedly false;
     it may be true in the case of quite "civilized" blacks,
     perhaps. I quote it as an instance of how, from one
     statement only, one might draw absolutely false conclusions.

  "Among the Wotjobaluk it was not usual for men to have more than
  one wife, and they were very strict in requiring fidelity from
  her, and did not lend a wife to a friend or to a visitor from a
  distance." Death was the punishment for both the wife and her
  accomplice in case of adultery.[243] According to this statement
  not only fidelity is required in this tribe, but even chastity is
  known as a virtue. This seems rather exaggerated, and as it is
  given only by a correspondent of Howitt, we shall not attach to
  it too much weight. Nevertheless, this, in agreement with all our
  other statements on Victoria, shows that the standard of sexual
  morality could not be very low there, as we might infer from the
  foregoing statement.

     [243] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 245.

  "Marriage is not looked upon as any pledge of chastity, indeed,
  no such virtue is recognized." And in a Latin footnote the
  author enumerates the proofs: promiscuity of unmarried people;
  wife-lending and exchange; general ceremonial licence.[244] But the
  Adelaide tribes were much degenerated, and possibly some customs
  relate to the Lake Eyre tribes, with whom the author was also
  acquainted.

     [244] Eyre, ii. p. 320, about the Lower Murray River tribes.

  J. Moore Davis[245] speaks in a Latin passage of the licence at
  corroborees and of the rights of access enjoyed by old men at the
  initiation of the girls. The statement is not localized.

     [245] Brough Smyth, ii. p. 319. This statement (and the
     whole article) does not refer to any single tribe; there
     are mentioned tribes from all over the continent.

  Among the Narrinyeri, youths during initiation are allowed
  unrestricted sexual licence.[246]

     [246] Taplin, _loc. cit._, p. 18.

  In the Turra tribe: "Women were bound to be faithful to their
  husbands, also the husbands to their wives. Whoever was guilty of
  unfaithfulness was liable to be punished by death at the hands of
  the class of the offender."[247] This statement is very clear; but
  if it is equally correct it reports quite an exceptional state of
  things.

     [247] Yorke Peninsula, Kühn, _loc. cit._, p. 286.

  Schürmann writes about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Although the men
  are capable of fierce jealousy, if their wives transgress unknown
  to them, yet they frequently send them out to other parties, or
  exchange with a friend for a night; and as for near relatives,
  such as brothers, it may almost be said that they have their wives
  in common."[248] But does this community of wives refer merely to
  sexual matters? It is probably so, as the author mentions it in
  connection with the general description of this side of aboriginal
  life.

     [248] _Loc. cit._, pp. 222, 223.

  C. Wilhelmi writes about the same tribes: "Although the men are
  apt to become passionately jealous if they detect their wives
  transgressing without their consent, yet of their own accord they
  offer them and send them to other men, or make an exchange for
  a night with some one of their friends. Of relatives, brothers
  in particular, it may be said that they possess their wives
  jointly."[249] This statement and the foregoing can hardly be
  looked upon as independent; for Wilhelmi knew the missionary
  Schürmann personally, and had from him a good deal of his
  information; the two statements are almost literally identical.

     [249] Ch. Wilhelmi, p. 180.

  Amongst the Yerkla Mining tribes: "A wife is bound to be faithful
  to her husband." She is severely punished; if successively guilty,
  killed.[250] Women are lent, but very seldom.[251]

     [250] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 258.

     [251] _Ibid._

  A. L. P. Cameron reports some cases of sexual licence among the
  Darling River tribes. They used to exchange wives "either at some
  grand assembly of the tribe, or in order to avert some threatened
  calamity." But the author adds, "This custom is, I think, rare at
  present."[252] At any rate, we may bracket this statement with that
  of Howitt, who also speaks of wife exchange, in order to avert
  impending calamity.

     [252] _Loc. cit._, p. 353.

  Charles Wilkes writes, that jealousy is very strongly developed
  among the New South Wales blacks. From it originate occasional
  quarrels, and the women suffer especially from jealousy and
  suspicions. There are also regulated fights and ordeals in order to
  settle quarrels and enmities ensuing from sexual matters.[253]

     [253] _Loc. cit._ (smaller edition), i., p. 226.

  Tench mentions the sexual licence of unmarried girls among the Port
  Jackson tribes.[254]

     [254] _Loc. cit._, p. 199.

  We read about the natives of Botany Bay, that the men were very
  jealous.[255]

     [255] Phillip, pp. 34, 35.

  Turnbull says, that quarrels arise usually from jealousy in sexual
  matters. The affair usually becomes more general and involves the
  whole tribe.[256]

     [256] _Loc. cit._, pp. 90, 99. Tribes of New South Wales,
     probably from the neighbourhood of Sydney.

  Amongst the Geawe Gal there were probably occasions on which
  "promiscuous intercourse (subject to the class rules) took
  place."[257]

     [257] Rusden, _loc. cit._, p. 281.

  Amongst the Kamilaroi "the punishment for adultery was, that when
  a woman was _taramu_, that is, shifty, wanton, adulterous, the
  husband complained to his kindred, who carried the matter before
  the headman, and if the charge was found to be true, her punishment
  was to be taken without the camp and to be handed over to all
  comers for that night, and her cries were not heeded."[258] Women
  were lent to friends, visitors, but with their own consent.[259]
  This statement confirms again the majority of those relating to the
  South-east tribes. The husband did not tolerate any trespass in
  these matters; and the community intervened. On the other hand, he
  had (with her consent) the right to dispose of her.

     [258] C. E. Doyle in Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, pp. 207, 208.

     [259] _Ibid._

  Amongst the Euahlayi: "There are two codes of morals, one for men
  and one for women. Old Testament morality for men, New Testament
  for women."[260] This applies, probably, chiefly to sexual matters,
  for we read in another place,[261] "Unchaste men were punished
  terribly.... The death penalty for wantonness was enforced." Also
  a girl "found guilty of frailty" is severely punished by her
  relatives.[262] An "absolute wanton" is ignominiously treated,
  the result being almost inevitably death.[263] This statement is
  incomplete, as we are not told if adultery and wantonness are
  punished only when they are perpetrated without knowledge of the
  husband; in other words, we are not informed if the widespread
  custom of wife-lending was absent or not among the Euahlayi.

     [260] Mrs. Parker, p. 58.

     [261] _Ibid._, p. 59.

     [262] _Ibid._, p. 60.

     [263] _Ibid._

  Amongst the Dieri there was besides the regular Tippa Malku
  marriage, the occasional _Pirrauru_ relation. The sexual
  intercourse of the latter was confined to some festival or to
  the case when the Tippa Malku husband was absent. The number
  of _Pirraurus_ of each man was limited, and they were strictly
  assigned to each other. There was sexual jealousy amongst the
  _Pirraurus_. The husband had, apparently, the right to decline the
  use of his wife to any _Pirrauru_. The _Pirrauru_ relation will
  be discussed more in detail below. The custom of wife-lending is
  prevalent: "continually their wives are lent for prostitution, the
  husband receiving presents."[264] It may be noted, that this is the
  only place where wife-lending is stated to take this form. Besides,
  we are informed by Howitt that the unmarried girls and widows were
  allowed a considerable amount of sexual freedom, this custom being
  called _Ngura-mundu_.[265]

     [264] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170. Gason in answer to Prof.
     Frazer's "Questions."

     [265] _Nat. Tr._, p. 187.

  The Urabunna, living in the neighbourhood of the Dieri, had an
  institution analogous to the _Pirrauru_ custom. Besides his _Nupa_
  or individual wives, of whom he might possess one or two, who were
  "specially attached to him and lived with him in his own camp,"
  he could have several _Piraungarus_ to whom he had "access under
  certain conditions."[266] (But we are not informed what these
  conditions are; we may infer, however, that they are analogous
  to those existing among the Dieri, which we know in detail: see
  below.) Our authors inform us further that the _Piraungarus_ "are
  to be found living grouped together."[267] We shall discuss below
  this _Piraungaru_ relation more in detail.

     [266] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 109.

     [267] _Idem_, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 72, 73.

  Amongst the Arunta nation, there are different occasions on which
  men besides the husband have sexual access to the woman. There are
  the customs at the "initiation" of the girls.[268] And there are
  many cases in which the husband is compelled by custom to waive his
  rights on behalf of some one else; such instances generally happen
  in connection with ceremonial gatherings.[269] It is important to
  note that on these occasions men have access to women with whom it
  would be most criminal for them to have intercourse under normal
  conditions; and a man may cohabit even with his mother-in-law, from
  whom he is under normal conditions absolutely isolated.[270]

     [268] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. iii. pp. 92-96;
     and _Nor. Tr._, chap. iv., pp. 133 _sqq._ About these
     ceremonies, some words were said above, pp. 42, 43, in
     connection with marriage ceremonies.

     [269] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 96, 97.

     [270] _Ibid._, p. 97, and _Nor. Tr._, p. 137. The features
     of these ceremonial licences will be discussed more in
     detail below.

  The ceremonies of initiation of girls in Central Australia, and
  sexual promiscuity connected with them, are also mentioned by
  W. H. Willshire. Women after initiation are sexually "at the mercy
  of all who may get hold of them."[271] The same author mentions also
  the sexual "immorality" of the natives in question.[272] This raw
  statement, although inadequately formulated, corroborates Spencer
  and Gillen's exact data.

     [271] _Loc. cit._, p. 30.

     [272] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.

  Analogously in the Northern tribes there are several exceptions
  from the individuality of sexual relations. The man may lend his
  wife to his friends or to people whose favour he wishes to gain.
  There are customs at the initiation of girls, when several men,
  standing to the girl in a certain group (tribal) relationship,
  have access to her. In the third place there is the sexual licence
  connected with certain ceremonies, when men are obliged to cede
  their wives to some of their tribesmen.[273] And we read the
  description of the most horrid atrocities which men inflict as
  punishments upon their unfaithful wives.[274] We read in the same
  place that the charming away of women by magic was one of the
  chief sources of fights and quarrels. About sexual jealousy in the
  Central and Northern tribes, we read: "Now and again if a husband
  thinks that his wife has been unfaithful to him, she will certainly
  meet with exceedingly cruel treatment."[275]

     [273] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, chap. iv. pp. 133
     _sqq._

     [274] _Idem_, _Nor. Tr._, p. 474.

     [275] _Ibid._, p. 33.

  We are informed about the existence of the practice of exchange of
  wives among the Northern tribes (Port Darwin, Powell's Creek) in
  the answers to Prof. Frazer's "Questions."[276]

     [276] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 178.

  J. D. Lang says about the aborigines of Queensland, that the
  "conjugal relations are maintained with great decency." But he
  mentions the custom of wife-lending.[277]

     [277] _Loc. cit._, p. 237.

  Amongst the Maryborough tribes, sexual licence is allowed before
  marriage and there is a camp of unmarried girls.[278] Many,
  however, "remain perfectly virtuous until their promised husband
  fetches them."[279] Women who were wanton after their marriage "are
  looked down upon as the prostitutes of the tribe, and are lent to
  visitors as temporary wives."[280] Here chastity seems to be not so
  strongly required. But the statement is somewhat odd as regards the
  camp of unmarried girls.

     [278] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 232.

     [279] _Ibid._, p. 233.

     [280] _Ibid._

  Amongst the Kabi and Wakka tribes (Queensland, near Maryborough),
  there are cases where the "seniors of the camp" have some rights
  over a woman. In general none but the husband had any matrimonial
  "rights over the wife, and the jealousy made him take good care she
  was not interfered with, unless he was a consenting party."[281]
  Here we have again the characteristic feature: the husband had
  exclusive sexual rights over his wife; but he might dispose of her,
  and used to do so.

     [281] J. Mathew, pp. 161, 162.

  Amongst the North-west Central Queensland aborigines[282] there is
  a certain licence before marriage "unless they should happen to be
  betrothed"; in that case the husband does not like it. "Morality in
  its broadest sense is recognized a virtue." And in another place we
  are informed that "if an aboriginal requires a woman temporarily,
  he either borrows a wife from her husband for a night or two in
  exchange for boomerangs, a shield, food, etc., or else violates the
  female when unprotected, when away from the camp, out in the bush."
  In the latter case, if the woman is unmarried "no one troubles
  himself about the matter." If married, a quarrel would ensue if the
  husband came to know anything.[283] Roth gives also an account of
  the initiation ceremonies, in which females, arrived at puberty,
  are ceremonially deflorated by old men. It is important to note
  that the exogamous class rule is disregarded on such occasions,
  when several men of forbidden degrees have access to the woman,
  but blood relations are strictly excluded. A girl acquires a new
  designation, corresponding to the new age grade; she becomes
  marriageable and enters altogether into a new status.[284]

     [282] Roth, Bull. 8, p. 7, § 3.

     [283] _Idem_, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 182, § 327.

     [284] _Ethnol. Stud._, pp. 174 _sqq._

  Among the natives of Cape York the unmarried girls are allowed to
  have free intercourse, but a female once married is required to
  be absolutely faithful to her husband, and this requirement is
  enforced by severe punishments.[285]

     [285] Macgillivray, ii. p. 8.

  Amongst the tribes of West Australia: "The crime of adultery is
  punished severely--often by death."[286] Grey speaks also of
  the "stern and vigilant jealousy."[287] "... the bare suspicion
  of infidelity upon their part is enough to ensure to them the
  most cruel and brutal treatment."[288] But he mentions also the
  continuous rows and plots that issue round a beautiful woman,[289]
  who knows sometimes how to evade the precautions of her husband.
  Grey speaks emphatically of the "horror of incest."[290] Fidelity
  seems, therefore, to be severely enforced in these tribes. Grey
  says nothing about wife-lending. Chastity does not seem to have
  obtained there, nevertheless.

     [286] Grey, ii. p. 242.

     [287] _Ibid._, p. 252; also see p. 248.

     [288] _Ibid._, p. 249.

     [289] _Ibid._, pp. 248, 249.

     [290] _Ibid._, p. 242.

  We read in Oldfield, about the West Australian tribes, that there
  was an "initiation" ceremony before a female was considered fit
  for marriage; in it "all the males of the tribe" partook. Women
  sometimes betray their husbands.[291]

     [291] _Loc. cit._, p. 251. The tribes in question are those
     of the Murchison district.

  Mrs. D. M. Bates reports, that among the tribes of West Australia
  she had under observation, there exists a "certain tribal morality"
  and "bad or loose living women (according to their ideas) occupied
  much the same status in a certain degree as our unfortunate sisters
  do amongst us." There were even contemptuous names for women of
  bad conduct.[292] Unfortunately, this statement says absolutely
  nothing of what would be the most interesting thing to know, viz.
  the ideas of the natives about sexual matters, in other words,
  the code of the "tribal morality." Here, besides the fidelity
  which was strictly required, a complete chastity is affirmed. On
  the whole it seems to agree roughly with Grey's and Salvado's
  statements; he also does not mention any regulated licence. As our
  information on West Australia is so scanty, we can hardly decide
  whether sex morality stands there much higher than in the Central
  and North-eastern peoples; but as we have reason to regard both the
  information of Grey and of Salvado as trustworthy and accurate, we
  may assume that this difference actually existed.

     [292] _Loc. cit._, p. 51.

  Similarly Bishop Salvado speaks of the great jealousy of the
  natives of South-west Australia and of their morality. "Le sauvage
  ne pardonne jamais l'insulte faite à la pudeur des femmes qui lui
  appartiennent; c'est un outrage qui se paye cher et le plus souvent
  par la mort."[293] "... je n'ai jamais observé autour de nous un
  seul acte tant que ce soit peu indécent ou déshonnête parmi eux ...
  au contraire j'ai trouvé les mœurs louable au plus haut point."[294]

     [293] _Loc. cit._, p. 279.

     [294] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.

  Scott Nind informs us about the natives of King George's Sound,
  that "infidelity is by no means uncommon. The husband keeps a
  jealous eye on his wife, and on the least excuse for suspicion she
  is severely punished."[295]

     [295] _Loc. cit._, p. 39.

In reviewing this material, the first thing to be noted is a
considerable geographical variety of custom and law in sexual matters.
There are clear and radical differences between the South-eastern
tribes, the South Central, North Central, and Northern Queensland
tribes. The views on sexual morality apparently differ as much as the
actual practices. Whereas in Victoria, South-eastern New South Wales,
and the Southern territory of South Australia there are no traces of
regulated licence, or at least not in a very conspicuous form--in
the South Central tribes the features of _Pirrauru_ relations; in
the Central and North Central different forms of ceremonial licence
are highly developed, and play an important part in tribal life. In
Queensland there does not seem to exist such a very strict sexual
morality, as far as we can gather from our statements. Our five
statements from West Australia do not give a very clear picture.
Undoubtedly these geographical differences, as here indicated, must
be conceived as merely rough approximations. There are too many
contradictions between the statements concerning the South-eastern
area; the data as to Queensland and West Australia are too few and
vague to allow anything beyond mere generalities. But broadly, as is
indicated above, these local differences undoubtedly exist.

Besides the data contained in the statements there is, to confirm
this view, the opinion of A. W. Howitt. In his article on the tribal
and social organization in Australia, this writer directly points out
the radical differences existing between the South Central and the
South-eastern tribes in sexual matters; and as he knew from personal
acquaintance or from reliable informants the whole area, we may
consider this geographical difference as thoroughly established.[296]

     [296] See _Smith. Rep._ for 1883, pp. 804 _sqq._ Chap. iv.
     on "Marital groups," p. 810, and _Trans. R.S.V._, pp. 115
     _sqq._

Let us now draw some general conclusions from the evidence. The points
selected at the outset for special attention were: first, the problem
of the rights, privileges, and restrictions of the husband in sexual
matters; second, the question how is chastity in general, considered
and valued? third, a survey of the cases of ceremonial or regulated
licence.

1. The first question may be broadly answered by saying that the
husband had in general a definite sexual "over-right" over his wife,
which secured to him the privilege of disposing of his wife, or at
least of exercising a certain control over her conduct in sexual
matters. In some cases this over-right amounted to quite an exclusive
right, which even in some exceptional tribes was never waived. We read
of cases where the husband was not only never compelled by custom,
or any other social force, to dispose of his wife, but apparently
never did it on his own impulse. In these cases we may say that the
absolute faithfulness of a married woman was enforced, and that her
chastity was recognized as a virtue. (Wotjobaluk, Turra, and the
South-western tribes according to Salvado.) Besides there are several
other statements, from which it appears that the sexual rights of the
husband were nearly exclusive, and that he was not inclined to waive
these rights in order to derive therefrom any personal profit. So among
the Kurnai there was no wife-lending nor any other similar custom,
and wives were exchanged only in quite exceptional cases in order to
avert impending evil. The same is asserted in Cameron's statement.
Among the Yerkla Mining women are but seldom lent. Mrs. Parker writes
that wantonness was considered a crime among the Euahlayi, and nearly
the same has been said by Mrs. Bates about the West Australians. Roth
speaks of morality in a broad sense. Grey and Macgillivray write that
women were expected to be strictly faithful to their husbands. But in
these two last cases we do not know whether lending or exchange of
wives was entirely absent, or is only not mentioned by the authors.
All the statements which affirm strict and vigilant jealousy, without
further analysis, leave the question open as to whether the husband
ever allowed adultery to his wife, or whether he punished it only when
perpetrated without his consent. But interpreting these statements
according to the other more detailed ones, it may be said that in
general, such exclusiveness of marital rights and appreciation of
chastity seem rather to be an exception; and some caution must be used
in accepting the above-mentioned cases of absolute faithfulness and
chastity required from married women. As a rule, even where there is
not regulated licence, wife lending and exchange, hospitality, etc.,
seem to be more or less practised.

In the majority of statements these customs are found in one form or
the other; in these cases we cannot speak of an absolute fidelity or
exclusive individual sexual right of the husband. We read in fifteen
of our thirty-eight statements of the customs of wife-lending or
exchange; and in twelve some form of sexual licence is mentioned. But
in all these cases, where the woman is given away, this is done with
the consent and generally on the initiative of her husband, who in
the majority of cases derived some benefit from the transaction.[297]
Exchange of wives obviously implies an advantage to the husbands. The
same must be assumed in the case of hospitality and wife-lending
when the courtesy of the husband presupposes a reward in one form or
another. In the case of ceremonial licence as related by Spencer and
Gillen, wife-lending is always a kind of retribution for religious
services. Payment of this nature occurs also for other services, and
may be used as bribery towards an avenging party.[298] The husband
always disposes of his wife, who is never allowed to take the first
step in this matter, and it is consequently he who benefits from her
conduct. This conduct does not seem punishable or wrong in any sense to
the native mind. Quite otherwise is it with the woman who trespasses
without the sanction of custom or without her husband's approval. In
all such cases she is considered culpable and more or less severely
punished. This is directly stated by Shürmann and Wilhelmi, and appears
in nearly all the other statements.

     [297] It is to be mentioned that we find an indication in
     a few statements that fidelity was binding only on the
     female, the males considering themselves free from any
     obligation (Howitt's statement on the Kurnai, and Mrs.
     Parker's statement on the Euahlayi.) This holds good,
     probably, in all the tribes.

     [298] See below, page 107.

The punishment dealt out in cases of elopement was discussed above in
connection with the mode of obtaining wives. We saw that as a rule
the punishment is severe. Sometimes the kindred of the offended party
(_i. e._ the husband) help him to punish the offender; sometimes the
whole local group takes his side. Several of our statements assert
that in cases of elopement, the woman when caught becomes the common
property of all her pursuers, and that afterwards she has to undergo
severe punishment (Kurnai, Murray tribes). In some statements we read
that adultery is punished with death (Wotjobaluk, Turra, Kamilaroi,
Euahlayi, South-western tribes); in others, that the punishment for
adultery or even a suspicion of it is very cruel (Curr, Spencer and
Gillen, J. Mathew, Grey). It appears, therefore, that the husband is
very careful about maintaining his over-right over the sexual life of
his spouse. He very often has to submit to some customary practices,
and often subordinates his wife to some private aim; but he must always
give the initiative, or at least have the sexual life of his wife under
his control.

2. In the second place a word about the chastity of the unmarried women
is necessary. Here we may remark at the outset that this question seems
relatively unimportant, as we know that girls are handed over to their
promised husbands on arriving at puberty, or even before.[299] On the
other hand, it seems hardly probable that girls would have sexual
intercourse in their extreme youth (that is, before being married);
during this period, girls are continually under the control of both
parents, and especially of the mother, and as it will appear from
the statements referring to the "bachelors' camp," it is probable
that males and females are kept apart from each other before reaching
puberty.

     [299] Comp. Chap. II., and Chap. VII. p. 257.

That girls had no sexual intercourse before marriage is also suggested
by the custom of "initiating" girls by the old men, which takes place
immediately before they are handed over to their husbands. From the
detailed descriptions of Spencer and Gillen and W. E. Roth it appears
that at this initiation girls are deflowered (Central, North Central
and Central Queensland tribes).[300] On the other hand, the custom of
levirate--_i. e._ of handing over the widow to the deceased's brother
or nearest relative--seems to be very widespread (compare above, page
63); so that there are hardly any marriageable and unmarried widows in
the aboriginal society. Accordingly we find but little indication of
any misconduct in the case of unmarried females, and the few instances
we meet with are so little detailed that they do not throw much light
upon this question; it is especially uncertain whether they are
exceptional innovations, or whether they have any more serious social
_raison d'être_. It is mentioned that there exists an unmarried girls'
camp with sexual licence (Maryborough tribes, see below, p. 266). Roth
mentions that unmarried girls are free in their conduct as long as they
are not promised in marriage. We read of a similar freedom in the
Dieri tribe, as also in the statements of Tench and Macgillivray. The
most important form of licence before marriage seems to be, therefore,
the practice of initiation just mentioned.

     [300] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. iii., and _Nor.
     Tr._, chap. iv. Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 174, § 305.

Speaking now of chastity in general, and summing up both what was said
under the first and the second heading, it may be affirmed that it is
not considered in the light of a necessary virtue. Before marriage
the girl has to submit to a general sexual intercourse, and after it
the woman becomes on many occasions the property of another man. This
refers more especially to the tribes described by Spencer and Gillen
and Roth. It was said at the outset that a much stricter morality seems
to have prevailed in the South-eastern tribes, although there, too,
we read of sexual licence (during initiation among the Narrinyeri,
and in general, according to Beveridge and Moore Davis). But as it
was there possibly much more rarely practised--we are informed by our
very best source, Howitt, about several tribes, that they knew and
practised chastity (Kurnai, Turra, Wotjobaluk, etc.)--we may keep to
the geographical distinction.

3. Let us in the third place speak more in detail about customary
and ceremonial licence, as it merits for many reasons our special
attention. Here belong, besides the ceremonial defloration of girls by
old men (just spoken of), the different forms of licence practised at
large tribal gatherings, and especially the _Pirrauru_ relationship,
found in several of the South Central tribes.

Besides the exact and detailed data about ceremonial (or ritual)
defloration that are given by Spencer and Gillen and Roth, these
ceremonies are mentioned also by Willshire, Beveridge, Moore Davis,
Mathew, and Oldfield. But the short notes of those latter authors
are hardly sufficient to allow any further discussion; they may be
considered as a confirmation of the more exact evidence, but the
latter, and especially Spencer and Gillen's data, must serve as
material for all analyses. These ceremonies, on the one hand, seem to
correspond to the initiation ceremonies of the males. It is only in
this light that they are represented by Roth, who does not mention any
close connection between these ceremonies and marriage, but represents
them as the condition of marriageability. The said ceremonies possess,
as a matter of fact, many points of analogy with the male initiation
ceremonies. They are performed on arrival at puberty; Roth states
that the girl then acquires a new name and new status. The operation
performed then upon the initiated is also to some extent analogous
in both cases.[301] On the other hand Spencer and Gillen represent
these ceremonies as directly connected with marriage. What the
underlying ideas in this connection are, it is difficult to say. It
has been suggested that such ceremonies express a kind of expiation
for marriage.[302] But as this idea is not directly embodied in this
institution, and as it is not necessarily a condition of its existence,
and, moreover, as it has not been directly affirmed by the natives, it
may be treated merely as an assumption.

     [301] See Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 133,
     where this is explicitly mentioned. The names of both
     ceremonies in the Arunta seem to indicate this analogy;
     _atna--ariltha--kuma_ and _pura--ariltha--kuma_ (for their
     meaning see the place just quoted).

     [302] _Idem_, p. 96, apply this concept, due to Lord
     Avebury, to this special case.

A very important and striking feature of ceremonial licence in general,
is that the sexual intercourse, which takes place on that occasion,
is not subject to class rules. We are indebted to Messrs. Spencer and
Gillen for a very minute account of customary licence, which takes
place as a rule during corroborees and other ceremonies. "In the
Eastern and North-eastern parts of the Arunta, and in the Kaitish,
Iliaura and Warramunga tribes, considerable licence is allowed on
certain occasions, when a large number of men and women are gathered
together to perform certain corroborees. When an important one of
these is held, it occupies perhaps ten days or a fortnight, and during
that time the men, and especially the elder ones, but by no means
exclusively these, spend the day in camp preparing decorations to be
used during the evening. Every day two or three women are told off
to attend at the corroboree ground, and with the exception of men who
stand in the relation to them of actual father, brother, or sons, they
are, for the time being, common property to all the men present on the
corroboree ground."[303] On all such occasions the class rules are
disregarded, they are even broken, so to say, in the most radical way:
a man may have, in connection with certain performances, access to his
mother-in-law, who under normal conditions is most strictly tabooed
to him.[304] And again, in the Warramunga tribe an example is quoted
when a tribal father has access to his tribal daughter on ceremonial
occasions.[305] This example refers to a case where the woman was
offered by her husband as a kind of retribution for some services
rendered in performance of ceremonial functions. In the same tribe
there are other occasions (in connection with burial) on which a man is
bound by custom to offer his wife to a man who was useful to him.[306]
The class rule is disregarded in such cases, too. This holds good also
in the case when a man receives this form of reward for having been
useful to the community as a messenger.[307] When an armed avenging
party is sent to carry out a sentence on some other local group, the
latter may attempt to bribe the members of the avenging party by
offering them some women. If these are accepted, the sentence is not
carried out, and the avenging party returns peacefully home. Sexual
intercourse under this condition is also not subject to the class
rule.[308] It may be said, therefore, that on all occasions[309] when
ceremonial licence takes place, the strict class exogamy does not hold
good; whereas incest, as regards blood relationship, is always strictly
forbidden. This refers both to the initiation rites and to ceremonial
licence in the tribes described by Roth and by Spencer and Gillen.

     [303] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 96, 97.

     [304] See _ibid._, pp. 96-99 (for the Arunta tribe).

     [305] _Nor. Tr._, p. 138.

     [306] _Ibid._, p. 139.

     [307] _Ibid._

     [308] _Ibid._, p. 140.

     [309] The _Pirrauru_ custom excepted.

In this place a somewhat extensive digression concerning the _Pirrauru_
custom must be made. This question plays such an important part in
all speculations about a former state of group marriage, and it is
undoubtedly such an interesting fact by itself, that it would be
impossible not to give here an account at least of its most essential
features. The custom in question consists in the fact, that in certain
of the South-east Central tribes a man and a woman are put into a
relationship which involves occasional sexual connection and some
other mutual rights and obligations, to be discussed in detail below.
This custom is found in the tribes living North, South and East of
the Lake Eyre, the Urabunna, the Dieri, Yantruwunta,[310] and other
kindred tribes. We know the most about the Dieri, whom Howitt chooses
and represents as a typical example of all these tribes, and whose
_Pirrauru_ practices in his opinion differ only slightly from those of
the neighbouring tribes. This is important, for our knowledge about the
Dieri practices is much more ample than in the case of any other tribe;
and it does not agree in all particulars with what we are told about
the Urabunna by Spencer and Gillen.[311] We shall, therefore, rely in
the first place upon the information given about the Dieri by Howitt,
Gason, and Siebert, and in our general view of the _Pirrauru_ we shall
be guided by this information.

     [310] For a detailed enumeration and description of all
     tribes among whom practices of the _Pirrauru_ type exist,
     see Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. pp. 31-34. In this article, which
     is nearly exactly reproduced in Howitt's last work (_Nat.
     Tr._), we possess, undoubtedly, the best information about
     the _Pirrauru_ custom. In another place (_Folk-Lore_,
     xviii. p. 184), Howitt assigns a still wider area to the
     _Pirrauru_ practice. "Altogether, Dr. Howitt reckons that
     the tribes which practised a form of group marriage like
     the _Pirrauru_ of the Dieri must have occupied an area of
     some 500,000 square miles, extending for a distance of
     850 miles from Oodnadatta, the northern boundary of the
     Urabunna, to the eastern frontier of the Dieri, or of the
     Mardala tribe between the Flinders Range and the Barrier
     Range."--Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 371.

     [311] We have reasons to doubt whether these authors were
     as well informed about the Urabunna tribe as about the
     Arunta nation. Anyhow, the information they give about the
     _Piraungaru_ custom is much inferior as well in respect of
     quantity as quality (the inconsistency of their statement
     is shown above) than that about the Arunta, and the
     conclusions they draw therefrom are not quite in accord
     with the facts as they relate them (see below, p. 118).

It is first to be noted that the custom in question exists side by
side with individual marriage. We find this expressly stated in three
places by Howitt.[312] But besides these merely verbal assertions of
authorities, we have much better proofs of the assertion in the facts
related by them concerning the _Pirrauru_ customs. From these facts it
clearly appears that individual marriage existed quite independently of
the _Pirrauru_ relation, and that it was even only slightly affected
by this relation. We shall enumerate the most important features of
the _Pirrauru_ custom of which we are informed, occasionally remarking
under each heading what is the difference between marriage and the
_Pirrauru_ relation. It will appear that many of the factors that
constitute marriage are completely absent in that relation, and that
others play in each quite a different rôle.

     [312] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 53, _Smith. Rep._, p. 807, _Trans.
     R.S.V._, p. 100. In _J.A.I._, xx. p. 53, Howitt says that
     among all these tribes there are two forms of marriage.
     "There is a marriage ... which may be spoken of as
     'individual marriage.'" "There is also a marital relation
     existing between a man and a number of women, or between
     a woman and number of men. This latter connection may be
     spoken of as group marriage." We see that Howitt uses here
     the word "marriage" only to design the individual union,
     and speaking about the _Pirrauru_, correctly employs the
     words "marital relations." This sounds quite differently
     from the repeated denial that the "individual marriage does
     not exist in the tribes" made by Spencer and Gillen (_Nat.
     Tr._, pp. 63, 109; _Nor. Tr._, p. 140). And again Howitt
     says (_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115), "Individual marriage in
     Australian tribes has been evident to every one, but beside
     it exist also group marriages."

1. In the first place, let us ask how was the _Pirrauru_ relation
brought about. We are informed that on the occasion of large tribal
gatherings such as corroborees, invitation gatherings, etc., when the
whole tribe was present, the old men and the heads of the totems,
assembled in camp council, decide which men and women should be
allotted to each other. The result of this decision is then publicly
announced.[313] Now we know[314] that the individual or Tippa Malku
marriage is brought about in quite a different way: the girl is
promised as an infant to her future husband. Such an infant betrothal
is usually accompanied by exchange of females; and the decision lies in
the hands of the girl's family (her mother's brother). We see that the
mode of obtaining the individual Tippa Malku wife is quite different
from the way in which the _Pirrauru_ relationship is established; and
we see also that the latter does not show any of the characteristics
which enforce and express the individual character of marriage.

     [313] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56. _Smith. Rep._, p. 807.

     [314] See above, p. 41.

Undoubtedly it has its legal aspect, for it rests on the authority of
the camp council of old men, which seems to be the only form of tribal
authority known in these tribes. The old men seem also to keep an eye
on the _Pirrauru_ connections in their subsequent course (see below
under 5). These relations, therefore, bear, thanks to this sanction of
the tribal elders, the character of validity and legality, and are to
a certain degree compulsory. (How far they are compulsory in the case
of the husband of the allotted woman, see below under 6); but they
involve neither the mutual obligation of two families, nor a period of
long engagement, nor any factors expressing collective ideas of the
individuality of mutual appropriation of a man and a woman.[315]

     [315] Collective ideas which closely correspond to our
     ideas of monogamy, of monopolization of the marital
     rights and relationship in the widest sense of the word;
     special stress being laid on the point, that by the word
     "marital" relations I do not mean sexual relations, either
     exclusively or even in the first place.

There are still two points connected with this heading which emphasize
the difference between the individual marriage and the _Pirrauru_
relation,[316] namely that individual marriage must precede _Pirrauru_
relations; in other words, that only married women may be made
_Pirraurus_. Secondly, that although any woman may have only one Tippa
Malku husband (men may have several Tippa Malku wives), she may have
several _Pirraurus_. This very point induced many writers to consider
the _Pirrauru_ as a form of group marriage.[317] That this relation
bears a group-character is beyond doubt. That it must be clearly
distinguished from marriage is just what we try to show here.[318]

     [316] Points to which attention was drawn by Mr. N. W. Thomas,
     _loc. cit._, p. 129.

     [317] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 187. _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.
     Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 73; _Nat. Tr._, p. 64.
     Howitt, _Smith. Rep._, p. 197.

     [318] The same was argued from a different point of view by
     Mr. N. W. Thomas, _loc. cit._, pp. 127 _sqq._

2. Another interesting point about the _Pirrauru_, is that no consent
of the parties is asked.[319] But this appears, according to other
data, to hold strictly good only as far as the woman is concerned.
For we are told[320] in another place that a woman's wishes are not
taken into account unless through the mediation of her husband. Hence
it seems that on one side a man's wishes may be taken into account,
and on the other side a man may even dispose of his own wife. This
points to the fact that a husband's consent or mediation when his
wife is concerned may be of some weight. The same conclusion results
from the fact (already noticed by Mr. Thomas in this connection) that
two men may eventually exchange their wives in connection with the
_Pirrauru_ custom.[321] All this appears quite plausible if we bear
in mind that[322] the old men keep the greatest number of females for
themselves--at least all the most comely ones. And that these very
men have afterwards the right of disposing of their wives. They will,
on the one hand, exchange some of the females with each other; on the
other hand, they will allot perhaps some of their wives to one or
another of the young men living in celibacy. In fact, we read that very
often old and renowned warriors give their wives to some youngster,
who regards it as a great honour.[323] In conclusion it appears
probable that the man had a voice in the choice of his _Pirrauru_ or
had not, according to his personal influence. As to the woman, it was
her husband's part to decide, or at least to influence the opinion of
the camp council. But statements are not clear on this point, and we
are left here to a great extent to our own conjectures.

     [319] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.

     [320] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 181, 187.

     [321] _Ibid._, pp. 181, 182, 187.

     [322] See below, pp. 255 _sqq._

     [323] Howitt says, explicitly (_Nat. Tr._, p. 184), that
     "the leading men in the tribe have usually more Tippa Malku
     and _Pirrauru_ wives than other men." The Pinnaru, Jalina
     Piramurana had over a dozen wives, and to get one of them
     as _Pirrauru_ was a great honour for a man.

3. From the foregoing, it results that the husband still retains
some over-right and control over his wife. And that is a very
important point. For in the light of this fact, the waiving of sexual
privileges connected with the _Pirrauru_ custom does not appear to
encroach any more on the husband's right to his wife than the custom
of wife-exchange or wife-lending. This fact of the necessity of the
husband's consent is confirmed by Howitt's explicit statement. We
read[324] that a man has right of access to his _Pirrauru_ only during
the absence of her husband or, if the latter were present in camp, only
with his consent. It is evident, therefore, that the husband's rights
are by no means annihilated or superseded by the _Pirrauru's_ rights.
He waives his rights voluntarily, and his consent is essential.

     [324] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56; _Nat. Tr._, p. 184; _Smith.
     Rep._, p. 807, under 5.

4. Another point of importance is that this relationship does not
constitute a permanent status, and that it may be actualized only at
intervals. In the first place, the sexual licence involved in this
custom is exercised during the tribal gathering, for the night in which
the assignation of _Pirraurus_ took place; the licence lasts for about
four hours.[325] This relation is probably renewed during some of the
next gatherings; during the husband's absence; when a man is sent on an
embassy with his _Pirraurus_; in some cases where the husband gives
his consent. But although none of our sources say so expressly, we may
safely deny the assertion that the _Pirrauru_ relation had a permanent
status. For, if it were actually valid and exercised permanently,
we would not be informed, as we are, as to the special occasions on
which it takes place, and of the conditions under which it may be
exercised. Again, if the _Pirrauru_ involved a permanent status or,
more explicitly, if groups of men and women who are _Pirraurus_ to
each other respectively, normally and permanently live in marital
relations, no one of our authorities, who plead so strongly for the
character of group marriage in the relation in question, would omit
to emphasize such an important feature, which would support their
views in the highest degree. For this is a crucial question indeed:
if the _Pirrauru_ right entitles, in the first place, only to a short
licence and establishes permanently merely a facultative right, then,
even in its sexual aspect, it does not approach the rights established
by Tippa Malku marriage in these tribes. And, although the evidence
on this point is not quite decisive, we are, as we saw, entitled to
suppose that the sexual licence connected with the _Pirrauru_ is only
an occasional one.

     [325] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.

Besides the facts and reasons enumerated above, I may adduce a very
important passage from Howitt's last work, which may be considered the
ultimate opinion of this eminent ethnographer concerning the problem of
group marriage in Australia--a hypothesis of which he always has been a
most ardent supporter. "A study of the evidence which has been detailed
in the last chapter has led me to the conclusion that the state of
society among the early Australians was that of an Undivided Commune.
Taking this as a postulate, the influence on marriage and descent of
the class division, the sub-classes and the totems may be considered
on the assumption that there was once an Undivided Commune. It is,
however, well to guard this expression. I do not desire to imply
necessarily the existence of complete and continuous communism between
the sexes. The character of the country, the necessity of moving from
one spot to another in search of game and vegetable food, would cause
any Undivided Commune, when it assumed dimensions greater than the
immediate locality could provide with food, to break up into two or
more communes of the same character. In addition to this it is clear,
after a long acquaintance with the Australian savage, that in the past,
as now, individual likes and dislikes must have existed; so that,
admitting the existence of common rights between the members of the
Commune, these rights would remain in abeyance, so far as the separated
parts of the Commune were concerned. But at certain gatherings, such as
Bunya-bunya harvest in Queensland, or on great ceremonial occasions,
all the segments of the original community would reunite. In short,
so far as the evidence goes at present, I think that the probable
condition of the Undivided Commune may be considered to be represented
by what occurs on certain occasions when the modified Communes of the
Lake Eyre tribes reunite."[326]

     [326] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 173, 174, beginning of chap. v.

This shows that after a long and mature consideration of the problems
in question, Howitt came to the conclusion that "group marriage" never
could have existed as a permanent status, and that it could have been
established only in connection with large tribal gatherings. In such a
light the hypothesis of former or even actual "group marriage" becomes
very plausible, or rather it ceases to be a hypothesis and it becomes
one of the best established facts of the Australian ethnology.

But at the same time, although we may accord the term "group marriage"
(if any one wishes at any price to retain it), we must note that such
a state of things is radically different from marriage in the usual
sense of the word, and in particular from marriage as found in actual
existence in the Australian aboriginal society, and described in this
study. It will be sufficient to point out that such an occasional
sexual licence lasting several hours during an initiation gathering
could not create any bonds of family, such as may result from community
of daily life and community of interests, common inhabiting of the same
dwelling, common eating, especially common rearing of children--all
factors which, as will be shown below, act only in the individual
family and tend to make out of the individual family a well-established
and well-defined unit.

We must adduce one fact which stands in opposition to what is just
said. I mean the statement of Spencer and Gillen, that amongst the
Urabunna the Piraungarus are "generally found living grouped together."
This statement might possibly point first to a permanent state of
marital relations, secondly to a common mode of living. Now it may be
remarked that such an offhand statement on such a crucial point shows
undoubtedly that the authors were insufficiently informed themselves on
this point, and that, therefore, we must accept this statement with the
utmost caution.[327]

     [327] Compare above, p. 108, note 2.

The problem of the mode of living of the _Pirrauru_ groups involves two
questions--first, what persons constituted the local group (temporary
or permanent); and second, how the members of a _Pirrauru_ group lived
within it. The statement of Spencer and Gillen may mean that a group
of _Pirraurus_ constituted a given temporary local group. But within
this group husband and wife must have formed a distinct unit. Now as to
the question of how far such a grouping of _Pirraurus_ (if we accept
the above statement as correct) would imply a permanent marital status
between the _Pirraurus_, it is impossible to answer. On this point,
too, the information about the Urabunna is vague and defective, and
it is safer to base our conclusions on the more explicit and reliable
material given by Howitt in the case of the Dieri.

5. Did the _Pirrauru_ union last for the whole life, or could it be
dissolved? In one place we read that the relation in question lasts for
life; in another place we are told[328] that the old men watch over
the _Pirraurus_ in order that there may result no trouble from mutual
jealousy; and if a man has too many _Pirraurus_ they compel or advise
him to limit himself to one or two. No answer can be given, therefore,
to this question.

     [328] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 182.

6. We mentioned above that if the _Pirrauru_ relation, according to
Howitt's supposition there quoted, only involved sexual licence during
big tribal gatherings, this relation would be absolutely deprived of
any of the characters that are the chief constituents of marriage
and family. But here we must indicate that such an assumption is not
quite justifiable. In fact, in some of the facts related about the
_Pirraurus_, there are hints pointing to the existence of economic
bonds and of community in daily life between _Pirraurus_. We read[329]
that if in the absence of her husband a woman lives with one or two
of her _Pirraurus_, she occupies with them one hut and shares with
them the food. Therefore, in the absence of her husband, a _Pirrauru_
actually took his place, and in this case the _Pirrauru_ relationship
is not merely a sexual connection, but it assumes the real form of
marriage. In another place[330] we read that a man possessing several
_Pirraurus_ may lend one of them to some one who is deprived of this
advantage. Thus it seems that the _Pirraurus_ acquire a kind of real
right over their _Pirrauru_ wives; and that it goes as far as the
faculty of disposing of them. And again we are informed that if a woman
has a young man for a _Pirrauru_ she is often jealous of him and looks
strictly after him, and if he does not obey her readily enough, tries
even to compel him by punishment.[331] All these instances, which could
perhaps be further multiplied, show that under certain circumstances,
which we unfortunately do not know with sufficient precision, the
_Pirrauru_ relationship assumes a much more serious character than a
mere sexual licence exercised during a few hours.

     [329] _Idem_, J.A.I., xx. p. 57.

     [330] _Ibid._, p. 58.

     [331] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 183.

7. There remains still to examine what form the relationship of
children to parents assumes in the tribes where the _Pirrauru_
relationship exists. Here we are quite well informed that the
individual relation between the children of a woman and both their
parents (their mother and her Tippa Malku husband) is fully recognized
by the aborigines. It is true that Spencer and Gillen say that there
is only a "closer tie" between the married couple and their children,
and that the children acknowledge the _Pirraurus_ of their parents
as parents.[332] But this statement is very unsatisfactory; such a
complicated question cannot be answered by a short phrase; for we are
by no means aware what the words "closer tie" mean. As unsatisfactory
is Howitt's remark, that owing to the promiscuous sexual intercourse,
no woman can know if the children are the offspring of her husband or
of the _Pirraurus_, and, therefore, the children must be considered
as possessing group fathers and not individual fathers.[333] Apart
from the objection that this applies merely to paternity and not to
motherhood, which would remain at any rate individual, we must point to
our subsequent investigations, which will show that the physiological
question of actual procreation does not play a very important part in
the determination of relationship. Probably it does not play in these
tribes any part at all, as they (at least the Urabunna) seem not to
have any knowledge of the actual physiological process of procreation.
So we see that although both Howitt and Spencer and Gillen try to prove
the existence of group relationship between the _Pirraurus_ and their
children, their conclusions appear to be ill founded in facts, and to
be rather the fruits of speculation than of observation. Our suspicions
are strengthened by the unsophisticated remark of Gason, to which we
must ascribe much weight, as he knows the Dieri tribe better than any
one else, and as he has no theory of his own to prove or to demolish.
He says: "The offspring of the _pirraoora_ are affectionately looked
after and recognized as if they were the natural offspring of the real
husband and wife." Although this phrase is not very happily formulated,
its meaning appears to be that the married couple recognize all the
children of the woman and treat them with kindness and affection,
without making any distinction. If, according to the views just
mentioned, the children were accepted by all the men cohabiting with
a given woman, _i. e._ by her husband and all the _Pirraurus_, the
phrase quoted above would be obviously quite meaningless; for why
should the offspring be recognized as if they were the husband's own
children in order to be treated well? It may also be pointed out that
the Dieri father is very affectionate to his children.[334] And in all
the statements referring to this subject we clearly see that it is a
question merely of the individual father and by no means of a group of
fathers.

     [332] See below, p. 243.

     [333] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 58.

     [334] See below, pp. 195, 238 and 243.

After this survey of what appear to me to be the most important points
referring to the _Pirrauru_ custom, we see that nearly each one of them
is involved in contradictions and obscurities. To draw any general
conclusion we must proceed with the utmost care and precaution. Our
information about _Piraungaru_ of the Urabunna is nearly worthless.
And we may safely repeat with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew
more facts and knew them better than we can do from their description,
then perhaps their conclusions, drawn from these unknown facts, may be
correct; but if they draw their general conclusions only from the facts
they communicate to us, then we are justified in rejecting them.

Our chief aim in discussing the features of the _Pirrauru_ relationship
was to ascertain how far this relation possesses the character of
marriage. That it is a "group relation" is beyond doubt.[335] That it
is a form of marriage has been accepted by Howitt, Fison, and Spencer
and Gillen without much discussion.[336] Mr. Thomas has shown already
how unsatisfactory the reasons are, on the strength of which _Pirrauru_
is considered to be a form of group marriage, or even a survival of the
previous stage of group marriage. He has shown how insufficient, in the
light of an exact definition, the information is, how many essential
points we still want to know to be able to make any more conclusive
assertion. Mr. Thomas' criticism bears especially on the lack of a
strict use of the term "group marriage." He gives a correct definition
(page 128 of the work quoted) of this term, and consistently puts to
its test the views propounded by the previously mentioned writers. From
this discussion he concludes that in the _Pirrauru_ relationship we can
find neither the features of an actual group marriage nor the traces
of such a previous state of things.[337] This criticism and conclusion
appear to me so convincing and final, that I would have simply referred
to them without entering again upon this rather perplexing question,
were it not a good opportunity for pointing out again by means of this
example, that the sexual aspects of marriage and the family cannot be
discussed separately, detached from each other; and for showing how
incorrect it is to represent the sexual side of marital life as the
complete and unique content of marriage. On the contrary, marriage may
not be, as so often repeated here, detached from family life; it is
defined in all its aspects by the problems of the economic unity of the
family, of the bonds created by common life in one wurley, through the
common rearing of, and affection towards, the offspring. In the above
points I tried to show that in nearly all these respects the _Pirrauru_
relationship essentially differs from marriage and cannot, therefore,
seriously encroach upon the individual family. This will appear still
more clearly when all these points are exhaustively discussed in their
bearing upon the individual family.

     [335] Compare, however, the definition given by N. W. Thomas,
     _loc. cit._, p. 128, who shows also how misleading an
     indiscriminate use of such terms may be.

     [336] And some others. For instance, Prof. Frazer in
     his new work, _loc. cit._, i. pp. 363 _sqq._, where the
     theories and views of these authorities on _Pirrauru_ are
     accepted without any criticism.

     [337] _Loc. cit._, p. 136.

Now I would like to show that Howitt, as well as Spencer and Gillen,
based his assertions as to the group marriage character of the
_Pirrauru_ relation upon a misleading exaggeration of the importance
of the sexual side of marriage. Spencer and Gillen say that every
man has one or two individual wives or _Nupa_ "allotted to him as
wives, and to whom he has the first but not the exclusive right of
access."[338] But besides these there is the _Pirrauru_ institution in
which "a group of women actually have marital relations with a group of
men." And as a conclusion, it follows simply, that in Australia there
exists a group marriage, and that not a "pretended" one (Spencer and
Gillen criticize here Dr. Westermarck's expression), but a "real" one.
This reasoning would inspire some mistrust by its summary and laconic
character alone.[339] But it is also evident that in the passage quoted
the authors speak exclusively of the sexual side of marriage, and that
they actually mean to imply that this sexual side is everything which
requires attention, if marriage in a given case should be described.
And this is obviously false. The incorrect reasoning is repeated by the
same authors in their later work.[340] From the fact that sexual access
is open to the _Pirraurus_, and that there are no special names for
the individual parents and children (which does not seem to hold good
for the Dieri, however), the inference is drawn that group marriage
exists instead of individual marriage. Not even the conditions under
which a man has access to his _Pirrauru_ are discussed! Our discussion
(from Howitt's detailed data) has shown that even in sexual matters the
_Pirrauru_ are far behind the Tippa Malku; indeed, that there is no
comparison between the sexual rights of an individual husband and of a
_Pirrauru_.

     [338] _Nat. Tr._, p. 109.

     [339] Mr. Thomas has also remarked (_loc. cit._, p. 128)
     that Spencer and Gillen, who speak on page 109 of the real
     and not pretended group marriage among the Urabunna, say
     on the next page, that in the same tribe group marriage
     preceded the present state of things--and so contradict
     themselves. Such a carelessness is remarkable in a work,
     which in all other respects is a masterpiece; and all these
     reasons induce us to suspect that the subject in question
     must have been in theory as well as in facts not very
     familiar to our authors.

     [340] _Nor. Tr._, p. 140.

The same insufficiency of reasoning is shown by Howitt. He says in one
place[341] that there is individual as well as group marriage among the
Australian aborigines. But under the word marriage he understands the
right of sexual access. And on this ground he asserts that among the
Kurnai there existed individual marriages exclusively; and among the
Dieri there was also group marriage. It is characteristic that no one
of these writers tried to give any explicit definition of marriage; but
from what I have quoted it appears quite clearly how one-sidedly and
narrowly they conceived marriage.[342] And this conception was not only
fatal to the theories and views held by them on the question, but it
vitiated to a certain extent also the information they gave us about
these facts. For they did not try to ascertain and to inform us about
the most important particulars, which were perhaps not quite out of the
reach of their investigation.[343]

     [341] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115.

     [342] In order to appreciate my argument, the reader is
     requested to peruse the passages referred to from the works
     of Howitt, and from Spencer and Gillen, and judge from
     their full text whether I am not right. The full quotations
     of these passages would have encumbered the present work.
     As polemics are always rather barren, I preferred to
     abstain from them.

     [343] This is an instance of the general truth that
     descriptive ethnography is highly dependent on the
     theories known and accepted by the investigator, and that
     information may be useful or useless according to whether
     the theoretical principles are correct or not. It is
     impossible for an observer to go below the surface if he
     does not discuss the phenomena and theorize on them. On
     the other hand such speculations, if carried on by the
     untrained faculties and unaided efforts of the writers, or
     under the influence of a theoretical prepossession, may be
     entirely misleading.

We have based our discussion of the _Pirrauru_ relation on a broad
conception of marriage, determined by factors of the daily life,
the household, the relation to children, etc. In our systematic and
objective description of facts relating to the _Pirrauru_ relation we
found in the first place that individual marriage exists besides the
custom in question; that it has its radically distinctive features--a
different form of betrothal or allotment of a wife to a man; an
entirely different kind of sexual rights and privileges; and, what
is perhaps the most important fact, an absolutely different aspect
of the child question, connected with the fact that only a man and
his wife form a real household, live in the same wurley, and share
their food supply together and in common with their children. All
these points constitute a real and radical difference between the
individual marriage connected with the individual family, and the
purely sexual connections involved in the _Pirrauru_ relation in its
usual form, _i. e._ when the husband is present in camp. It is only
during the latter's absence or during diplomatic missions that the
_Pirrauru_ relation assumes at all the character of marriage: then
both _Pirraurus_ occupy the same camp, the woman provides food for her
_Pirrauru_, etc. But these occasions are only temporary and exceptional
ones, and we are, unfortunately, not informed, even with the smallest
degree of approximation, how often they may on the average occur,
whether they are very rarely realized exceptions, or whether they are
facts that take place fairly often. At any rate, it is certain that
these essential features of the _Pirrauru_ relationship never take
place simultaneously with the individual marriage. In other words, the
individual marital relations are in force when the real husband is in
camp and all rights (even the sexual ones) of the _Pirraurus_ cease.
So that although the _Pirrauru_ relation, on exceptional and probably
rarely recurring occasions, assumes a few more of the characteristics
of marriage, it never becomes anything like actual marriage. And this
is to be noted, too: the full actuality of _Pirrauru_ relations may
come into force only under the condition that the husband be absent.
It is only by an incorrect and superficial exaggeration of the sexual
side of marriage, that the custom in question has been baptized group
marriage.[344] And still less acceptable is the assertion that this
"group marriage" is "the only form of marriage in existence" among the
South Central tribes.

     [344] Unless we give to the word marriage a new meaning,
     which would be hardly useful.

We may remark about the sexual features of social life in Australia
in general, that far from bearing any character of indiscriminate
promiscuity on the whole, they are, on the contrary, subject to
strict regulations, restrictions, and rules. Every form of licence
must be subject to customary rules. The principle of class exogamy is
maintained in the majority of cases: so the _Pirrauru_ relation is
subject to class rule, as is also wife-lending, wife-exchange, and
the rare cases of licence among unmarried girls and widows. But the
licence occurring during religious, totemic, and other ceremonies
is, as we have seen above, not subject to the class rule. Even the
most prohibited and tabooed degree--that between a man and his
mother-in-law--is violated by custom.

This fact is also noteworthy for the criticism of theories which see
both in class exogamy and in sexual licence survivals of former group
marriage. At some ceremonies of a magical and religious character
sexual licence occurs, in agreement with the principle that survivals
are always connected with religious facts. But if class exogamy is also
a survival of group marriage, why should _this_ fall in abeyance on
such occasions? For if these two principles were so deeply connected,
why should one of them (class exogamy) be entirely neglected on the
very occasion when the other (ceremonial licence) is most conspicuous?
Is that not again one of the serious difficulties in the way of the
hypothesis of a previous group marriage, a difficulty which at least
must be accounted for, and which is always completely ignored by the
authors concerned?

There is justification for saying that the notion of adultery and
the reprobation thereof is well known to the aborigines, and that
they punish and condemn unlawful unions of all kinds. As W. E. Roth
says, "morality in a broad sense" is well known to the Australian
aborigines. It could be even said that sexual morality does exist, only
according to a special code, which is obviously different from ours,
if we understand by "morality" the fact that there exists a series of
determined norms and that these norms are followed.

Closely connected with this question is the more psychological problem
of sexual jealousy. The existence of sexual jealousy, especially on
the part of the males, has been often referred to by various authors
in order to criticize the theories of primitive promiscuity and
group marriage. On the other hand, it was pointed out that motives
of jealousy are much less strong among some primitive peoples; and
many instances have been adduced to prove this assumption. So _e. g._
about the Australians, Spencer and Gillen say: "Amongst the Australian
natives with whom we have come in contact, the feeling of sexual
jealousy is not developed to anything like the extent to which it would
appear to be in many other savage tribes." ... "It is indeed a factor
which need not be taken into serious account in regard to the question
of sexual relations amongst the Central Australian tribes."[345]

     [345] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 99, 100.

It seems to be beyond any doubt that sexual jealousy, as _we_ conceive
it, is completely absent from the aboriginal mind. It has always been a
serious defect in ethnological reasoning that such ideas and feelings
as those connected with our meaning of "jealousy" have usually not
been analyzed, nor the question asked whether they had any meaning and
place in a given society, or whether we must assume other corresponding
elements to give a new content to the word. Our sexual jealousy--the
ideas as well as the feelings involved therein--is moulded by
innumerable social factors; it is connected with the notion of honour;
it is the result of ideals of pure love, individual sexual rights,
sacredness of monogamy, etc. One of the strongest motives is the care
for the certainty of physiological fatherhood: paternal affection is
strongly enhanced by the idea of blood connection between a man and
his offspring. All these factors are obviously either absent or deeply
modified in the Australian aboriginal society. It is, therefore, quite
wrong to use the word jealousy and ask if it is present among them,
without trying to give to it its proper content.

In the first place, we may assume in this society, as in the whole of
mankind and in the majority of higher animals, a physiological basis
for jealousy in the form of an innate instinct;[346] a natural aversion
of an individual towards an encroachment on his sexual rights and a
natural tendency to expand these rights as far as possible--within
certain variable limits. That among the Australian aborigines such
instincts of jealousy are not absent, that they are, on the contrary,
very strongly developed, is evident from nearly all the facts quoted
and all general considerations. It is proved by the high esteem in
which in some tribes chastity is held; by the fact that fidelity is
required in all other tribes, and that it yields only to custom. The
demand for fidelity in all tribes has been discussed above. There
is a whole series of statements that emphatically affirm a very
strong feeling of jealousy; and connected with it is the fact that
the majority of fights and quarrels are about women (Curr, Dawson,
Mrs. Parker, Schürmann, Wilhelmi, Wilkes, Turnbull, Phillipps, Tench,
Spencer and Gillen). Now, that these instincts of jealousy do not
assume the delicate and refined form they possess in our society,
results merely from the difference in the corresponding collective
ideas which influence and mould the elementary instinct.

     [346] This expression is perhaps inexact. But this is not
     the place for psychological and biological analyses. The
     reader may be referred to Dr. Westermarck's conclusion
     that there is a strong instinct of sexual jealousy among
     primitive races of men, both in males (_H.H.M._,
     pp. 117-132) and in females (_ibid._, pp. 495-500). This
     instinct is inherited from our animal ancestors (compare
     Darwin, _Descent of Man_, ii. p. 395). Important for us are
     the examples of female jealousy, quoted by Westermarck from
     the Australian material; Narrinyeri, Taplin, p. 11; Palmer,
     p. 282; Lumholtz, p. 213; Waitz Gerland, pp. 758, 781.

With our few data available we can attempt only a sketch of the
psychology of the feelings of jealousy among the aborigines. It may be
observed that although the sentiment of sexual love might be postulated
in all human hearts, it seems to be, to a certain extent, banished from
the majority of the Australian matrimonial matches by the very way in
which they were brought about.[347]

     [347] Compare above, p. 83.

This must also to a great extent deprive jealousy of its violent
character. On the other hand, social opinion, which in our society
works through ideas of honour and ridicule, strengthening the feelings
of jealousy and giving to them a certain outer prestige, even in cases
when they may not be actually felt--in the Australian Aboriginal
Society uses these factors with a directly contrary effect. As a
matter of fact, in many cases, public opinion compels a man to give
his wife away; it is considered an incident of hospitality, a virtue.
In other cases it is an honourable duty, as _e. g._ in cases of wife
offering during a ceremony in order to express gratitude. We read
that in cases where a man begrudges his wife to a _Pirrauru_ he is
regarded as churlish. Obviously, these social factors act here to
modify and moderate the feeling of sexual jealousy. We find no instance
or statement which would point to a contrary influence of these
factors in the Australian aboriginal society.[348] But, as pointed
out above, the idea of individual sexual over-right and control over
his wife is strongly present in the aboriginal mind. This right is
undoubtedly realized as a privilege, and the natural tendency to keep
his privileges for himself, or dispose of them according to his wish
or interest, must create a strong opposition to any encroachment.
In other words, the sexual act has its intrinsic value, and it is
considered as an unquestionable advantage. And the right to this
advantage constitutes a kind of private property. The feeling of
jealousy exists here in its economic sense: the proprietor of a certain
object begrudges the use of it to any one whom he does not invite to
it, or who is not otherwise entitled to the privilege. And this seems
to me one of the strongest probable sources of jealousy, besides the
natural physiological impulse of aversion, mentioned above. I think it
is corroborated by the facts enumerated, which show that the husband
vigilantly watches over and keeps his over-right.

     [348] Custom referring to a certain point--here _e. g._
     to the question whether it is honourable or ignominious
     to waive one's marital rights--stands in the relation of
     correspondence to the collective ideas and collective
     feelings on this point. The expression of Spencer and
     Gillen that the feeling of jealousy is "subservient to
     that of the influence of tribal custom" is therefore
     incorrect (_Nat. Tr._, p. 99). It would be obviously quite
     erroneous to assert that there is any collective feeling
     which would not be subservient to the tribal custom. It
     is consequently meaningless to affirm that the given
     feeling here is subservient. We may, therefore, discard
     also the logical conclusion at which Messrs. Spencer and
     Gillen arrive from these premisses: viz. that jealousy is
     a matter of no importance when dealing with the Central
     Australians (_ibid._, p. 100). A certain tribal or national
     custom expresses or formulates public feelings, and, on
     the other hand, if there is a certain type of collective
     feelings or ideas, they must have their legal or customary
     forms wherein to express themselves. We should say: the
     Australian customs show that there is no such collective
     feeling as jealousy in our sense, which would obviously
     object to such customs as theirs. The collective feelings
     in Australia which correspond to our jealousy do not imply,
     therefore, the idea of absolute exclusiveness; the idea of
     inviolable personal access of a man to a woman does not
     exist there; that is proved by the custom in question. But
     outside the limits prescribed by tribal custom there is
     little adultery; jealousy seems to be exceedingly strong,
     and the same tribal law, which in some cases compels the
     man to give up his marital rights, in other cases justifies
     him in the utmost brutalities, and allows him even to
     inflict death with impunity upon his wife. Owing to the
     scantiness of our information we can hardly say whether
     sexual jealousy is stronger or weaker in Australian than in
     other societies; we can safely affirm that it is different.

In regard to the motive of jealousy as connected with the question
of progeny--the care to be sure of a man's own real paternity of
his children, we may remark that this motive must be absent in many
tribes, viz. in those tribes where the physiological rôle of the
father in procreation is not known. We know with all certainty that
this is the case in the Central and North Central tribes, as well as
in the North-east part of the continent.[349] But it appears to be
the case in the South Central tribes. It is stated that the Urabunna
have quite analogous beliefs in reincarnation of ancestors, in their
dwelling-places, and other totemic matters.[350] Spencer and Gillen do
not say anything definite about the appreciation or want of knowledge
of physiological paternity, but that is perhaps because they were
less well acquainted with the Urabunna, who were also probably in
a more advanced stage of decay. By analogy it may be inferred that
the Urabunna, like all the other neighbouring tribes, had with the
whole apparatus of analogous beliefs, also the lack of the knowledge
in question. We might infer the same about the Dieri and kindred
tribes, who seem to be almost identical in all respects with the
Urabunna, but of whose religious and totemic ideas we are by no means
so well informed as of their social organization; in fact, for these
psychological data it is undoubtedly to Spencer and Gillen that we owe
the major part of our knowledge about Australia.

     [349] See below, pp. 209 _sqq._ and 226.

     [350] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 146 _sqq._

Certainly the ignorance of physiological fatherhood in the South
Central tribes is of a hypothetical character. But provided it is a
fact, we see that the area occupied by tribes which believe in the
supernatural begetting of children extends over the whole Central and
North-east area. There is no evidence on this point in the case of the
Western tribes. We find only in the South-eastern tribes a knowledge of
the real process of procreation. It is interesting to note that thus
the area of greater sexual promiscuity and less pronounced jealousy is
conterminous with the area where natural paternity is unknown. Whether
there be any real dependence between these two series of facts it is
impossible to assert, as our knowledge of the natives' psychology is
too scanty. But if our information on this point be reliable, and if
these limits be correct, then the coincidence just noted is rather
suggestive.

To return to the question of jealousy, we have, after having stated
the general problems, discussed the influence exercised on it by
social pressure or custom and other psychical factors. Finally we have
shown that the sexual act is not in all tribes conceived as leading to
childbirth, and that this bears upon the problem of jealousy. But it
must be remembered that they have ideas of the sexual act which are
entirely foreign to us, and which may account also for some differences
in their views of, and feelings about, jealousy. Here come in ideas
of the magic influences and virtues attributed to the sexual act. In
Australia there are unmistakable signs of it.

The ceremonial act of defloration, in connection with the initiation
of females, is undoubtedly connected with some mystic ideas of its
magical character. This is shown especially clearly in the fact that
this ceremonial act is employed for medicinal or hygienic purposes, as
stated in Roth and in Beveridge.[351] We saw that the only instance of
the exchange of wives in the Kurnai tribe was when it was ordered by
the old men, to avert impending evil. The same is reported by Cameron
of some of the Darling River tribes. This shows clearly how feelings
of jealousy, which seem to have been fairly strong in this tribe, may
be subservient to a belief in the magical, beneficial influence of
sexual intercourse, performed in a certain prescribed way. The many
instances in which sexual intercourse, usually not between husband
and wife, takes place during certain religious ceremonies, as well as
the fact of sexual abstinence, which is often to be observed on such
occasions, shows that it has its magical side. From this conception
of the sexual act as endowed with some magic properties, there would
result differences in the ideas and feelings connected with jealousy.
On the one hand, such magic properties would require in some cases the
waiving of individual sexual rights, as we saw in some of the instances
just mentioned. And in these cases the instincts of jealousy would
be suppressed by the more powerful feelings inspired by supernatural
apprehensions. On the other hand, it is possible--although there
are no examples of it--that the very magical aspect of the sexual
act would make it especially subject to jealous watchfulness and
exclusiveness. Apart from any speculations, it appears certain that all
these different ideas and conceptions are in intimate interdependence,
and that we can only safely speak about jealousy (or any other such
compounded psychical complex) in a given society, when we know all such
connections.[352]

     [351] Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 174. Beveridge, p. 53,
     Latin note.

     [352] The idea of a radical difference in the psychological
     aspect of jealousy among lower races of men is set forth by
     Dr. Westermarck: "Jealousy ... is far from being the same
     feeling in the mind of a savage as in that of a civilized
     man."--_H.H.M._, p. 30.

To sum up our results in this survey of jealousy in the Australian
aboriginal society. _Negatively_: _A priori_ it may be said that
nothing like sexual jealousy in our sense of this word--save the broad
and uncertain physiological instinct--can exist. As a matter of fact,
a whole series of customs, duties, and tribal regulations absolutely
contradict the existence of jealousy in our sense. _Positively_:
The existence of strong instincts of jealousy in many cases must
be acknowledged. To understand the more definite forms which these
instincts assume, it is necessary to note the presence or absence of
motives which would influence, check, or develop these instincts. The
unquestionable physiological instinct of jealousy and the natural
tendency to keep up one's private exclusive rights, are two sources
from which jealousy seems to be derived. It is deeply influenced by the
ideas on the magical character of the sexual act which the Australian
aborigines undoubtedly possess; and in the majority of tribes by the
absence of the knowledge of physical paternity. The tribal customs show
that it does not amount to the idea of exclusive inviolable personal
rights which essentially characterize our conception and feelings of
jealousy. But within its narrower limits it seems to be very strong and
important.




CHAPTER V

MODE OF LIVING


I

The three points hitherto discussed refer more exclusively to the
relationship between husband and wife, and do not involve that between
parents and children. They bear more on marriage than on the family.
But, as so often repeated, the full description of marriage can be
made only in connection with, and on the basis of, a knowledge of
the family life in its larger sense. We proceed now to this more
general discussion, and in order to carry it out on broad foundations
it will be well in the first place to consider the family unit[353]
in connection with the territorial and tribal organization; that is
to consider the mode of living of the family in connection with the
higher territorial and tribal units. It has been repeatedly said that
each social unit should be discussed in connection with the general
structure of society and the general conditions of life in a given
area. When theoretically stated this appears a commonplace; in practice
it is seldom carried out by ethnologists.

     [353] Under the term "family unit" I understand in this
     study only the group constituted by husband, wife and their
     children.

That the facts of aggregation are of the highest importance in
sociology appears also to be quite clear.[354] These facts have been
described by Mr. Wheeler for the Australian aboriginal society, and
we shall in several places refer to his work. It will serve us as a
basis in the following discussion, which nevertheless does not appear
superfluous as it is connected more exclusively with the problem of
family. In this connection the main question to be asked is: Do the
natives usually live scattered, in single families, or in larger
groups? All the features of family life--the husband's authority,
the sexual marital relation, the economics of the household, the
relation of children to parents--would appear in a different light,
and our ideas thereon might in many respects be modified according
to the answer we obtained to the above question. This point (_i. e._
the mode of living) would also be decisive in the problem of group
relationship: if the natives live normally in single families, which
assemble only occasionally, then the individuality of the family
relationship is placed beyond any doubt. And if there are, besides, any
group relations, they must radically and absolutely differ from the
individual one; for the latter, and it only, is constituted by the most
powerfully binding element--continuous daily contact. If, however, the
aborigines live in more or less numerous groups, our question is still
open, and we have to inquire: Do the families, which (permanently or
temporarily) form one body, live in a state of social communism and
promiscuity? Or are they more or less isolated from each other? That
will form the second part of our task.[355]

     [354] "In the study of population ... the facts of
     aggregation or grouping are the first to claim our
     attention." (F. H. Giddings, _Princ. of Sociology_,
     p. 79). In fact all the social phenomena of higher order
     corresponding to differentiation and constitution depend
     upon the facts of grouping. In the lowest societies, as
     the Australian, the mode of living in very small groups
     precludes _a priori_ the possibility of any higher social
     formations. We may say that the social horizon of a
     community extends as far as the contact of its members. In
     higher societies this contact need not necessarily be an
     actual one; as a rule in more developed communities members
     of a social unit (nation, town, association) only come
     exceptionally and in a diminutive degree into immediate
     contact. But there are innumerable ways of mental contact.
     On the contrary there is no other form of contact but the
     personal one among the Australian blacks, and it is the
     first condition for the formation of any social bonds
     amongst them. In the discussion of all kinship bonds we
     should never lose sight of the fact that it is highly
     improbable that people who never were in personal contact
     could feel more closely related than people who usually
     live together.

     [355] The importance of the aboriginal mode of living in
     the study of family life and kinship bonds has been well
     brought out by Dr. Westermarck (_H.H.M._, pp. 42 _sqq._,
     especially pp. 43-47). His general inference--that in
     low societies the scattered mode of living brings into
     prominence individual kinship bonds, and isolates the
     family unit--will be corroborated by our conclusions
     drawn from the Australian material. The few Australian
     examples--quoted and interpreted by Dr. Westermarck--have
     been vehemently disputed by Herr Cunow (_loc. cit._, p. 122,
     footnote). His criticism, if compared with the data
     presented in this chapter, will appear quite unfounded.
     Herr Cunow's book does not, by the way, deserve its good
     reputation. There are many statements in it, given without
     references, which I have been unable to verify in the first
     hand evidence.

Let us now gather information about the first point, _i. e._ the size of
the groups in which the natives live. Our statements are at first sight
contradictory on this point; but this is largely due to the total lack
of fixed terminology. It will be well to settle the latter beforehand
and determine more exactly what we are to look for in the statements.
For that purpose we must forestall the results of our research and
broadly outline the state of things; it will give us a guiding thread
through the statements. Roughly speaking, in Australia the tribe as
a social unit is characterized by name, common speech, custom and
territory.[356] It is divided (and sometimes subdivided again) into
smaller groups; these consist of individuals closely related, possess
a sort of government, and are connected with a portion of the tribal
territory which they practically use in common.[357] For the social
division of the tribes is connected with and complicated by a parallel
territorial partition. And there is always a certain territory allotted
to the exclusive possession of a certain group. The tribe (as defined
above) cannot be considered as proprietor[358] of the territory, for
its different divisions may not encroach upon each other's grounds.
We shall call (by way of definition) a _Local Group_, such a division
of the tribe as possesses the exclusive right to use a given territory
and to dwell within its limits. In the following statements we will
give a series of examples of these local units, and the different forms
they assume in different tribes. It will be possible, too, to give a
more precise meaning to the word "proprietorship"; and to see in what
sense land may be possessed or claimed by the Australian blacks. The
authors seldom try to give to these terms any clear meaning, or to
discern all the existing differences; but these will be evident enough
from the facts contained in the statements. The problem of territorial
division is only the basis for our main question, viz. the mode of
living. The Local Group, which is the joint owner of its territory,
is, so to say, only the upper limit of aggregation; _i. e._ the body of
persons actually and normally living together cannot be larger than
that group, for only its members are (in normal conditions) admitted
to its grounds. But this Local Group may also live scattered over its
district. There will be several data in our information which would
rather confirm us in this supposition.

     [356] See Wheeler, _loc. cit._, pp. 15 _sqq._, and the
     references given there.

     [357] _Ibid._, pp. 45, 46.

     [358] To guard against misunderstanding I wish to
     emphasize that such words and expressions as "proprietor,"
     "ownership," "landed property," "rights to a tract of
     country," etc., are not to be taken in the sense which
     they possess in application to higher societies, to our
     own society in particular. Their correct meaning will be
     gathered from the following discussion. For the sake of
     clearness and brevity it was sometimes needful, in the
     text, to use the above expressions, instead of the more
     correct ones like "possession," "claims to a country," etc.
     The term "property" has a definite legal meaning, which
     makes it impossible to apply it in its full sense to the
     low society with which we are concerned.

Now let us review the statements, bearing in mind the exact meaning
given to the words Tribe, Local Group and Family. We have agreed to
call Local Group a unit owning in common a portion of country, and
we are asking how big this unit is in different tribes; if it lives
scattered or in a body; finally, what idea can we form of "land
ownership" in Australia.

  _Statements._--The Kurnai were divided into five exogamous
  "clans."[359] These were divided and subdivided several times,
  "each subdivision having its own tract of hunting and food
  ground, until the unit was a small group of kindred, frequently
  an old man, his sons, married or unmarried, with their respective
  wives and children." The author gives an instance of a family
  claiming a certain island and the swans' eggs laid on it, as its
  property,[360] and living under the authority of the oldest male
  in the family. "Taking such a family[361] as the tribal unit of
  the Kurnai, it was the aggregation of such families that formed
  what may be called a division, inhabiting a large area, and the
  aggregate of the divisions formed the clan."[362] This, and the
  expression family as "tribal unit," shows that probably its members
  lived actually together. It is a pity that Howitt does not give
  even approximately the numbers. Again, in another place, he writes
  of a "natural spread of families over a tract of country," and
  of "elders as heads of families."[363] These "families" unite in
  cases of mutual need for aid and protection[364] and in cases of
  corroborees, initiations, etc.[365]--Here the local group was a
  small unit of related persons. It claimed a certain territory and
  exclusively used its products, and vested authority in its oldest
  male. These local groups usually must have lived isolated from each
  other, because of the exclusive right in using the given area.
  Howitt mentions also the beginnings of individual claims to some
  products (swan's eggs) being even transmitted by inheritance.[366]

     [359] According to Howitt's terminology.

     [360] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 73, 74.

     [361] We would say _local group_, as we reserve the term
     _family_ for an undivided group living in the closest
     unity, and consisting of a man, his wife and his children.

     [362] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 74.

     [363] _Idem_, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 215.

     [364] _Ibid._

     [365] Compare chapter on initiations in Howitt's _Nat.
     Tr._, and _Kam. and Kurn._, _passim_.

     [366] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 232 footnote.

  The statements of Howitt concerning the Murring tribes are not
  quite clear. "Claims to a particular tract of country arose in
  certain of these tribes by birth."[367] He does not say if these
  claims consisted in actual right to live, roam and hunt over
  the said tract of country. It is probable, however, that just
  this is the meaning, as he speaks immediately afterwards of an
  hereditary principle as to the grounds determining the habitation
  where one lives--a father pointing out the bounds of his child's
  country--"where his father lived, or himself was born and had
  lived."[368] If we can assume that each "family" (= local group)
  had its hunting-grounds so designated this would point to a
  far-going subdivision of country and consequently of the tribe; we
  can hardly infer anything conclusive from this statement alone.
  But it appears clearer in the light of the following remark: "The
  local group has in all cases been perpetuated in the same place
  from father to son by occupation, I may almost say by inheritance,
  of the hunting-grounds."[369] It seems, therefore, that generally
  in the tribes studied by Howitt, the local group (he calls it the
  "family," speaking of the Kurnai) was a very well-defined unit. And
  that, in the tribes in question the people who inherit a certain
  territory from father to son are just members of the local group.
  Its rights to the hunting-grounds were based on some--perhaps magic
  or religious--ideas of heredity.

     [367] _Nat. Tr._, p. 82.

     [368] _Nat. Tr._, p. 83.

     [369] Howitt, _Smith. Rep._ 83, p. 816.

  An analogous state of things is reported to have obtained among
  the Wurunjerri (Victoria): "The right to hunt and to procure food
  in any particular tract of the country belonged to the group of
  people born there, and could not be infringed by others without
  permission."[370] In the territory of the same tribe there was
  a stone-quarry, the material of which was very valuable to
  the natives. The quarry was the property of a group of people
  living on the spot; the head of this group had special rights in
  connection with it. "It was Billi-billeri, the head of the family,
  whose country included the quarry, who lived on it, and took
  care of it for the whole of the Wurunjerri community."[371] This
  statement appears to me very important, as it shows how rights of
  possession might belong to a local group and centre in the headman
  of this group. This statement suffices to reconcile the apparent
  contradiction between individual claims to a country and group
  claims.

     [370] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 311.

     [371] _Ibid._

  The local groups amongst the Bangerang, who lived at the junction
  of the Murray and Goulburn Rivers, seem to have been more numerous,
  owing, perhaps, to the easiness of food supply on the banks of
  two fishy rivers.[372] The tribe was divided in two exogamous
  moieties,[373] and the land "was parcelled out between these two
  sub-tribes."[374] Each respectively lived in a body, although
  moving sometimes from place to place. Curr speaks of their
  head-quarters in places abounding with fish.[375] One of the
  sections numbered about 150, the other somewhat less. These two
  "sub-tribes" or moieties constituted, therefore, rather numerous
  local groups. The "sub-tribes" of the kindred tribes mentioned
  by Curr seem also to have been numerous,[376] and to have lived
  each in a body,[377] so that they would be, according to our
  terminology, numerous local groups. Curr speaks also of individual
  property in land, but this seems to have had only a purely
  fictitious meaning, having nothing to do with any real right.[378]
  Private property in other things (_e. g._ fishing weirs, etc.) was
  known.[379]

     [372] Curr, _Recollections_, pp. 231, 240.

     [373] Local exogamous moieties, not phratries!

     [374] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 243.

     [375] _Ibid._, p. 231.

     [376] _Ibid._, p. 234.

     [377] It is never said clearly; but compare the story told
     in XIII, of the meeting of two tribes, and _passim_ through
     the work, p. 174 and others.

     [378] _Ibid._, pp. 243, 244.

     [379] _Ibid._, p. 243.

  Curr uses the term _tribe_ in place of our _local group_. In his
  general work on Australia he gives a definition of tribe which
  quite agrees with what we called local group.[380] "By the word
  tribe I mean a number of men closely allied by blood, and living
  in the strictest alliance, offensive and defensive, who, with
  their wives and children, occupy, practically in common, and in
  exclusion of others, a tract of country...." Everybody must respect
  the customs of his tribe; and as no one may live apart from the
  tribal community, "there is no alternative between compliance with
  tribal custom and death."[381] "Although the lands of a tribe are
  _nominally_ parcelled out amongst its members, it is the fact that
  they are used in common, and for several reasons must have always
  been used so." First, because for mutual protection the tribesmen
  must have often associated. Secondly, because of the economic
  conditions the tribe often was compelled to feed on a given
  spot.[382]

     [380] It is used here in agreement with G. C. Wheeler,
     Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, etc.

     [381] Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 61, 62.

     [382] _Ibid._, pp. 64, 65.

  Angas, describing his travels in the Murray River district, tells
  that he met several times with native encampments; from the passage
  in question[383] we may infer that they were small groups. He
  says[384] that on the seaside (Encounter Bay), on the lakes, and on
  the Murray banks, where means of subsistence were fairly easy, the
  local groups were numerous. But this information is very loose.

     [383] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 74.

     [384] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 81.

  Amongst the tribes of the Lower Murray River "particular districts
  having a radius of from ten to twenty miles, or in other cases
  varying according to local circumstances, are considered generally
  as being the property and hunting-grounds of the tribes who
  frequent them."[385] Eyre speaks of a further division of land
  amongst single individuals; it is handed down hereditarily in
  the male line. "A man can dispose of or barter his land to
  others."[386] At any rate, all members of a "tribe" (= local group)
  may roam over the common territory. It seems, nevertheless, to
  be rather a formal than actual, exclusive right.[387] The local
  groups may not trespass on their respective territories without
  permission.[388] The whole local group congregates only "if there
  is any particular variety more abundant than another, or procurable
  only in certain localities. Should this not be the case, then they
  are probably scattered over their district in detached groups, or
  separate families."[389] Here we are well informed on our principal
  points: the local group is the exclusive joint landowner; the
  individual has some claims which are not quite clearly defined,
  but surely do not mean exclusive economic _usum fructum_. They
  live scattered in small parties over their area. There is another
  passage in Eyre's book that confirms this latter point. He says
  that each family is independent and governed by the father; but
  that, "as a matter of policy, he always informs his fellows where
  he is going." So that "although a tribe may be dispersed all over
  their own district in single groups ... yet if you meet with any
  one family, they can at once tell you where you will find any
  other.... In cases of sudden danger or emergency, the scattered
  groups are rapidly warned or collected" by messenger or smoke
  signals.[390]

     [385] Eyre, ii. p. 297.

     [386] _Ibid._, pp. 218, 297.

     [387] _Ibid._, p. 297.

     [388] _Ibid._, ii. p. 297.

     [389] _Ibid._, p. 218.

     [390] _Ibid._, ii. p. 317.

  Mitchell's expedition, when exploring the interior of South-East
  Australia, met a party of blacks on the banks of the Murray,
  whom they had seen before on the Darling a few hundred miles
  distant.[391] This would apparently contradict the assumption
  of fixed boundaries. But the general evidence shows that, in
  exceptional cases, and with the leave of the neighbouring
  tribes--especially if these were friendly--a local group or any
  party of natives were allowed to travel even considerable distances
  for purposes of warfare, barter or ceremonial gatherings.

     [391] Mitchell, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 92.

  Amongst the Aborigines of Encounter Bay and Lower Murray River
  (the Narrinyeri) the local groups (H. E. A. Meyer calls them
  "tribes,"[392] or "large families" of connected people) seem to be
  numerous (the country abounds with fish and birds). These local
  groups have their head-quarters, from which their name is derived.
  But only in cases of great abundance of food does the local group
  live and move together. Usually single families roam in parties;
  the sick and aged remain in the head-quarters, and suffer often
  from want of food. Not only in search of food, but for the sake of
  performing corroborees, initiations, etc., and visiting each other,
  do these local groups roam about the country.[393]

     [392] H. E. A. Meyer, _loc. cit._, p. 198.

     [393] H. E. A. Meyer, _loc. cit._, pp. 191, 192.

  From a passage in Taplin[394] we may infer that the local group
  of the Narrinyeri near Lake Alexandrina numbered about 200
  natives.[395] The local groups of this tribe were, besides,
  exogamous, totemic, and had a regular form of government. We have
  not even a hint as to their mode of living; but if plentiful food
  supply was the chief condition of larger aggregations, then these
  latter would naturally have developed better in the lake country.

     [394] Taplin, _loc. cit._, p. 35.

     [395] _Ibid._, p. 36.

  Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula there are local divisions;
  each with a certain totem and with headmen.[396] This seems
  analogous to the conditions among the Narrinyeri and Central
  tribes; but the information is not detailed enough to be considered
  quite reliable.

     [396] T. M. Sutton, _loc. cit._, p. 17.

  The Port Lincoln tribes seem to roam about in small parties of
  several families.[397] This statement is not sufficiently clear;
  probably a number of such parties constituted a local group.

     [397] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 221.

  We read, again, about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Each family has its
  distinct place, where they live together."[398] The uncertainty as
  to the sense in which the word _family_ is used here makes this
  statement nearly useless. The same author says in another place:
  "It has been remarked that the population and general condition
  of the natives of Australia greatly depend on the nature of the
  locality they occupy; where the country is sterile and unproductive
  the natives are found to congregate in small numbers. In fertile
  districts they are comparatively numerous."[399] This opinion is in
  agreement with the fact that the population round Lake Alexandrina,
  where food supply was plentiful, was extremely dense.[400]

     [398] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 178.

     [399] _Ibid._, p. 165.

     [400] Compare T. Gill, _loc. cit._, p. 223, on the
     authority of Dr. Moorhouse.

  An author who has made his observations on the blacks of the
  Murrumbidgee River (New South Wales) and Moreton Bay (Queensland)
  writes: Each "tribe" (= local group) occupies a definite tract of
  country; a trespass of its boundaries by a stranger is punished
  with death.[401] This common district is subdivided among families
  of the local group. "During seasons when all the members of the
  tribe are not congregated together, each family hunts on its own
  grounds." The author quotes, also, instances where trees were
  marked and belonged to individuals.[402] This statement answers
  both our questions as to land ownership and modes of living; in
  both respects the "family" is the unit: it owns its area and
  it lives on and uses it normally in isolation from the others;
  proprietorship means here exclusive use. But we must bear in mind
  that what is called here family may as well be a small local group
  of closely related people, like those among the Kurnai. At any
  rate it certainly means that the blacks live in very small groups,
  perhaps in individual families, and that this scattered mode of
  living rests on a territorial basis. (In general the authority of
  G. S. Lang cannot be said to be of the best.)

     [401] G. S. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 5.

     [402] G. S. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 14.

  We read in the travels of Gerstaecker that natives carefully keep
  to the boundaries of their own district. So that a traveller, to be
  quite safe, should always change his guide when entering upon a new
  territory.[403]

     [403] Refers probably to the Murrumbidgee tribes. _Op.
     cit._, iii. p. 9.

  We read about the tribes of New South Wales in general: "Though
  they are constantly wandering about, yet they usually confine
  themselves to a radius of fifty or sixty miles from the place
  they consider their residence. If they venture beyond this, which
  they sometimes do with a party of whites, they always betray the
  greatest fear of falling in with some Myall or stranger blacks,
  who they say would put them to death immediately."[404] We find
  here again the local group owning its territory and having
  head-quarters; as well as the sacrosanctity of boundaries.

     [404] Chas. Wilkes (larger edition), ii. p. 187.

  Turnbull remarks about the New South Wales tribes that the best
  food supply, and consequently the largest gatherings, were possible
  on the sea-shore and on the banks of fishy rivers.[405]

     [405] _Loc. cit._, p. 89.

  An example of family proprietorship in land is mentioned by
  Collins.[406] From it, it appears that this sort of proprietorship
  meant rather some mystic claim than any exclusive right of economic
  character.

     [406] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 599.

  We are informed that among the natives of New South Wales there is
  a great number of small tribes, each containing from forty to fifty
  individuals. "Each tribe has a certain beat, or hunting-ground,
  frequently of not more than twenty miles in diameter, from which
  they never move, unless on certain occasions when they visit the
  territory of a neighbouring tribe for the purpose of a fight, or a
  ceremony. Sometimes, the tribe will wander about in parties of five
  or ten; at other times all the members will encamp together."[407]
  In substituting the word _local group_ for _tribe_, we get here
  again a fairly good statement.

     [407] Henderson, _loc. cit._, p. 108.

  In the statements of Fraser we find again the local group; he
  calls it "sub-tribe." It derives its name from a certain locality,
  owns a tract of country, which is guarded jealously against any
  infringement from any of the neighbouring sub-tribes.[408] This
  statement is illustrated by an example, and therefore appears
  rather trustworthy.[409]

     [408] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.

     [409] _Loc. cit._, p. 37.

  "Each tribe is divided into independent families, which acknowledge
  no chief, and which inhabit in common a district within certain
  limits, generally not exceeding above ten or twelve miles on any
  side." The tribes number from 100 to 300.[410] "The families
  belonging to a tribe meet together upon occasions of festivals
  at certain seasons, and also to consult upon all important
  occasions."[411] The first phrase is not clear: we are not told
  whether what he calls the tribe owns its area in common, or whether
  the divisions called "independent families" possess each its own
  district. From the context, however, we see that we must assume the
  latter. Three hundred people occupy in Australia usually more than
  a hundred square miles.

     [410] Port Stephens tribe. R. Dawson, pp. 326, 327.

     [411] _Ibid._, compare also p. 63.

  Hodgkinson, speaking of the tribes between Port Macquarie and
  Moreton Bay, says that the tribes (local groups) keep each within
  very narrow limits. The district of each of them measures about
  150 square miles; usually some ten to twelve miles of a river bank
  and the adjoining hinterland. "The whole body of a tribe is never
  united on the same spot, unless on some important occasion. They
  are more generally divided into small parties of eight or ten men,
  with their women and children, for the greater convenience of
  hunting, etc., and these detached companies roam over any part of
  the country within the prescribed limits of the main tribe to which
  they belong."[412] This statement agrees with the general type of
  information.

     [412] Hodgkinson, _loc. cit._, p. 222.

  Of the Coombangree tribe, New South Wales, it is said: "Each tribe
  kept its own belt of country and separated into small camps, and
  only collected on special occasions."[413] In this statement the
  words "local group" should be substituted for "tribe."

     [413] _Science of Man_, 1900, p. 116, article by A. C. McDougall.

  The Dieri, divided into five local hordes, are still subdivided
  into smaller "local groups, each having a definite tract of hunting
  and food ground."[414] These local groups cannot be very numerous.
  The whole tribe numbers about 250. There are at least ten local
  groups, since they include about twenty persons each. But we do not
  know whether such a local group lived in a body or scattered over
  its territory.[415]

     [414] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 46.

     [415] Gason, _loc. cit._, p. 258.

  We owe one of our best statements as to the nature of the
  local group to Spencer and Gillen. Its totemic character, its
  organization with the _alatunja_ at its head, the different
  functions of magico-religious character and many other social
  functions and characteristics define it perfectly well.[416] The
  territorial division seems to be much the same in all the tribes
  studied by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. "In all the tribes there is
  a division into local groups, which occupy certain well-defined
  areas within the tribal territory."[417] The possession of land is
  vested in them. "There is no such thing as one man being regarded
  as the owner of any tract of country. In every case the unit of
  division is the local totemic group."[418] This statement is quite
  clear. The local group owns a certain area, and all the individuals
  have the right to hunt and roam over it. They do not do it in
  one body, they live scattered in much smaller parties of one or
  two families. "The members of this (local group) wander, perhaps
  in small parties of one or two families, often, for example, two
  or more brothers with their wives and children, over the land
  which they own, camping at favourite spots, where the presence
  of water-holes, with their accompaniment of vegetable and animal
  food, enables them to supply their wants."[419] Here the picture is
  perfectly clear: the territorial unit is the local group; within
  its grounds all members have the right to hunt and roam; no other
  people may trespass over the boundaries. Such trespasses do not in
  reality frequently happen.[420] The area is not only economically
  the property of the local group, there are much stronger ties
  between the land, once the hunting and ceremonial ground of the
  Alcheringa ancestors, and their actual descendants.[421] But the
  local group does not form one body; division into single families
  seems to be, under ordinary circumstances, the normal status. We
  get here a good insight into the inner structure of a local group,
  the chief feature of which is the isolation of families. The local
  group acts as a body chiefly on ceremonial occasions. To sum up:
  the local group is the joint land-owner; proprietorship means
  exclusive rights to hunt and roam over the country; but in the
  native's mind it has much deeper roots, and the connection between
  the local group and its hunting-grounds is based upon all their
  traditions and creeds. Their mode of living is scattered; they hang
  usually round favourite spots (see below).

     [416] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 9, 16 and _passim_ throughout both
     works, especially in connection with the description of
     totemism and totemic cult.

     [417] _Nor. Tr._, p. 27.

     [418] _Ibid._

     [419] _Nat. Tr._, p. 16.

     [420] _Nor. Tr._, p. 31.

     [421] The ties between a totemic local group and its
     hunting-grounds are based on the whole cycle of totemic
     ideas on reincarnation, supernatural conception; on the
     Oknanikilla and Ertnatulunga. The reader must be referred
     to the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and Strehlow and
     to what is said about these points below in connection with
     the native ideas on conception (Chap. VI.).

  Speaking of the totemic myths of the Northern tribes Mr. Mathews
  says: "In those olden days, as at present, the totemic ancestors
  consisted of families or groups of families, who had their
  recognized grounds in some part of the tribal territory."[422]

     [422] _J. and Pr. R.S.N.S.W._, xl. p. 108.

  Among the natives of Queensland[423] the territory is parcelled
  out completely amongst the different local groups; the boundaries
  are well known and mutually respected. This district is again
  subdivided amongst the members of the local group; the proprietor
  "has the exclusive right to direct when it should be hunted over,
  and the grass burned and the wild animals destroyed." If other men
  aggregate and use the products of his land he is regarded as the
  master of ceremonies. This statement gives us at least a clear and
  consistent definition of private proprietorship, which seems to be
  of a formal, ceremonial character. But it is not complete. We do
  not know if normally each family enjoys its district alone, with
  the head of the family always master of ceremonies, or whether the
  whole local group, or parts of it, hunt and roam usually in bodies.
  This statement is, therefore, not very useful.

     [423] Moreton Bay. J.D. Lang, p. 335, 336.

  We read about the Kabi and Wakka tribes of Queensland: "A few
  families claiming the same territory usually camped and travelled
  together, sometimes in smaller, sometimes in larger numbers. I
  characterize such family groups as communities."[424] And again:
  "Such communities were constituted by a few families occupying the
  same small area in common."[425] This is a clear definition of what
  we called local group, and agrees perfectly well with the general
  picture already outlined.

     [424] J. Mathew, i. p. 128.

     [425] J. Mathew, i. p. 129.

  E. Palmer says that the game and other products of a certain
  country belonged to the tribe (= local group) there residing; the
  boundaries were respected and trespassers punished by death.[426]

     [426] E. Palmer, _J.A.I._, xiii. pp. 278, 279.

  In North-West Central Queensland the "tribe" (our local group) has
  its head-quarters.[427] This group has also an over-right over its
  territory, "over which the community as a whole has the right to
  hunt and roam."[428] There is still a further subdivision; each
  family possesses hunting-grounds of its own, and no other has the
  right to any product thereof without the family's permission.
  In the case of tribesmen, transgression is a trifle; in that of
  strangers, a very serious offence.[429] The statements of Roth
  do not, however, say anything about their mode of living. The
  mention of "head-quarters" points to a subdivision of land amongst
  families and to a scattered mode of living. In all probability we
  may assume here the following form: the local group as joint owner
  of its land; and single families having special rights to certain
  parts of it, and camping as a rule separately or in small groups,
  and aggregating in cases of emergency at the head-quarters. This
  is the only statement which attributes to families and individuals
  respectively a virtually exclusive right over a certain ground. We
  read in another place of the mode or rather the principle according
  to which individual proprietorship is determined in the North
  Queensland tribes: "The child's own country, its 'home' where it
  will in the future have the right to hunt and roam, is determined
  not by the place of actual birth, but by the locality where his
  _choi_ had been held apart." _Choi_ is the spirit part of the
  child's father, embodied in the father's afterbirth. The place
  of this _choi_ is carefully determined after the child's birth,
  according to a customary ceremonial.[430] The extent of a local
  group is determined in the following statement: "there were from
  twelve to twenty heads of families constituting the group, each
  with its particular division, who together made the tribe."[431]
  Here again the land seems to be allotted to the local group,
  though, according to the foregoing passages, there was a further
  subdivision according to families.

     [427] Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 133, § 226.

     [428] _Idem_, Bull. viii. p. 8.

     [429] _Ibid._ and _Proc. R.S.Q._, pp. 50, 51.

     [430] Bull. v. pp. 18, 23.

     [431] _Idem_, _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 69.

  As an instance showing that there were sometimes territorial
  changes and shifting of tribes may be quoted the statement of
  G. W. Earl, who says that a big tribe came from the interior and
  established itself at the base of Coburg Peninsula.[432] How far
  this statement is reliable it is difficult to say. Anyhow it is in
  opposition to the numerous and reliable statements which affirm
  that tribal boundaries were strictly kept and never changed.

     [432] _Loc. cit._, pp. 241, 242.

  The natives of Melville Island seem to have lived in more numerous
  groups. Major Campbell says that their "tribes" number from thirty
  to fifty persons each. On visiting an encampment he found about
  thirty wigwams, which would point to about fifty persons at least.
  "They lead a wandering life, though I think each tribe confines
  itself to a limited district."[433]

     [433] _Loc. cit._, pp. 156, 157.

  A clear statement concerning the scattered mode of life is given of
  the North-Western aborigines by J. G. Withnell, who lived amongst
  them for twenty years. "The natives generally live in families at
  various intervals of a few miles down the course of each river
  and its creeks."[434] "In fact they are small families constantly
  moving camp a few miles in any direction they please."[435] In
  another place we read: "The natives are divided into many tribes,
  having their boundaries defined." These tribes are obviously our
  local group. The members thereof live scattered in small parties,
  called by Withnell "families." Very interesting is Withnell's
  information concerning totemic local centres quite analogous[436]
  to those described by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. It is important
  in our present discussion because it throws light upon the problem
  of the connection between an individual or a family and a certain
  tract of country. From Withnell's information[437] it results that
  among the North-Western tribes there were also totemic centres,
  allotted each to a "family" (local group or part thereof?) at which
  ceremonies for the multiplication of the totem were performed. The
  claim to such centres is hereditary.

     [434] J. G. Withnell, _loc. cit._, p. 8.

     [435] _Ibid._

     [436] _Idem_, p. 31.

     [437] _Loc. cit._, pp. 5, 6.

  We read in Grey about the tribes of West Australia. "They appear
  to live in tribes (= local groups), subject, perhaps, to some
  individual authority; and each tribe has a sort of capital, or
  head-quarters, where the women and children remain whilst the men,
  divided into small parties, hunt and shoot in different directions.
  The largest number we saw together amounted nearly to 200, women
  and children included."[438] This directly asserts that the local
  group lived in one body; for of course the men were bound to
  return always to the head-quarters. Now if we had to assume that
  the local group numbered about 200 individuals we could hardly
  allow the possibility of obtaining food. Especially as in another
  place Grey says: "Landed property does not belong to a tribe, or
  to several families, but to a single male; and the limits of his
  property are so accurately defined that every native knows those of
  his own land, and can point out the various objects which mark his
  boundaries." This land is divided by the father amongst his several
  sons. But Grey does not define what proprietorship means. These
  two statements are quite inconsistent with each other; if every
  man of a big local group had to go to hunt on his own grounds (and
  we know that the food area for an Australian family is not small)
  they would have to spend their life in making journeys between
  their hunting-grounds and head-quarters. We must either suppose
  that Grey's tribes were quite small local groups which lived each
  on its own territory, and that when he speaks of from 100 to 200
  persons assembled he refers only to exceptional meetings, or that
  the individual ownership of land had no real economic meaning, and
  that the natives actually lived in these tribes in more numerous
  bodies (perhaps the coastal tribes at least). This statement is,
  therefore, not very useful.

     [438] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 252.

  Bishop Salvado asserts a subdivision of land among single families
  (although he calls "family" a small party of related natives, see
  p. 257) acquired by right of birth.[439] Neighbouring families,
  small local groups, may enjoy their land in common.[440] Such
  small parties are quite independent, and governed by the oldest
  male.[441] They lead, as we may infer from that, normally a
  solitary, isolated existence. This statement of Bishop Salvado is
  also in agreement with the generality of our evidence. His "family"
  is evidently a small local group. (It reminds us of a similar unit
  amongst the Kurnai, also interrelated, owning a portion of land,
  governed by the oldest male). He says such small groups have been
  often incorrectly called tribes by other authors.

     [439] _Loc. cit._, p. 265.

     [440] _Loc. cit._, p. 266.

     [441] _Loc. cit._, p. 267.

  Mrs. Bates says the South-West Australians were divided into
  tribes or families; "these tribes appear to have been aggregated
  into geographical groups ... each occupied a definite tract
  of country."[442] But in another place she says that "each
  (family) occupied a definite tract of country" with well-marked
  boundaries.[443] This statement is marred by the lack of precision
  in using words like tribes, families, etc. The only thing that
  can be made out of it is that there was some local unit owning a
  definite tract of country. The right of ownership is defined by the
  right of hunting. A man is allowed to hunt merely his own district.
  But he has access to his wife's district too.[444]

     [442] _Loc. cit._, p. 53.

     [443] _Loc. cit._, p. 52.

     [444] _Loc. cit._, p. 53.

  In King George Sound each "tribe" (= local group) owns a certain
  district; this is further subdivided among individual families;
  each of these portions being hereditary in a certain family, which
  is proud of the extensiveness of its grounds. But all the members
  of the local group may roam and hunt over the whole territory.
  "Under normal conditions and in its own district the tribe (=
  local group) is divided into small parties or families; each party
  forming a camp of six or eight wurleys."[445] Only on special and
  important occasions does the local group aggregate. Strangers are
  not admitted to the territory. We see here, again, the actual
  proprietor of the land is the local group; families have some
  merely formal (or magical) claim to portions of it. The local group
  roams in parties, which are nevertheless not so very small. In
  from six to eight huts there may live from three to four families
  (we must count besides the married couples also the old people and
  grown-up children).

     [445] Browne, _loc. cit._, pp. 476, 478.

  Scott-Nind says about the natives of King George Sound, "An
  encampment rarely consists of more than seven or eight huts; for,
  except the fishing and burning seasons, at which times large
  parties assemble together, their numbers are generally small, and
  two or three huts suffice. The number of individuals, however,
  seldom exceeds fifty."[446] "These encampments generally consist
  of near relatives, and deserve the name of families rather than
  of tribes."[447] Natives who live together have the exclusive
  right of fishing or hunting upon the neighbouring grounds, which
  are, in fact, divided into individual properties; the quantity of
  land owned by each individual being very considerable. Yet it is
  not exclusively his, but others of his family have certain rights
  over it; so that it may be considered as partly belonging to the
  tribe. The individual owner must be present on his grounds when
  the members of his group fire the country for game.[448] We have
  here again the local group as real and exclusive land-owner, the
  individual having only mere formal rights over the land. Scott-Nind
  describes with details how in connection with and dependence
  on plentiful food supply, the natives gather in larger numbers
  at appropriate seasons.[449] He says in several places that the
  parties in which the natives live and roam about number only a few
  individuals.

     [446] _Loc. cit._, p. 28.

     [447] _Ibid._

     [448] _Ibid._; compare also p. 44.

     [449] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.

Out of the thirty-nine statements collected, thirty-one describe a
certain group or family as owning a definite tract of country in
common; this group is, by definition, what we called above the local
group. But there are some complications as to its rights of possession
over the given area. On the one hand there is some kind of "over-right"
of the tribe over the district inhabited by all the local groups
of which it is composed.[450] On the other hand there is a further
complication arising from the alleged individual claims to landed
property. As to the tribal over-right, it presents itself chiefly in
the fact that, first, tribesmen (members of related and friendly local
groups) are often invited and allowed on the territory of the local
group; secondly, in cases of trespass, while strangers are punished
severely (often by death), tribesmen are only considered slightly
culpable. The tribe may probably sometimes congregate as a whole on a
part of its grounds with the consent of the local group concerned. We
must imagine the local groups of the same tribe as living in amicable
relations and voluntarily exercising hospitality towards each other,
especially in cases when food is plentiful on their territory.[451]
But as a general rule the whole tribe neither uses its whole district,
nor has a local group, forming a division of the tribe, the right to
use any but its own territory without asking permission. The tribal
over-right seems therefore of little importance.

     [450] Compare G. C. Wheeler, _loc. cit._, pp. 62-67. In
     the above statements I did not include explicitly all the
     contexts referring to this point, as it lies outside our
     proper field of investigation. It may be found, more or
     less explicitly, in some of them (J. D. Lang, _e. g._).
     I mentioned it here only to give a fuller account of all
     aspects under which possession of land presents itself in
     Australia.

     [451] Compare Wheeler, _loc. cit._, where this question is
     thoroughly discussed, and also Curr, pp. 244 _sqq._, Roth,
     Bull. 8, p. 9; Salvado, p. 265; Grey, ii. p. 272; Browne,
     _loc. cit._, p. 445; G. S. Lang, p. 5.

The rights of a local group over its territory are, on the other hand,
the most important form of ownership, and the only one which possesses
economic features. These rights mean that all members of a local
group may roam over its territory and use all the products, hunt and
collect food and useful objects. In the case of the Central and North
Central tribes we are expressly told that no individual or family
claims may interfere with the rights that every member of the local
group has to the whole local area. In twenty-one of our thirty-one
statements referring to the right of the local group, we are not told
of any family or individual proprietorship. In the remaining eight
cases single families or male individuals seem to have some vague
claims to special tracts of country. In three cases the information
is ambiguous on this point. In the case of the Bangerang, Moreton Bay
tribes (J. D. Lang), King George's Sound natives (Nind and Browne),
this right is either of a merely mystic, intangible character,[452]
or it is a formal right which gives to the individual the priority
in decisions as to hunting, burning of grass, etc., and makes him
"master of ceremony" in cases of an assembly on the given spot. In
two instances this individual "land ownership" is stated to assume a
more economic aspect (G. S. Lang and W. E. Roth). There are, besides,
two statements on family "ownership" which do not mention the local
group. According to one of them (Collins) individual claims to land
have a mystic, fictional character; according to Grey's statement,
individual property in land was the only positive one; but this latter
statement is inconsistent and does not define the sense of the word
"property,"[453] and is therefore of little weight. So on the whole
we have three statements asserting that landed property of an economic
character was vested in individuals or in single families respectively.
On closer examination, one of them appears to be quite ambiguous
(G. S. Lang), and another one inconsistent with its context (Grey).
Roth's statement seems to be an exception. He says: "For one family
or individual to obtain, without permission, vegetable, fowl or meat
upon the land belonging to another family" constitutes a trespass; but
then he adds that owing to their great hospitality each family readily
invites its neighbours and friends to partake of the products of its
land. Roth's statement, although an exception, deserves to be noted,
owing to its explicitness and to the reliability of the author. It
is only regrettable he does not inform us concerning one point more,
whether these families or individuals respectively resided usually on
their territories and used them exclusively, or whether they usually
aggregated and lived on each other's domains, every one being only the
host on his own territory. It is only in the first case that individual
proprietorship would have an actual importance; accepting the second
hypothesis, we revert to the case where the local group (a number of
aggregated families) possesses the actual right of use of the land,
the individuals being only formal landlords of their parcels. If we
accept, on the other hand, the view that single families were in a
purely economic and legal sense owner of their own tract of land,
_i. e._ that they enjoyed the _usum fructum_ of the latter for
themselves, and that exclusively,[454] then we must also believe that
the families lived scattered, and assembled only in exceptional cases.
This consequence is important. But we see easily that although it is
inevitable, supposing actual land ownership in single families, still
the latter state of thing is not a necessary condition of it. Even
when land is invested in the group, single families may live scattered
(compare below). Claims to land by individuals and families in the
Northwestern Central Queensland tribes were also based on ideas of a
magico-religious character, being probably a mere magical connection
of an individual or family with a portion of the country. (Compare the
statement from _North Queensland Ethnography_.)

     [452] This mystic character of some individual claims to
     a particular tract of country appears also from Roth's
     statement, and from a passage of Oldfield (_loc. cit._,
     p. 252). "Every male is bound to visit the place of his
     nativity three times a year." But this writer could not
     ascertain the purpose of it.

     [453] Compare Grey, ii. p. 233, and the letter of G. S. Lang
     quoted by him therein. It appears that both these writers
     were to a certain extent inspired by a humanitarian
     tendency, namely to show that the Australian aborigines
     were not quite without ideas of property in land, and that
     they were wronged by the white settlers, and thus deserved
     compensation for the loss of their hunting-grounds. The
     letter mentioned was written to some humanitarian society.
     We may, therefore, still more distrust these statements.
     We have seen that the idea of possession of land, of an
     exclusive right to use a certain tract of country, was well
     known to our aborigines, but that they conceived of it as
     vested in a group, not in individuals.

     [454] It is well to remember that there cannot be drawn a
     sharp line of distinction between a "family" and a "local
     group"; moreover, in the use of these terms our authorities
     are mostly careless and indiscriminate. As to the
     individual possession of land, it has been pointed out in
     connection with Howitt's statement on the Wurunjerri, that
     the individual rights of some influential man (headman)
     might be the expression of the rights of his local group.

Summing up, there are three different kinds of "proprietorship" in the
aboriginal society; or more correctly three kinds of claims to, and
connections with, a certain territory. First, actual rights of roaming,
hunting, fishing and digging; these rights belong usually to the local
group (exceptionally, perhaps, to single families or individuals).
Secondly, the customary right of local groups forming a tribe,
mutually to use their hunting-ground; these forms of proprietorship
have been designated "tribal over-right."[455] Third, the immaterial
claim of individuals or families to a portion of the local district;
this special right seems to be rather exceptional, and it appears
problematic whether it has any economic character. In the light of this
distinction it can easily be understood how the actual right of the
local group was modified in two directions. The tribesman was tolerated
on or invited to the ground, whereas the non-tribesman was killed. On
the other hand, individuals or single families had possibly some claims
of an unimportant character to particular spots. In general, we find
it expressed in nearly all the statements more or less explicitly that
the natives had a very clear idea of the rights of the local group to
its territory, and that the boundaries of it were respected without
exception.[456]

     [455] In agreement with Mr. Wheeler.

     [456] Compare nearly all of our statements, especially
     those of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Curr. Mr. Wheeler
     writes in his conclusions (_loc. cit._, p. 161).
     "Territorial conquest is never sought, for the absolute
     right of the local group to its district is fully
     recognized." The respect for boundaries is also stated: in
     _Science of Man_, xi. (1910), p. 197 ("tribal" area sharply
     marked; death is the punishment for trespass). _Ibid._
     (1900), p. 85. _Ibid._ (1901), p. 9.

We pointed out that the rights of individuals to a certain tract of
country had in general some vague magical character, and that they were
probably always derived from some mystical relation of the individual
to his birthplace or to another special spot. Now it may be added that
there are hints pointing to the fact that possession of land in its
real form, _i. e._ as invested in the local group, was probably based
to a considerable degree on ideas of religious or magical kind. The
information is unambiguous and detailed on this point as regards the
Central and North-Central tribes. We know of a whole series of ideas
of totemic character that bind a group of men to a given locality. How
far this was valid in the other parts of the continent it is difficult
to decide on the basis of the information available. But putting side
by side the facts we know about the extremely large area investigated
by Spencer and Gillen, with what we know of mystic individual rights
in other tribes, we are justified in supposing that everywhere the
rights of the local group (the only ones that present a real economic
character) were the sum or resultant of such individual rights of
magical or religious character, or that the group as a whole was
attached by such ties to its area.[457]

     [457] It is impossible to enlarge here upon this
     interesting subject, which would require a separate study
     to itself. The two volumes of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen
     especially are full of facts, showing that the tribal
     traditions, the totemic cult, the initiation ceremonies,
     and all other magical (or religious) functions were
     intimately bound up with the locality in which a local
     group lived. The local group itself was, so to say, an
     offshoot of the local totem centre, the _Oknanikilla_; the
     "spiritual parts" of its member, closely associated each
     with its _Churinga_, are enshrined in the _Ertnatulunga_.
     That the local group is intimately connected with its
     territory is no wonder. Such a form of possession, although
     it involves an extremely strong bond of union between man
     and land, is evidently something quite different from more
     developed forms of proprietorship.

Now to pass on to the main problem: to the mode of living. From the
previous discussion we may infer that when the local groups are very
small in themselves, then _ipso facto_ the natives live scattered in
very small groups (Kurnai, probably Murring, Dieri, New South Wales
tribes according to Rob. Dawson, and tribes described by Salvado).

The same applies to the cases where we are told that the families own
exclusively a certain area (Roth, G. S. Lang, Grey). But these cases
were found to be not quite beyond question. In some instances when
the local group is a larger unit, and there is no subdivision of land
amongst families, several statements mention that the natives lived
scattered in small groups, varying from two to four families perhaps.
(Murray tribes according to Eyre; the Central and North-Central tribes
according to Spencer and Gillen; the Moreton Bay tribes according to
J. D. Lang; New South Wales tribes according to McDougall, Henderson and
Hodgkinson; the Kabi and Wakka, West Australians according to Withnell,
Browne, Scott-Nind.)

In some cases there are reasons for supposing that the local group was
larger (Bangerang, Western Victoria, at Encounter Bay, on the lakes;
perhaps on the sea-shores in West Australia according to Grey). The
remainder of our information (fifteen statements) does not give any
clear answer to this question. From these approximately exact data
we come to the conclusion that the majority of tribes lived in small
groups of two or three families of six to nine individuals each, and
only in a few tribes were there larger bodies living in actual daily
contact.

To get a more reliable answer on this point it is better to drop the
less clear evidence and to take into consideration only such as is
better and more reliable. If only the fully reliable and unambiguous
statements be used, there are twelve affirming that aborigines live in
small parties, which in some cases shrink to one family only (Howitt
on the Kurnai; Eyre; R. Dawson; G. S. Lang; McDougall; Spencer and
Gillen in the Central and North-Central tribes; Henderson; Hodgkinson;
Rev. Matthew on the Kabi and Wakka; Withnell; Salvado). It should
be noted that (1) some of these authorities are our best informants
(Howitt Spencer and Gillen, Salvado); (2) that the area covered by
these peoples is very extensive, and that the tribes in question are
scattered over the whole continent. The statements which assert the
mode of living in larger bodies are much less reliable. But it appears
undoubted that the statements of Curr and Dawson, perhaps also those
of Meyer, Schurman and Taplin (confirmed by Angas), are of quite
unquestionable reliability. It is therefore clear that there were local
differences in that respect. And such a geographical difference in the
mode of living appears quite plausible, from general considerations.
The reasons which must have determined the degree of aggregation in the
Australian tribes were peculiarly economic ones: the scarcity of food
supply was conditioned partly by the aridity of the soil, partly by the
primitiveness of the means of procuring subsistence. Where the means
of subsistence were plentiful and not easily exhausted, there larger
groups could permanently aggregate. This was, in the first place, the
case where fishing was at all possible. The Bangerang tribe resided
in two large bodies at the junction of the Glenelg and Murray rivers;
the large group of the Narrinyeri on Lake Alexandrina; probably the
coastal tribes in general were larger and more sedentary. This seems
corroborated by the fact that they had usually larger and better-built
huts (see below). The same factors would also tend to produce a more
sedentary mode of living (the Bangerang, the Kurnai (partly at least),
and possibly other coastal tribes). The view that density of population
was directly dependent upon the nature of soil is strengthened by the
direct statements of Wilhelmi, Turnbull, Moorhouse and Angas.[458]

     [458] The difference in physical geography between the
     coastal regions and the Central parts, the greater variety
     in the South-East region in general, and the relations
     of these physiographical features to the social features
     of the Australian aboriginal society, are well brought
     out by Prof. Frazer in his beautifully written chapter
     on Physical Geography (_Tot. and Exog._, chap. v. § 1,
     pp. 314-339). Prof. Frazer's conclusion that the coastal
     and South-Eastern tribes are more advanced involves the
     assertion set forth here that coastal tribes, and in
     general tribes living in more fertile regions, live in
     more numerous, stable and permanent aggregations. Many of
     the instances and quotations of Prof. Frazer's chapter
     directly confirm our results, and the reader is referred
     to this chapter, which reviews nearly all the geographical
     differences that can be traced in Australia. That I do
     not agree with Prof. Frazer's views as to group marriage,
     etc., and with all his conclusions referring to prehistoric
     times, hardly needs to be pointed out, and does not affect
     the importance for my argument of his splendid collection
     and exposition of facts. Especially the two passages from
     Grey, quoted by Prof. Frazer _in extenso_, which had
     escaped my attention, are very valuable. They show that
     on the coast, where the soil is more fertile, the natives
     lived in larger bodies.

It may be mentioned that in places where, and times when, plenty
of food was available, large numbers of natives gathered, but only
temporarily, _e. g._ when a whale was stranded, or the Bunya-Bunya nuts
were ripe, etc.[459] But as the major part of the continent is arid, we
must suppose that the usual mode of living was in very small groups of
one to three families; these groups being in exceptional cases regular
local groups, in the majority of cases merely portions of them.

     [459] Tom Petrie, _Reminiscences_, chap. i. Besides,
     compare gatherings at initiation. R. H. Mathews, _Proc.
     R.S.N.S.W._, 1904, pp. 114-123. _Science of Man_, xi.,
     1910, p. 192. Bunya-Bunya gatherings.

Let us briefly examine whether this general assumption contradicts
any other features of Australian tribal life. If we consider their
modes of procuring food, we find that the women had to go in search of
roots, grubs, etc., in short do purely collecting work. It is obvious
that this kind of work is never done well in big bands. On the other
hand it is probable that one woman alone would be afraid to go on
remote wanderings. The most favourable unit would be a group of two
to three women with their children. The men hunted their game also in
rather small groups. There do not seem to be any collective methods of
hunting. The kangaroo was perhaps tired out by the common effort of
several men. For the hunting of the smaller game, which was practically
also a kind of searching, it would be rather unfavourable to go out
in big parties. Considerations of an economic order, therefore,
give no reason for discarding our assumption; on the contrary it is
corroborated by them. To the question whether for security's sake the
aborigines would not be compelled to aggregate, we must also return a
negative answer. War was not the normal condition of the Australian
blacks.[460] And I have not been able to find any statement of
collective methods of organized defence.

     [460] Compare G. C. Wheeler, _loc. cit._, p. 161, and chap. ix.
     on War, pp. 148 _sqq._

To sum up our results in a few words: the territorial division points
only exceptionally and problematically, even in these exceptional
cases, to possession of land by single families. The territorial unit,
called by us Local Group, although varying in its extent according
to the locality, appears to consist usually of several families. But
these families in their turn live usually either in one smaller group,
numbering two or three families or, exceptionally, one only. In more
fertile tracts, near big rivers and fertile coastal districts, the
number of families living in permanent contact appears to be greater;
in the extensive arid areas the number of families grouped together
seems to be rather small.


II

The second part of our problem must now be faced: whenever there is a
certain number of families aggregated (permanently or temporarily),
what are the features of their social contact in daily life? What are
their dwellings? Do they belong to several families or only to one?
Are there any rules of camping, or do they camp quite promiscuously?
And if there are any customary rules, of what status are they the
expression? Besides the answers to these questions, we shall find
also that there are rules for occupying the huts, for eating, etc. In
general, all our questions will tend to elucidate whether there is
a quite unlimited, promiscuous social contact among the members of
an aggregate, or whether there are facts pointing to the isolation
and separation of the individual families. Undoubtedly there is a
difference between aggregation which is merely temporary and that which
is permanent; we shall try to find traces of this difference indicated
in the statements. These latter are not very rich in information. The
facts themselves seemed perhaps to the majority of our informants much
too commonplace and unimportant. But we owe to some of the deeper
and more conscientious observers highly interesting details in this
connection. More especially this remark applies to Howitt and some of
his correspondents. We begin with these statements.

  _Statements._--We have a clear and detailed description of the
  mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as
  of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461] As a
  rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some
  families[462] were closely related,[463] a certain distance was
  kept between their camps, which increased as the consanguinity
  diminished.[464] A man's parents could occasionally sleep with
  him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his
  brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465] We see, therefore,
  that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even
  near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy
  were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the
  individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand
  side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the
  children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the
  little girl";[466] bigger children camped separately. We shall find
  this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules
  and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South
  Wales (Murring)[467] as to the Wurunjerri[468] of East Victoria.

     [461] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 208-210, and _Nat.
     Tr._, pp. 773-776.

     [462] I use the word family only in the sense of a man, his
     wife or wives, and their offspring before reaching puberty.

     [463] As in the example; _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 209.

     [464] See this example and diagram in _Nat. Tr._, p. 774.

     [465] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 209, 210, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 774.

     [466] _Idem_, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 774, 775. Compare _Kam. and
     Kurn._, p. 209.

     [467] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 210.

     [468] _Nat. Tr._, p. 775.

  Amongst the Gournditsh-Mara Tribe (Lake Condah, West Victoria)
  "each family camped by itself." During the meals "each wife was ...
  obliged to sit beside her own husband," and not "near any other
  man unless her husband sat between them."[469] It is a statement
  pointing to isolation of females from sex jealousy. We shall meet
  in the future with a few statements referring to the way in which
  meals are taken.

     [469] Rev. Stähle in _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 277, 278.

  Customs pointing to the isolation of families, on the ground of
  sex jealousy are referred to by Curr.[470] "A woman never sat in
  a mia-mia (hut) in which there was a man, save her husband; she
  never conversed nor exchanged words with any man except in the
  absence of her husband and in reply to some necessary question,"
  and only from a distance. Women had "no communication with persons
  of the opposite sex except little boys." From the paternal hut,
  where they lived, "their brothers of eight or ten years of age
  were excluded at night." And again, "among the Bangerang and other
  tribes I have known, each married couple had their own mia-mia, or
  hut."[471] These statements are quite clear. They coincide with the
  majority of our information. What is important and will interest
  us further in detail is the fact that boys at the age of about ten
  were excluded from the paternal hut. Females were given away about
  the same age, so that we may say that only small children remained
  with their parents. "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[472]

     [470] _Recollections_, p. 250, refers to the Bangerang
     tribe. Compare also _ibid._, p. 256 and _A.R._, i. pp. 65,
     98, 100.

     [471] _Recollections_, p. 259.

     [472] Compare _A.R._, i. pp. 109, 110.

  Describing the laying of a camp Curr says--

  "As they arrived they formed their camps, each family having a fire
  of its own some half-dozen yards from its neighbour's."[473]

     [473] _Recollections_, p. 133.

  From Dawson's description of the aboriginal habitations,[474] we
  get a good glimpse into their mode of dwelling. Dawson says they
  have either a permanent or temporary habitation, and describes
  both. The former _wuurn_ is bigger, and may accommodate about a
  dozen persons. But it serves only for the use of one family. "When
  several families live together each builds its _wuurn_, facing
  one central fire." But even the family, if the children are grown
  up, does not live in one party; "the _wuurn_ is partitioned off
  into compartments. One of these is appropriated to the parents and
  children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to
  the bachelors and widowers." Here we see that husband and wife
  sleep also quite apart, with their small children. Grown-up but
  unmarried male or female children have compartments of their own.
  And if they were married they must have had their own separate
  camp. The isolation seems to have been amongst these tribes much
  less accentuated than amongst the East Victorians, for instance.
  Although separated, grown-up children lived in the same habitation,
  and even the _wuurns_ of separate families were situated round a
  common fire, so that it "appears to be one dwelling." In their
  temporary huts the isolation is more pronounced. "While travelling
  or occupying temporary habitations each of these parties (parent,
  male and female children) must erect separate _wuurns_." Moreover
  each family must camp separately. A certain communism of living is
  expressed also by the common cooking,[475] although each family has
  its basket in which it cooks food.[476]

     [474] _Loc. cit._, pp. 10, 11.

     [475] _Loc. cit._, pp. 17, 20.

     [476] _Ibid._

  Eyre's information about the Lower Murray River blacks agrees to a
  certain degree with Dawson's statements. "Sometimes each married
  man will have a hut for himself, his wives and family, including,
  perhaps, occasionally his mother or some other near relative. At
  other times, large long huts are constructed, in which from five to
  ten families reside, each having their own separate fire."[477] Of
  course, here the communism is much greater, although the separation
  of the fire circles is still kept. These natives, as well as the
  tribes described by Dawson, were in better economic conditions,
  and therefore able to adopt sedentary life; they were also more
  skilful in the building of huts. The general type of a hut was a
  rude shelter of boughs only affording protection against rain.[478]

     [477] Eyre, ii. p. 302.

     [478] Compare Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 97, and Prof. Frazer,
     _Tot. and Exog._, i. pp. 321, 322.

  Brough Smyth affirms also perfect order and method in the
  arrangement of a camp. "The aborigines do not herd together
  promiscuously." If the whole tribe is present the natives are
  divided into groups each composed of about six dwellings. "Each
  mia-mia (hut) is five or six yards distant from its neighbours."
  If there are several "tribes" (groups), each camps in a separate
  place, in a position marking whence it came. Each hut has its
  separate fire (in opposition to Dawson's statement).[479]

     [479] _Loc. cit._, p. 124.

  Complete isolation and strict camp rules are stated by
  J. Moore-Davis. "Married men each with his family occupying the
  centre" of the camp.[480]

     [480] Br. Smyth, ii. 318, refers to New South Wales.

  A statement quite contrary to nearly all others is given by
  Beveridge. He speaks of "the promiscuous manner they have of
  huddling together in their loondthals."[481] We need not, however,
  take this statement very seriously, as it is given in immediate
  connection with another doubtful one, viz. of absolute, even
  incestuous, sexual promiscuity.[482] Perhaps the observations were
  made on natives who were quite corrupted by contact with white men.
  At any rate this statement is directly opposed to all we know about
  these two features of Australian aborigines in their natural state
  of life. We may therefore discard them as unreliable.[483]

     [481] _Loc. cit._, p. 24.

     [482] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.

     [483] Beveridge seems to have been in long contact with
     the aborigines, but he never says in what state of social
     decomposition they were. In all he writes, although there
     is some interesting information, there may be seen a lack
     of accuracy of observation and expression.

  Collins writes: "In their huts and in their caves they lie down
  indiscriminately mixed, men, women and children together."[484]
  This statement is not quite clear, as we do not know whether these
  "men, women and children" form one family, or are related, or
  whether there is a great number of them, etc. It is also opposed
  to what we learnt from Howitt and many others of the customary
  order observed in occupying a hut. Besides, Collins had under
  his immediate observation blacks hanging round the town of Port
  Phillip, demoralized and degenerate; their females seem to have
  been already addicted to prostitution.[485] They were no longer in
  their primitive state; and all observations, especially relating to
  their mode of living, which changes immediately with the conditions
  of life, must be accepted with caution. I do not consider this
  statement any more reliable than that of Beveridge which I
  discarded. From other passages where he speaks of the small inland
  huts "affording shelter to only one miserable tenant,"[486] and the
  larger huts on the sea-coast, "large enough to hold six or eight
  persons," we might infer that there was room only for one family in
  each hut. Here also we read that the coastal tribes, which probably
  had a better food supply and led a more sedentary life, had larger
  and better-built huts.

     [484] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 555.

     [485] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 560 and _passim_.

     [486] _Loc. cit._, p. 555.

  We read concerning the Turra tribe of South Australia[487]: "In
  camping, the place of the parents is to the right-hand side of
  their son's camp; the brother to the left side; sister-in-law to
  the right side or near his father's. In the camp the husband sleeps
  at the right hand of the fire, his wife behind him, and her young
  children behind her." This, less detailed than Howitt's statement,
  corroborates it to the full. We see that each camp is occupied
  exclusively by a married couple and their small children; and
  that inside the hut as well as in the configuration of the camp
  there is a strict customary order. It is important to notice that
  these statements, reporting strict camp rules and referring to
  tribes scattered over a great area (Victoria, New South Wales and
  South Australia) are given by very reliable authorities, and that
  Howitt at least gathered them by collecting information about the
  ancient customs of the Kurnai and Murring from old natives; using,
  therefore, the only correct method. They refer, therefore, to old
  customs, which probably were no longer observed in the tribes
  spoilt and demoralized by contact with settlers. Much weight is to
  be ascribed, therefore, in this matter to the information of Howitt
  and his correspondents.

      [487] Rev. W. J. Kühn in _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 287.

  Schürmann states shortly: "Each family occupies a separate hut;
  and, if there be any unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of
  their own."[488]

     [488] Woods, p. 222.

  Henderson says about the New South Wales natives, "Each family has
  its own gunya and fire."[489]

     [489] _Loc. cit._, p. 109.

  George Barrington observes that among the Port Jackson natives each
  hut was occupied by one family.[490]

     [490] _Loc. cit._, p. 82.

  When the families who formed a "tribe" (= local group?) meet "each
  family has its own fire and provides its own substance."[491]
  In the description of his travels Dawson tells us that when the
  native party was joined by a stranger with his wife the latter did
  not approach the other men, but slept alone by herself at a small
  fire.[492] This points to the fact that a married woman normally
  never slept in the immediate neighbourhood of any other man but her
  own husband.

     [491] R. Dawson, p. 327. Port Stephens Blacks.

     [492] _Loc. cit._, p. 249.

  Spencer and Gillen affirm, again, the complete isolation of
  families who, according to them,[493] normally roam scattered on
  the territory of the local group. "Each family, consisting of a
  man and one or more wives and children, occupies always a mia-mia,
  which is merely a lean-to of shrubs, so placed as to shield the
  occupants from the prevailing wind." This statement is perfectly
  clear, and we may fit it into the general picture we drew from all
  the other evidence.

     [493] _Nat. Tr._, p. 18.

  Among the natives of Central Australia (probably of the Arunta
  nation) a married woman "may speak to any but the young men."[494]
  Thus she is practically excluded from any intercourse with them.

     [494] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 183 (W. H. Willshire in Prof.
     Frazer's _Questions_).

  Among the natives of Moreton Bay the conjugal relation is
  maintained by them "with great decency and propriety, every family
  having its separate hut and fire."[495]

     [495] J. D. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 337.

  A very clear and concise statement is given on this point by the
  Rev. J. Mathew, referring to the Kabi and Wakka tribes. "The
  family, consisting of husband and wife, or wives, with their
  children, constituted a distinct social unit. They occupied
  the same gunya (dwelling), they ate together, they travelled
  together."[496] After having described the construction of the hut
  he adds: "This sufficed for a family. The dwellings were placed a
  little distance apart, facing in the same direction, and each had
  its own small fire in front."[497]

     [496] _Loc. cit._, p. 153.

     [497] _Loc. cit._, p. 84.

  Roth says about the tribes of North-West Central Queensland: "The
  husband sleeps in the same gundi as his wives."[498] The way of
  taking meals is not quite uniform among all tribes observed by
  this writer. At Cape Bedford "members of one family take their
  meals together, except the single young men (above puberty),
  who dine apart." In another tribe (Tully River) "each family
  dines by itself." On the contrary, "on the Bloomfield River men,
  boys and girls (up to four or five years of age) dine together;
  all the other females ... mess apart."[499] Among the natives
  of Koombana Bay, "in the family, the man, women and children
  dined together."[500] There are three kinds of huts among the
  North Queensland tribes: the simple shelter of boughs; a hut
  built somewhat more carefully against rain; and a hut built for
  protection against cold, this hut, being of course, the most
  elaborate.[501] From the description of these huts we may infer
  that they were occupied each by one family only.

     [498] _Eth. Stud._, p. 182, § 327.

     [499] Bull. iii. p. 7.

     [500] _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 48.

     [501] _Eth. Stud._, §§ 159, 160, 161, pp. 105-107.

  The isolation of families caused by the jealousy of the husband is
  plainly stated by Grey: "He cannot, from the roving nature of their
  mode of life, surround his wives with the walls of a seraglio,
  but custom and etiquette have drawn about them barriers nearly
  as impassable. When a certain number of families are collected
  together, they encamp at a common spot, and each family has a
  separate hut or perhaps two. At these huts sleep the father of the
  family, his wives, the female children who have not yet joined
  their husbands, very young boys[502] and occasionally female
  relatives; but no males over ten years of age may sleep in family
  huts. They have got their own separate encampment."[503] If any
  strangers are present with their wives, they sleep in their own
  huts, placed amongst the married people. If they are unmarried
  or without wives "they sleep at the fire of the young men."[504]
  "Under no circumstances is a strange native allowed to approach the
  fire of a married man."[505] Their huts being so scattered over a
  rather large area, their conversation is held by means of a loud
  chant.[506] It must be remembered that Grey asserts in several
  places the great and vigilant jealousy of the natives.[507]

     [502] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 252.

     [503] _Ibid._

     [504] _Ibid._

     [505] _Loc. cit._, pp. 252, 253.

     [506] _Loc. cit._, p. 253.

     [507] _Loc. cit._, pp. 242, 253, 255.

  Bishop Salvado, who speaks also of the great jealousy of the
  males and the fidelity exacted from the females,[508] gives us
  the following account of their mode of camping: "Lorsqu' une
  famille se dispose à dormir, les garçons qui ont passé l'âge de
  sept ans dorment seuls, autour du feu commun, les plus petits
  avec le père, et les enfants à la mamelle, aussi bien que les
  filles, quel que soit leur âge, avec la mère. Les femmes
  jouissent du droit d'ancienneté, la première dort plus près du
  mari, ainsi de suite."[509] Another passage[510] testifies also
  that they roam in single families; the reason alleged is easier
  food supply.

     [508] _Loc. cit._, p. 279.

     [509] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.

     [510] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 317.

  We read in Browne that one hut holds only two or three persons.[511]

     [511] _Loc. cit._, p. 448.

The general inference to be drawn from these twenty-four statements is,
roughly speaking, that the general features of native camp arrangements
were orderliness, fixed rules, isolation of families, settled and
restricted social contact, and by no means social communism and
unregulated social promiscuity.

Five instances give strict rules which obtain in arranging camps. These
were probably much more widespread than might be supposed from these
few instances. But, as mentioned above, these camp rules would probably
fall into abeyance at once when the natives came in contact with
civilization. It was only by attentive inquiries that Howitt extracted
them from the natives. Besides these we read in fifteen statements
that each family camped separately. So that twenty of twenty-four
statements assert that there was in this respect complete isolation
of the families. Sexual motives played undoubtedly an important part
in this isolation. We are told so expressly in several places (Curr,
Grey, Salvado, J. D. Lang). In the case of even friendly strangers
a certain amount of mistrust--of evil magic as well as of actual
bad intentions--may have operated. There are indications of it in
statements of Br. Smyth and Grey. But in the detailed examples given by
Howitt, where all the camping families are closely related and usually
consist of more than one generation (father and sons, etc.), we can
hardly conceive that either of the above-mentioned motives would come
into play. At any rate this regulated camp order shows how important
this question was in the native social life and how strong the idea
must have been that each family had its own place apart from the
others, and the more remotely related people were, the less intimate
contact would be.

The aborigines possess different kinds of huts. Of interest for us is
the fact that the majority of them are made to hold only one family.
Fourteen statements assert it explicitly or implicitly. In three
instances we are told of the existence of larger huts (Eyre, Dawson,
Collins). In two of them the separation of families is maintained in
spite of the larger dwellings. Only Collins' information is doubtful in
this respect.

Within these huts the family camped according to fixed rules. We have
five instances given by Howitt and his correspondents, and Bishop
Salvado. These rules show clearly that each hut, each fire-place, was
reserved for one family, and that this _status_ had its customary form
and sanction. There were three instances of separation during meals
(Gournditsh-Mara, some of the North-West Central Queensland tribes,
and the Kabi and Wakka). In three statements we are told that both
sexes separated during meals (Curr, Angas, Roth). What Curr tells us of
the marked social separation of families is remarkable; especially in
respect to the isolation of the women.[512]

     [512] It is well to notice here that the isolation of
     families was closely connected with the isolation of both
     sexes. The men were in contact only with their wives
     and perhaps with their near female relatives. That this
     isolation cannot be due to motives of sexual jealousy is
     certain; it is in great part due to the dread of evil
     magic. But to work out this question would lead us too far.
     Compare Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 776, 777.

Two statements were rather in contradiction with our general results:
Beveridge's statement of promiscuous huddling and Collins' vague
information. We stated our reasons for not giving them much weight,
and they cannot outweigh the sum-total of reliable information which
is fairly unanimous on this point. It is also in general agreement
with the information we gathered on sexual matters as well as with our
conclusion as to territorial distribution, and it corroborates our
results on both these points. For on the one hand it was found that
in normal life there exists individuality of sexual relations; on the
other hand the usual scattered mode of living would correspond to a
fairly complete isolation in cases of tribal assembly.

Our last considerations have clearly demonstrated how the individuality
of the family unit shows itself in the aboriginal mode of living. A
single family is normally in contact with a few other families only;
sometimes it roams alone over its own area. But even when there are
several families living together, the camp rules keep them apart from
each other in nearly every function of daily life. The children, who
live in intimate contact with their parents in the same hut, must
necessarily set them apart from all their (the children's) other
relatives. We must assume, therefore, that the individuality of the
relation of each child to its actual parents is deeply impressed by all
the circumstances of daily life on the child's mind. This assumption is
in accord with the information we can gather on this point. But before
we begin to look it through, let us discuss the theoretical side of the
kinship (or relationship) problem.




CHAPTER VI

DISCUSSION OF KINSHIP


I

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THIS CONCEPT

It is undoubtedly one of the most valuable discoveries arrived at by
modern sociological science that each institution varies in accordance
with the social environment in which it is found. A given institution
or social form (like the family, the state, the nation, the church)
appears under various forms in different societies, and among peoples
with a very low culture only rudiments thereof may be expected. This
point of view, applied to marriage and the family, has led some writers
to the assumption of forms as much opposed to those usual in our
societies, as promiscuity and group marriage is opposed to individual
marriage and the family. Nevertheless, although the variability and
multiplicity of forms of marriage and family were acknowledged, the
concepts applied to them were still the old ones, directly borrowed
from our own society and formed upon the facts found amongst ourselves.
In particular the sociologically untrained ethnographers comprehended
the phenomena of kinship only under our own social concepts, judged
them according to our own moral standard, and described them with
words the meaning of which ought to have been defined when applied
to a new case; nevertheless these terms have been nearly always used
by ethnographers in the same sense in which we use them amongst
ourselves, _i. e._ as expressing ideas of community of blood through
procreation.[513] That this is quite erroneous will be shown below.
How far the idea of kinship changes from society to society, what
are its essential invariable features, and what are the variable
elements--these are the problems that must be set forth.

     [513] Compare, for instance, Morgan, _Systems_, pp. 108
     _sqq._ For other examples see below, pp. 199 _sqq._ Sir
     Laurence Gomme writes: "One of our greatest difficulties,
     indeed, is the indiscriminate use of kinship terms by our
     descriptive authorities."--_Loc. cit._, p. 235.

The inadequacy of our ideas of kinship as applied to lower societies
has been often felt by those ethnographers who wished to enter deeper
into the problems of kinship among a given people. They have found the
greatest difficulty in conveying to a European reader the meaning of
different terms of relationship. While warning the reader to put aside
our (the modern European) ideas of kinship, they have hardly succeeded
in giving any definite and clear concept instead. The reasons for
this failure are simple: our ideas of kinship are defined by certain
facts which are not to be found in the given primitive society. In
order to define kinship so as to fit the latter, the author ought to
bring forward a series of facts, playing a part analogous in the given
society to that played by the essential defining elements amongst us.
But it is by no means easy to know among which facts to look for such
analogous, defining elements. And here again arises the necessity of
a general definition of kinship, one which would afford indications
in what direction to search for social facts giving a right idea of
kinship in any given society. Such a general definition would be like
an algebraic formula, having its constant and its variable terms; if
for the latter special data be inserted (in this instance the special
conditions proper to the given society), the special value for any
given case is obtained (namely the special concept of kinship proper
to the given society). And it should also be indicated within what
range the variables should be taken; in other words, in what facts the
elements which specifically determine kinship in the given society
must be looked for. The practical value of such a general definition of
kinship is obvious. On the one hand it indicates the constant elements
in kinship common to all societies; on the other hand it indicates the
general character of the variable elements, and the way in which they
must be looked for and worked into the general formula.

By the word kinship, roughly speaking, is denoted a series of family
relationships (those of parents to children, brothers to sisters,
etc.), all of which consist of a set of extremely complex phenomena.
They are made up of the most heterogeneous elements: physiological
(birth, procreation, suckling, etc.), social (community of living,
of interests, social norms, etc.), and psychological (different ways
in which these relations are conceived, different moral ideas, and
different types of feelings). Special care must be taken to select in
all these elements the essential ones, as an omission would be just
as fatal for the investigations as an overburdening with secondary
elements. Moreover, it would be specially valuable to look at all these
heterogeneous determining elements from the same point of view, and
view them all under one and the same aspect. Leaving on one side the
purely physiological problem of kinship,[514] it appears necessary
to give a sociological view of kinship, _i. e._ to show the social
bearing of physiological facts as well as of psychological elements.
But it appears also necessary to view the whole of the phenomena of
kinship from the psychological point of view; that is, to show how the
sociological and physiological facts of kinship are reflected in the
"collective mind" of the given society.

     [514] This would be the place to point out the biological
     meaning of the social aspects of kinship and family;
     whether, _e. g._ the different social regulations of sexual
     intercourse, which in higher societies afford the basis
     to kinship, the different forms of family and kinship are
     the expression of biological laws. How far such would be
     possible could only be decided on the basis of a biological
     knowledge which the present writer does not possess.

Besides for other reasons (adduced below) this appears necessary,
because one of the most important scientific uses that has been made
of the different human systems of kinship is one that presupposes a
certain definite meaning, as given to the terms of kinship in very
low societies. In Morgan's deductions a very important part is played
by the assumption that kinship is always understood in terms of
consanguinity; in particular that it was understood thus by primitive
man; that in all (even the lowest) societies all ideas of kinship were
essentially based upon the community of blood, established in the case
of the mother by her share in bearing, in that of the father by his
part in procreation. Only by assuming that these facts were known to
the lowest, prehistoric savages, could Morgan draw inferences from
systems of kinship terms about the forms of sexual intercourse. If,
on the other hand, the relation between sexual intercourse and birth
escaped the knowledge of primitive men, they could not have based their
idea of kinship upon community of blood between father and offspring;
hence there could be no connection between forms of sexual intercourse
and forms of kinship as conceived by primitive man. Whether there could
be connection between marriage, defined sociologically, and kinship
is another and more complicated problem. In any case Morgan uses
throughout his book the word consanguinity, and he defines it as the
tie of common blood arising from the sexual act. In other words he sets
forth the problem in a simplified and incorrect form. The question how
kinship may be conceived in a given society, especially in a low one,
naturally presents itself as a very important point of investigation.

As in the following pages there will be question more or less
exclusively of the individual relation between parents and children,
the present discussion may be fittingly restricted to the individual
parental kinship in Australia. In the second part of this chapter facts
giving some insight into the aboriginal collective ideas of kinship are
set forth; and in the following chapter other different facts will
be brought forward in order to complete the definition of _individual
parental kinship_. But in accordance with what has been just said, it
is needful to have some guiding principle in collecting this material,
and this will now be looked for. This discussion, being only concerned
with the Australian facts, does not pretend to be complete, but perhaps
if the results are worked out so as to suit our modern European concept
of kinship as well as the Australian one, it might, should it be
correct, be applicable also to other societies.[515] Let us now proceed
to give the general definition of kinship and in the first place to
indicate which are its constant, uniform factors found in all societies.

     [515] Of course by result is meant a general formula for
     kinship.

Amongst the heterogeneous factors which together make up parental
kinship, the physiological facts appear to be the most constant, for
the natural process of procreation is in all human societies the
same. But the social consequences of this process vary very widely
according to other variable elements, as will appear clearly below
in our discussion of consanguinity. Part of them only, together with
some social elements, may be taken as the uniform, constant basis
of kinship, such as must serve for the first point of departure in
an attempt to discuss more in detail the kinship in any society. It
appears probable that this basis is given by the existence of a group
formed by a woman, her husband, and the children whom she has borne,
suckled and reared. The existence of such a group will be considered
as the necessary and sufficient condition for _individual parental
kinship_. Where such a group exists we are justified in affirming that
individual parental kinship exists, although it is not yet completely
defined thereby; further facts must be adduced in order to complete the
definition. Those further facts are precisely the variable terms in the
general formula of kinship; it remains still to indicate their general
character. But a few words must be first said about the constant
factors of kinship just mentioned.

They consist in the existence of the individual family group as
determined by individual marriage and by individual motherhood.
Individual motherhood means that the same woman who gave birth to a
child stands to it in a special close relation in its later life also:
she suckles it and rears it, and she is bound to him or her by the
manifold ties resulting from the community of life and community of
interests. This woman is bound on the other hand to a man by individual
marriage; and thereby her children are bound to him also; and the
mother, her husband, and her children form the social unit called the
individual family. The existence of such a unit is to be established by
showing its different social functions, and the different ways in which
its solidarity and individuality are marked in a given society. It is
clear that the position of the father is in this way first established
socially only, as the husband of the children's mother. Nevertheless
it must be borne in mind that thus his relation to the children is
clearly marked; and that this is only a preliminary, so to say formal,
determination of fatherhood, which in all societies appears to be much
more materially defined by other factors, discussed hereafter.

The existence of the individual family as a social unit, based upon the
physiological facts of maternity, the social factor of marriage and
other social factors, are thus chosen as the basis upon which we may
proceed to analyze more in detail the individual parental relation.
Whether this basis exists in all human societies and forms what was
called above the constant, invariable elements of parental kinship,
may remain an open question. This could only be answered correctly
_a posteriori_, on the basis of a series of special researches in
many societies. The existence of individual motherhood, as this word
is defined here, seems to obtain in the majority of human societies
(or even in all of them). Nevertheless, as pointed out above,[516]
even this point cannot be treated as self-evident. This applies in
still higher degree to individual marriage, which has often been
denied as regards many societies.[517] In this place we have mainly
to keep before our eyes the Australian society and our own society,
the latter of which affords, so to say, the heuristic principle,
the clue to the understanding of the former. As far as those two
societies are concerned, our choice appears to be the right one, and
the social-physiological basis mentioned above contains the essential
common elements of kinship in both societies.

     [516] In reference to Dr. Rivers' article, compare pp. 6, 7.

     [517] In some cases, when the position of the father is
     very subordinate in the family and his relation to the
     mother and her children is a very loose one--it seems
     doubtful whether the existence of the individual family
     (in the sense here defined) can be accepted (compare, for
     examples of such peoples, Dr. Westermarck, _H.H.M._,
     p. 109, and Sir Laurence Gomme, _loc. cit._, pp. 231, 232).
     In these cases the necessary condition for individual
     _paternal_ kinship according to our theory would be lacking.

The existence of individual marriage and its legal, sexual and
psychological aspects have been discussed and established in the
preceding chapters, as far as Australia is concerned. A discussion
on individual motherhood will be given below. The existence of the
individual family group in Australia, based upon individual marriage
and upon individual motherhood, is the subject of the remaining
chapters of this study. So that the existence of this physiological and
social basis of kinship may be taken as granted.

Bearing now in mind that what will be said hereafter applies in the
first place to Australia, it may be said that in the physiological
and social basis of kinship adopted above, the minimum of conditions
necessary for the application of the idea of individual kinship was
enumerated. But this minimum is not sufficient to determine this idea
completely in any given society. By studying only the social facts
which determine the individuality of family life within the society, we
should not exhaust all the features and essential aspects of parental
kinship in any society. The existence of the individual family merely
indicates unambiguously that individual parental kinship exists
in the given society. For this social unit having a deep analogy
with our own individual family, the relation between the members of
both these social units must also have some deep resemblance. But
to exaggerate this resemblance would be as erroneous as to deny it.
Besides the features common both to our parental kinship and to that
of the Australian, there are also those which differentiate these
two relationships. They must be sought for in the differences in the
_social conditions_, which may even modify the physiological basis of
kinship, as for instance when physical fatherhood is in one society
established beyond doubt by exclusive sexual appropriation, while in
the other there can be no question of it, owing to sexual communism.
The variations in the general social conditions obviously also affect
the purely sociological side of kinship. To point this out clearly, it
is enough to mention that each relation is subject to the normative
influences of the society in the midst of which it exists, and these
norms and their sanction vary with the general social structure.

The variable elements in parental kinship must be also looked for in
the different elements of the _collective mind_, connected with the
parental relationship; in other words, in the different _collective
ideas_ and _feelings_ which have parental kinship for their centre.
Moreover, as mentioned above, there are reasons why the knowledge of
the collective idea of kinship is sociologically important. It may be
emphasized here that we should <DW36> and curtail our knowledge if
we arbitrarily abstained from inquiring what influence the collective
knowledge as to procreation, consanguinity, affinity, etc., may have
upon the social aspect of the relation in question.

The same thing may be said of another domain of collective mentality:
that is, of the feelings involved in parental kinship. The type of
feelings underlying this relationship may vary with the society, in
the same way as these feelings vary with each individual case in
any given society. And as these feelings essentially determine the
character of parental kinship in any given society, it appears that
the discussion of this point cannot be omitted. Thus into the general
formula of kinship there must enter also the psychological elements:
collective ideas, expressing in a given society what is kinship,
what are its legal, moral and customary aspects; and the collective
feelings prevailing in a given society. From the interaction of these
psychological elements with different variable social elements arise
the more special, peculiar factors which define kinship in any given
society. In other words, the variable elements in the general formula
of kinship are seen to arise chiefly from the collective psychological
interpretation and valuation of some of the physiological and social
facts underlying parental kinship.

To sum up, it may be said that parental kinship is the personal tie
obtaining between members of the _parental group_ or individual
_family_, and like all other personalties it must be further determined
in each society by the characteristic _collective feelings_ and
_collective ideas_ which in the given society give it its specific
meaning.[518] This is that general formula of kinship which will yield
us what we have demanded of it--that is, an indication of the facts for
which to look in any given society. As the facts referred to in the
first part of the above definition (the establishment of the existence
of the family unit) are dealt with in the remaining chapters, it is
necessary to discuss only the second part of the definition.

     [518] This definition may appear a commonplace and a
     truism, a mere formulation of what is obvious to every
     one at first sight. But it is liable to this objection
     only when taken formally, _i. e._ when only its _form_ is
     considered, because it contains in the words _parental
     group_ (individual family) the substance of all that has
     been said in the preceding pages about this social unit;
     and the other terms of the definition (_collective ideas_
     and _collective feelings_) will be determined more in
     detail in the following discussion.

The influence upon kinship of the beliefs and ideas as to procreation
appears quite plainly upon an analysis of the concept of consanguinity,
and to this we may devote a few words.

Parental kinship is in our society conceived invariably and
exclusively in terms of _consanguinity_,[519] or, speaking more
explicitly, parental kinship is conceived as established by the tie of
common blood, resulting from birth (maternal kinship) or procreation
(paternal kinship). Of course the mere physiological fact does not
establish kinship in its full extent, with all its personal, emotional,
social and legal aspects. It is only when the physiological facts of
procreation or birth are sanctioned by society, in other words when
they are consummated in legal marriage, that the children are full
kinsmen of both their parents. Society takes all facts which are of
vital importance for itself under its own supervision; and consequently
the important facts of propagation are subject to the control of
society, which regulates them by a series of religious, legal,
customary and conventional norms, all of which are also necessary
conditions and essential features of full parental kinship. But this
sanction once granted, the tie of common blood is conceived as the main
source of all mutual duties and moral and legal obligations; and from
this also outflow the feelings of love, attachment, reverence, and so
forth, which are in our society the essential features of parental
kinship. Once a man knows that a child, which he considered his own, is
in reality not begotten by him, undoubtedly all his feelings for this
child are affected, and, under certain conditions, its legal position
may be modified. The two conditions for full parental kinship in our
society are (1) that the child be the real physiological offspring of
both presumed parents; (2) that it be legally begotten or its birth
legalized.

     [519] Legal adoption being set apart as a case which only
     partly establishes the kinship relations.

In our society the line of distinction between physiological
consanguinity and social consanguinity is quite clear; the one is a
mere physiological fact,[520] the other the social acknowledgment of
this fact and all its consequences, subject to certain norms, laid down
by society.

     [520] It seems hardly necessary to emphasize that for
     physiological consanguinity _as such_, pure and simple,
     there is no room in sociological science.

There are two separate sets of circumstances in which we may speak
of consanguinity: (1) the existence of social institutions, which
allow us to trace the physiological blood ties (_e. g._ monogamy or
harem institutions), in which case we can speak of the existence of
physiological consanguinity as obtaining between the members of the
individual family. (2) The existence of a social acknowledgment of the
facts of procreation as creating ties of individual personal kinship,
in which case we may speak of social consanguinity. If neither of these
conditions are fulfilled, then it would be quite meaningless to speak
of consanguinity.[521]

     [521] Keeping to the definition of this word as given
     above. It is a question of mere convention whether we
     call the general relationship not necessarily based upon
     ideas of community of blood _kinship_, as is done here,
     or whether we call it _social_ in opposition to _physical
     kinship_, as does M. A. van Gennep. What is essential is
     to point out that our peculiarly European idea of kinship,
     which necessarily involves consanguinity, cannot be applied
     to other societies without discussion, but that it is
     only a special case of a more general concept of kinship
     which may be made up of quite different elements. It would
     seem convenient to reserve the word consanguinity for
     relationship based upon community of blood, and to use the
     word kinship to denote the parental relationship in general.

Now let us see whether these conditions are to be found in all human
societies. That both are found in the majority of the more highly
developed societies appears beyond doubt. But this seems not to be
the case in the lower societies. Even a superficial glance at them is
sufficient to prove it. Whereas, in some of the lowest peoples known
conjugal fidelity seems to be the rule,[522] and consequently the
physiological tie of blood between children and both their parents
is secured, in other societies of low culture the sexual laxity is so
great that there is no possibility at all of tracing the descent of a
child from any individual man.[523] This applies in the first place
to the majority of the Australian tribes, as is shown in the chapter
on sexual matters. In consequence, it may be said that in many low
societies, and especially in some of the Australian tribes, there is no
possibility of speaking of physiological consanguinity as regards the
father.

     [522] Dr. Westermarck writes: "There are numerous savage
     and barbarous peoples among whom sexual intercourse out
     of wedlock is of rare occurrence; unchastity at least on
     the part of the woman being looked upon as a disgrace and
     even as a crime" (Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 61). In support
     of his opinion he adduces some forty cases where chastity
     is considered a virtue. Besides, the Veddas (according to
     Sarrazins and Seligmann) and the Andamanese (according to
     Man) may be quoted as peoples by whom absolute marital
     fidelity is required.

     [523] For various examples of various peoples besides the
     Australians, see Westermarck, pp. 71, 81. Compare also
     Post, _Ethnologische Jurisprudenz_, i. pp. 17 _sqq._, and
     Dargun, _loc. cit._, pp. 9 _sqq._

How does the case stand with the social importance attributed to the
facts of procreation? Here the variation seems to be still greater.
This can be very well exemplified by the Australian material. Over the
greater part of the continent the father's share in procreation is not
known. There cannot be any social acknowledgment of it. Consanguinity
in its social sense does not exist. In some tribes of South-East
Australia, on the other hand, the mother's share in procreation is
under-rated; the father is considered to be the only consanguineous
relative; the child is the father's offspring only, the mother being
merely its nurse. Here the consanguineous relation between mother and
child is considerably reduced in social importance, and consanguinity
as it appears to the social mind is purely paternal. It may be said,
therefore, that paternal kinship in the Centre and the North of the
continent and maternal kinship in the South-Eastern tribes cannot be
called consanguinity (in the social sense of this word), although in
both cases very close kinship exists, as will appear from a detailed
discussion hereafter.

These examples show clearly that it would be incorrect to treat
physiological consanguinity as a constant and indispensable constituent
of parental kinship.

Besides these Australian examples[524] there may be adduced many cases
from other societies in which the ties of blood play no part in the
collective ideas of kinship. The Naudowessies have the curious idea
that their offspring are indebted to their father for their souls, the
invisible part of their essence, and to the mother for their corporeal
and visible part.[525] Here the father's part in procreation was
probably known, but the interpretation thereof was not the correct
physiological one, but one that created, so to say, a spiritual
connection as the bond of paternal kinship, whereas maternal kinship
was conceived in terms of consanguinity. On the other hand, "according
to <DW5> ideas a child descends chiefly, though not exclusively,
from the father"[526]--a belief analogous to that of the South-East
Australians. The same belief was held in several higher societies
(Egyptians, Hindoos, Greeks).[527] Dargun has made a list of peoples
among whom the (social) father of the children is quite indifferent as
to whether they are really begotten by him.[528] Among the Todas, where
the determination of paternity is quite out of the question, owing to
their polyandry, fatherhood is determined only by the performance of a
conventional ceremony (the rite of _pursütpimi_, or handing over to the
pregnant woman a miniature bow and arrow). This constitutes fatherhood;
the man who has performed this ceremony is the (social) father of
the child, even if it were certain that he had not begotten it.[529]
Another interesting case was discovered by Dr. Rivers amongst the Banks
Islanders. There fatherhood is determined by the fact of paying the
midwife.

     [524] Which are dealt with at length in the second part of
     this chapter.

     [525] Westermarck, _loc. cit._, p. 105.

     [526] _Ibid._, p. 106.

     [527] _Ibid._

     [528] _Loc. cit._, pp. 9-18.

     [529] Rivers, _The Todas_, pp. 517 _sqq._

But the most noteworthy cases in regard to the present subject are
those where fatherhood in its social sense is not consanguineous owing
to the ignorance of the physiological laws of reproduction (a state
of things mentioned already as obtaining in Central Australia). This
ignorance is of general sociological importance, because there are
well-founded reasons for believing that it was once universal amongst
primitive mankind, as may be held to be proved by Mr. E. S. Hartland
in his thorough treatise on _Primitive Paternity_. For the detailed
argument the reader must be referred to this fundamental work.[530] Mr.
Sidney Hartland has besides drawn sociological conclusions from those
facts in their bearing upon paternal kinship. In Chapter IV of the
first volume he gives numerous examples of peoples among whom there is
no tie of consanguinity between father and son.[531]

     [530] Mr. Sidney Hartland has given an exceedingly
     exhaustive collection of stories "of birth other than what
     we know as the only natural cause"; of customs in which
     the "means to which in these stories birth is attributed
     are or have been actually adopted for the production of
     children"; and he has compared this folkloristic material
     with the Australian beliefs. Besides this weight of
     facts, the author adduces other important reasons why
     it is extremely probable that "such ignorance was once
     greater and more widespread than now." The book of Mr.
     Sidney Hartland is undoubtedly the most thorough and
     most scientific discussion of the present problem. The
     strength of his arguments and the mass of evidence strongly
     support his conclusions. The contrary opinion, viz. that
     the Australian nescience is an accidental result of some
     animistic beliefs, an opinion chiefly represented by
     Mr. A. Lang, seems to be based more on speculation than
     on facts. The view that the ignorance of paternity was
     widespread in primitive mankind is shared by Prof. Frazer,
     M. A. van Gennep, and Frhr. von Reitzenstein. (For references,
     see below, p. 208, footnote 1.)

     [531] How far Mr. Hartland's results appear incomplete on
     the sociological side will be discussed hereafter.

To ascertain the influence of physiological ties of blood on this
relation in a given society it is needful to know the way in which
they present themselves to the aboriginal mind. That is, we must know
the collective ideas of a given society on the facts of procreation.
Do they know, or do they not know, the father's part in procreation?
But this is not sufficient. Even if they know a certain physiological
fact, they may not acknowledge its bearing upon kinship, they may
attach no importance to its social aspect. So it is with the fact
of physiological maternity in the South-East Australian tribes and
with paternity in the cases quoted by Dargun. And it happens very
often that in peoples where the causal connection between copulation
and pregnancy is well known, fatherhood is by no means determined by
its physiological aspect. Not only the collective knowledge of the
physiological facts, but also the collective attitude towards them,
must therefore be taken into consideration.[532] In short, it may be
said that _physiological_ consanguinity has no direct bearing upon
social facts.

     [532] Sir Laurence Gomme writes: "There is a wide
     difference between the mere physical fact of having a
     mother and father, and the political fact of using this
     kinship for social organization. Savages who have not
     learned the political significance have but the scantiest
     appreciation of the physical fact. The Australians, for
     instance, have no term to express the relationship between
     mother and child. This is because the physical fact is of
     no significance...." (_loc. cit._, p. 232).

To define consanguinity in its social meaning, the collective ideas
held by a given society on the facts of procreation must be considered.
Consanguinity, therefore, is the set of relations involved by the
collective ideas under which the facts of procreation are viewed in a
given society. And it must be borne in mind that these ideas express
not only the purely theoretical views of the social mind on the facts
of procreation; they also involve different emotional elements, and
especially the social importance given to these facts by society.
Consanguinity (as a sociological concept) is therefore not the
physiological bond of common blood; it is the social acknowledgment and
interpretation of it.

It may be said, therefore, that consanguinity is not always considered
as the essence of kinship. If now we wish to determine what are the
common features of the different ideas which in different societies
define kinship, the only answer is that the said ideas affirm in
one way or another a very close, intimate tie between offspring
and parents. These ideas may refer kinship to physiological facts
(consanguinity as found in the major part of human societies); or they
may base kinship on the performance of a quite conventional ceremony
(Todas, Banks Islanders); or they may affirm a very close tie between
parent and child, on the base of some religious or magic belief
(spiritual tie, transmission of soul: the Naudoweissies and some
Australian tribes, as will be seen below). It is evident, therefore,
that the general idea of kinship cannot be construed in terms of any
of these special sets of ideas. The essential features that must be
claimed for these ideas (_i. e._ those ranged in the class of kinship
ideas) are: (1) that they must refer to the relation between child
and father or mother;[533] and (2) that they must affirm an intimate
bond of union of some kind between the parties involved. As may be
easily conceived, it will be difficult in very low societies to get
hold of these ideas, that is, to obtain the exact answer to the
question, "What is kinship?" It is now impossible even to measure
exactly the difficulty of getting a precise answer to this question,
as ethnographers have never paid special attention to this point.
Nevertheless, in Australia we shall be able to get at least some
glimpses, which are of the highest theoretical interest. And even the
negative result--that the idea of consanguinity must be considered
wanting in the majority of Australian tribes--is of considerable
theoretical value.

     [533] The terms _child_, _father_ and _mother_ being
     defined first broadly as explained above, pp. 172 _sqq._

Besides the general question, "What is considered as the source of
parental (maternal and paternal) kinship?" we may ask questions about
the various other ideas connected with kinship. Here come in the legal,
moral, and customary ideas, by which society exercises its normative
power in reference to the said relation. Some of these are expressed
in different social functions.[534] Others may be reached by the study
of beliefs, traditions, customs and other forms of folk-lore. The
well-known customs of the _couvade_ are one of the typical functions
of the father, in which there is an expression of a deep connection
of a magical kind between the father and his offspring. Whatever
explanation of these customs may be given,[535] it cannot be denied
that they are based upon the idea of a very intimate tie between the
two individuals involved, and that this tie is conceived as being of a
mystical character.

     [534] As an example may be quoted the "functions of
     kinship" described by Dr. Rivers for the Torres Straits
     Islanders. _Cambridge Exp. to Torres Straits_, v. pp. 144
     _sqq._, and vi. pp. 100, 101. Also by Dr. Seligmann for the
     Melanesians of New Guinea, see passage under this heading
     in chap. iii. and chap. xxxvii. _op. cit._

     [535] Perhaps the best one is given by Dargun, _loc. cit._,
     pp. 22 _sqq._, where many other opinions are also quoted
     and criticized.

There is also a series of social rules which regulate the social
position of the offspring according to that of its parents. This group
of rules might appropriately be called _descent_ in the social sense
of this word.[536] In the Australian societies, _e. g._ the membership
of different social groups--as the local group, the totemic clan, the
phratry, the class--is determined by the membership of one of the
parents of the given individual. And many authors speak of tribes with
paternal and maternal descent. It must be borne in mind, nevertheless,
that in order to use the word descent in a definite sense it is always
necessary to add what social group is meant. For it is possible that
membership in the local group is determined by the father, membership
of the phratry by the mother, and membership in the clan by neither of
them. The facts of descent do not seem to play a very important rôle
and are not suitable to be chosen as the most important feature of
kinship. The facts of inheritance also have not very much influence
upon kinship (compare below, pp. 290, 291).

     [536] The word descent is often used without any
     definition. Mr. E. S. Hartland, _op. cit._, i. p. 258,
     uses it in a sense synonymous with kinship. Mr. Thomas,
     too, does not define the meaning of this word, but he uses
     it more or less in the same way as is done in the text.
     Compare Thomas, _loc. cit._, pp. 11, 12 _sqq._

As it is easy to see, looking at our own ideas on parental kinship,
all the normative ideas, whether religious, moral or legal, are in
close connection with the central, basic idea, _i. e._ in the case
of our society, the idea of consanguinity. And these normative ideas
are brought by the collective mind into causal connection with the
central idea of community of blood.[537] It would be the ideal of
sociological research as regards our present subject if we could
bring in any given society all the normative ideas into such a causal
dependence upon the central idea, and explain how they are conceived
by the collective mind as the outgrowth of this root idea; thus
showing how all the legal, moral and customary aspects converge on
the fundamental concept of kinship. Unhappily, in low societies the
imperfection of ethnographic material would frustrate any attempt at
such an enterprise. In Australia our knowledge of these aspects--moral,
legal and customary--is very scanty. Although they are all undoubtedly
in quite a rudimentary state, careful investigation would possibly
disclose many points of extreme interest.

     [537] It is impossible to develop here this thought, which
     would require a volume if regard be had to the complexity
     of the fact. The references to higher societies are given
     by way of illustration only.

One other problem must be discussed here more in detail, owing to
its great theoretical importance, viz. the legal aspect of parental
kinship. We have defined above the meaning of the word _legal_.[538]
In connection with what has been said, we may affirm that the _legal_
is only one of the many aspects of kinship; that legal ideas, as
far as known for any given society, must be taken into account when
defining kinship, but that the latter cannot possibly be reduced
to its legal aspect only. And it is still more incorrect[539] to
represent physiological consanguinity and legal power over the child
as two mutually exclusive sets of facts beyond which there can be no
determination of parental kinship. We find the opinion expressed by
many authors, especially with regard to Australia, that where-ever the
tie binding parent and child was not constituted by the acknowledgment
of consanguinity, that there always it was based on legal principles
such as potestas, authority, _Machtstellung_, or other similar ones.

     [538] See above, p. 11.

     [539] Comparing what we have said above on consanguinity.

The incorrectness of taking only these two alternatives is shown by the
three following considerations: (1) Such a view overlooks the facts
discussed below, which show that there is actual kinship based on
ideas neither physiological nor legal. (2) This way of interpreting
facts operates with very indeterminate concepts, for we nowhere find
any explanation of how to take the general term _legal_ in connection
with a given aboriginal society, and still less are we told how such
legal concepts as _potestas_, paternal authority, etc., are to be
applied to a given aboriginal society. (3) If a definition of _law_ or
_legal_ be given, it would plainly be seen that it is quite erroneous
to consider any of these concepts as defining parental kinship. This
is quite clear if we use the definition of _legal_ given above, p. 11.
But even allowing a broad margin for the variations which may result
from a varying definition of _legal_, it may be safely stated that in
whatever way we might try to define this word, our definition must
always involve factors of social pressure, stress and authority. In
other words, the relation between two individuals may be considered
_legal only_ when we imply that it is wholly and exclusively determined
by the outward regulating control of the society and by a potential
direct action of it. And in the case we are speaking of--that is,
the relation between parent and child in low societies--there can be
hardly any question of this. As will appear in the Australian case,
this relation is left quite to itself, and it is regulated by the
spontaneous emotional attitude of the father towards his child. No
factor of any outer pressure or constraint enters into it, at least we
are not informed of any such by the ethnographical evidence extant.
The collection and analysis of the statements on this point given
below[540] will show that there cannot be any question of potestas,
authority, proprietorship, or anything of the kind. Neither social
pressure nor economic interest bind the parents to their children, nor
does any motive of this kind enter into this relation.

     [540] pp. 238 _sqq._; and pp. 254-256.

As this subject is very important, some examples of the mode of
reasoning just now criticized are set out here. These passages are
quoted from works of very distinguished writers to show that the
mistakes result from serious defects in sociological knowledge, and
not from any accidental causes. And they are taken from passages which
either refer exclusively to the Australian aboriginal society, or are
exemplified by Australian facts.

Mr. Thomas, at the end of a passage in which he discusses the
relation between the concepts of kinship and consanguinity says that
in Australia "some relation will almost certainly be found to exist
between the father and child; but it by no means follows that it
arises from any idea of consanguinity." So far we perfectly agree
with the reasoning of the author. But when Mr. Thomas adds, "In other
communities _potestas_[541] and not _consanguinity_[541] is held to
determine the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring;
and it is a matter for careful inquiry how far the same holds good in
Australia, when the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be
unrecognized by the natives,"[542] we see that he falls into the error
of acknowledging only two possibilities: potestas or consanguinity.
It is true that he speaks of consanguinity as being modified by
native ideas, and that thus a social element is introduced into the
physiological concept of consanguinity. But we are still left to guess
how this social element is to be understood. And as pointed out above,
the relation between father and child in the tribes in question cannot
be considered as based upon consanguinity or community of blood,
whatever meaning we give to these words. Erroneous in any case is the
opposition of kinship and potestas, as if these two concepts were of
the same order, and could be considered as two equivalent categories
excluding each other. Whereas, as we saw, these two concepts are of
quite different order and cannot be treated as excluding or replacing
each other. Kinship is a very complicated social fact, very complex
in its sociological and psychological aspects. _Potestas_ is a legal
category, expressing a set of attributes and rights of the father
over his children. Potestas (or any analogous legal factor) may be
a constituent element of kinship in certain societies. It cannot
possibly replace kinship entirely.

     [541] The italics are mine.

     [542] _Loc. cit._, p. 5.

A similar unsatisfactory reasoning, it appears to me, is to be
found contained in a passage of the small but clearly and deeply
thought out work of the eminent sociologist, the late Prof. Dargun.
He stipulates as the most important postulate of studies in family
organization the discrimination between authority and consanguinity:
"Strenges Auseinanderhalten der Gewaltverhältnisse von den
Verwandtschaftsverhältnissen."[543] And he defines _Verwandtschaft_ as
a purely physiological fact: "die letztere, (Verwandtschaft) ist durch
das natürliche Blutband gegeben."[544] This is obviously an incorrect
definition for sociological use.[545] Equally unsatisfactory is the
definition given of the _Gewalt_ (potestas): Gewalt vom natürlichen
Blutband unabhängig kann "auf sehr verschiedene historische Wurzeln
zurückführen."[546] This definition is both negative and ambiguous,
excluding elements of consanguinity from potestas and assigning to
the latter "various historic roots." We might, therefore, expect to
find everything in this idea, but on the other hand such a definition
lacks precision and does not give either the direction in which to
look for the determining factors, or any criterion for our recognition
of the existence of personal kinship ties. Now our definition of
kinship responds to both these requirements when applied to the
Australian facts. Moreover we find in these phrases of Dargun the
alternative condemned above between authority and consanguinity, the
latter used here in the crude physiological sense. It may be noted
that in some passages of the book in question there are hints pointing
to the fact that the author felt the necessity of a psychological
definition of paternal kinship. So when he says, speaking of the
Australians: "Vollkommenste Vaterherrschaft, ja _selbst ausgesprochene
Vaterliebe_--gehen mit ebenso unbedingter Verwandtschaft--und
Stammeszugehörigkeit in mütterlicher Linie, Hand in Hand,"[547] we see
that here the author speaks of paternal love and states that this is
what determines the relation of father and child in Australia. When he
speaks afterwards of the father as: "Beschützer und Fürsorger"[548] of
his children, we see that he mentions purely personal factors of the
relation of father to child, such as we lay stress upon in speaking
of community of life and of interests. But still the author seems to
be entangled in his alternative between consanguinity and potestas.
So we read: "Wo zwischen dem Vater und seinen Kindern ein wirkliches
Verwandtschaftsverhältniss bestehet, dort muss auf die faktische
Zeugung durch den Hausvater entscheidendes Gewicht gelegt werden, und
umgekehrt überall wo Gleichgültigkeit gegen dieses Zeugungsverhältniss
an den Tag tritt, ist das Gewaltverhältniss des Vaters, noch nicht
zur Blutsverwandtschaft herangereift."[549] In this phrase there is
a complete oversight of the various actual ways in which an intimate
relation between father and child may be established, and which have
nothing to do either with consanguinity or with _patria potestas_.

     [543] _Loc. cit._, p. 2.

     [544] _Ibid._

     [545] See above, p. 182.

     [546] _Loc. cit._, p. 2.

     [547] _Loc. cit._, p. 7.

     [548] _Ibid._

     [549] _Loc. cit._, p. 8.

In the new work of Prof. Frazer there are also some pages touching on
this point. Although he distinguishes well between the _physiological_
and _social consanguinity_,[550] still in another place he says,
speaking of the Central Tribes: "Denying as they do explicitly that
the child is begotten by the father, they can only regard him as the
consort, and in a sense as the owner of the mother, and, therefore,
as the owner of her progeny, just as a man who owns a cow owns also
the calf she brings forth. In short, it seems probable that a man's
children were viewed as his property long before they were recognized
as his offspring." It is impossible to agree with this opinion. The
word "property" can in no strict sense be applied to the relation
between father and child in Australia. Besides the author does not even
clearly indicate in what sense he uses the word; and this word appears
here only as a metaphor. Moreover, it is obvious that this opinion
implies opposition between consanguinity and the legal category of
"proprietorship," and contrasts the words "property" and "offspring."

     [550] "Fatherhood to a Central Australian savage is a very
     different thing from fatherhood to a civilized European. To
     the European father it means that he has begotten a child
     on a woman; to the Central Australian father it means that
     the child is the offspring of a woman with whom he has a
     right to cohabit, whether he has actually had intercourse
     with her or not. To the European mind the tie between a
     father and his child is physical; to the Central Australian
     it is social."--_Loc. cit._, i. p. 236.

In fact, as we hinted above, and as we shall have opportunity of
discussing below[551] in connection with the evidence, there is little
ground for speaking of _authority_, _patria potestas_, "_ownership_"
or any similar attributes of the father as regards his children in
Australia. It must not be forgotten that these words are nearly
meaningless as long as they have not a legal sense. According to the
definition of _legal_ we should say that two people stand to each
other in a purely legal relation when certain norms are laid down
and actively sanctioned by society, which requires a definite mutual
behaviour and attitude on the part of each. It was pointed out above
that in Australia we have data allowing us to speak of the legal aspect
of social institutions and relations;[552] it appears improbable,
though, that there could be found any _purely_ legal relation. At any
rate, nothing of that sort determines or forms the substance of the
relation between father and child in Australia. If a father should
kill or abandon his child, he would, for all we know, be left quite
undisturbed. Nobody compels him to provide for its subsistence, to
protect it and care for it.[553] There are spontaneous elements that
bind him to it. And these spontaneous elements (to discover them will
be our task) determine his relation to his child. Undoubtedly this
kinship relation presents _some_ legal features, such as, for instance,
his right to dispose of his daughter in marriage (a right which in some
tribes is reported to belong to the mother or mother's brother). But
we know very little about it.[554] At any rate, there are only a few
occasions on which the relation in question involves any possibility of
social intervention.[555]

     [551] pp. 186, 254.

     [552] pp. 11 _sqq._

     [553] In our society, if parents wish to abandon their
     progeny while still dependent, they would be prevented by
     the law from doing it, and compelled to perform a series
     of duties and services, which usually spring from the
     natural parental love. Thus we see that in our society
     the relation between parents and children has much more
     of a legal character than in Australia. Nevertheless it
     would seem quite absurd to style this relation in our
     society as essentially a legal one. It has only its legal
     sides, which, comparatively, are seldom put into action,
     especially while the children are not yet grown up, _i. e._
     just during the period when the relationship in question is
     the most important.

     [554] Compare pp. 254 _sqq._

     [555] The legal norms are an essential object of study
     also from the standpoint that they may be the expression
     of some important ideas held about kinship. Especially the
     motivation of these norms, as given by the aborigines, may
     be of high value in this respect. But obviously this does
     not mean that kinship is a legal category.

Nobody ever doubts, as far as I can see, the fact that all personal
ties between two individuals consist not only of ideas, but also of
feelings, and that they are influenced no less by the feelings the two
individuals mutually inspire than by the ideas they form of each other.
To ascertain, _e. g._, if there be friendship between two people, one
seeks to know their feelings towards each other, as well as what they
think about each other. The relation between a parent and a child is
in our society chiefly determined by their mutual feelings. And in a
case where these feelings are absent, this relationship--in spite of
all legal, moral, and other factors which tend to maintain its form--is
deeply affected. It may be taken for granted that the sentimental side
most essentially determines in a given society any kind of personal
relationship. And in the same society the character of a given personal
relation--be it parental kinship or anything else--varies with the
intensity of the feeling and is essentially defined by the latter. It
may be accepted also, that in different societies the types of feelings
corresponding to given personal relations may vary according to the
society, and may define in each one this given relation in its most
essential character. In other words, the concept of collective feelings
can be applied as well as the concept of collective ideas.[556] By this
is to be understood certain types of feeling, which being dependent on
corresponding collective ideas possess the same essential character as
the latter: they exist in a certain society, and are transmitted from
generation to generation; they impose themselves on the individual
mind, and possess the character of necessity; they are deeply connected
with certain social institutions; in fact they stand to them in the
relation of functional dependence (in the mathematical sense). So, for
instance, it is clear that in the hypothetical primitive promiscuous
society, in which _ex hypothesi_ there would be no individual
relationship, the feelings of affection for the individual offspring
could not exist. We could only speak of the "collective feeling" of
_group affection_. So it seems to me that the relation of parents to
children cannot be treated with any approach to completeness without
seriously taking into account its emotional character.

     [556] As is well known, we are indebted for the concept of
     _collective ideas_ to the French school of Prof. Durkheim
     and his associates. Throughout this study, and especially
     in this chapter, I have done my best to avail myself of
     this valuable methodological standpoint.

But even if the foremost importance of emotional elements and the
possibility of treating them as collective feelings were granted,
there is another objection to be met. Granted that these elements are
actually quite essential in determining family relations, it might be
objected that they are too shapeless and indeterminate in themselves
to be of any practical use in scientific research, especially if our
theories have to be based upon ethnographic observations in which the
more tangible and the more unambiguous the facts chosen, the less the
risk of being misled. Now, are not feelings of the most indeterminate
character, the most misleading, and the most difficult to ascertain?
In fact, the theory of feelings and emotions seems to be the least
developed in individual as well as in social psychology. Especially it
might be suggested that to pursue the investigation on double lines is
useless; feelings always find adequate expression in ideas, in fact
crystallize in them.[557] Without trying to give a general answer to
these objections, they may be met as regards the special case under
discussion. In Australia, as a matter of fact, they do not hold good.
For our knowledge of the sentimental side of parental kinship is much
better and much more determinate than our knowledge of any other aspect
of this relation.

     [557] It seems needless to add that the deep connection and
     mutual dependence of both feelings and ideas is perfectly
     acknowledged. This is not the place, of course, to pursue
     any detailed psychological investigations. I would like
     to remind the reader that all that is said here must be
     judged by its application to the Australian facts given
     below. In higher societies where art, poetry and thought
     lend themselves much more to the expression of feelings,
     the former afford objective documents of the latter. In
     low societies we must look for such objective documents
     elsewhere, in different sets of facts.

It may be here indicated why our knowledge on this point may be
considered as a well-founded one. As stated below (pp. 249, 250) the
agreement between the statements as to parental feelings is quite an
exceptional one. Comparing it with the usual discrepancy between the
reports of different observers on many other points, which would appear
much less liable to any subjectivity, this complete agreement and
the relative exactness of our information is highly remarkable.[558]
It should be noted that on this point there is no extrinsic reason,
or secondary motive, that would make us suspect an artificial cause
of agreement. The point in question forms no part of any theory; it
affects no moral or racial susceptibilities. And there was no special
reason why so many observers should pay attention to it, and why they
all should state the same thing: viz. extreme love and fondness towards
the children on the part of the parents. This agreement shows that the
facts which the ethnographers had under observation were so expressive
of the underlying psychology, and they struck the writers so strongly
that they simply felt compelled to notice them. And observing closely
the facts through which those feelings of paternal affection found
their expression, it becomes evident that these feelings are not so
indeterminate as might _a priori_ be supposed; that, on the contrary,
they find quite an unequivocal expression in a series of facts. Let us
look more closely at these facts.

     [558] Compare below, p. 250.

In the first place consider the facts of daily life[559]--the behaviour
of parents towards children in all the cases where the latter want help
or merit punishment. We read that on all such occasions both parents
exhibit great kindness and extreme leniency. The children are carefully
looked after by the father as well as by the mother; and they are very
seldom punished. In one place it is even stated that the father is
more lenient than the mother. Now is it not in agreement with all our
every-day experiences that in such facts and features of daily life
prominent and characteristic feelings find their adequate expression?
And is the accordance of opinion among all our Australian informants
on this point not a proof that they were able to judge with great
certainty from these facts concerning the underlying feelings?--that
these outer signs were unmistakable expressions of the inner facts?
Undoubtedly our information is too little detailed, and particulars
referring to treatment of children and other features of the aboriginal
daily life in this connection would be of the highest value. But
considering that the attention of the observers was never specially
drawn to these questions by any theoretical writer, and comparing our
information on this point with other parts of our evidence, it must
be acknowledged that it is exceptionally good. And this reliability
is doubtless in the first place due to the fact that the subject of
observation was clear, unambiguous and well determined.

     [559] Conys. _Statements_, pp. 238 _sqq._

We are, moreover, in possession of a few reports of actual occurrences
in which the great love displayed by the parents for their children
is shown in its full strength and under the stress of special
circumstances. In a battle that took place between some aborigines and
settlers, the former were put to flight. They had to cross a river,
but in doing so they left a child behind them. It was seized by a
Maori who was at the station, and it was shown to the blacks standing
on the other bank of the river. The father of the child recognized it
at once. He seemed almost frantic, held out his arms eagerly towards
the child, making at the same time signs for it to be given to him.
The Maori pretended to be willing to give it and made signs to the
black to cross the river again. And the black swam across the river to
rescue his child. Thus he did not hesitate to risk his life in order
to save his child; in the end he was treacherously murdered by the
Maori.[560] Another touching story is told by Rob. Dawson concerning
a mother's grief after the loss of her son. He says that the woman
was utterly transformed by the blow. "Before the catastrophe she was
a remarkably fine woman, being tall and athletic beyond any other in
the settlement; _now_, she was a truly wretched and forlorn spectacle,
apparently wasted down by watching and sorrow. I have seen this poor
creature often since our first meeting, at their different camps near
us, and she has still the same wretched appearance."[561] These tales
show that parental feelings could be as deep and pathetic among the
Australian blacks as in any cultured society. We read another story in
Howitt,[562] who tells us that when he was living one day in his camp
in the Dieri country the father of a lad, who was visiting Howitt's
camp the day before, came in a state of utmost alarm and terror. The
lad, his son, was missing, and they could not find him. The father was
terrified and, suspecting that the white men had concealed the lad
and might carry him away, he looked through Howitt's luggage. It may
be noted that this occurred among the Dieri, where it is said that
individual paternity does not obtain. Nevertheless it was not a group
of fathers that came worrying and striving to find the boy; neither
was it a group of fathers that risked their lives for the child, nor
a group of mothers that was grieving to death for their child. In the
few anecdotes reported below with the other statements we see also how
strongly paternal affection is marked. So in the story of the old man
quite infatuated with his son and disconsolate after his death, and in
the story of another man eager to rescue his boy, and the old man in
Curr's story, who allowed his boy to do anything he liked.[563]

     [560] Br. Smyth, ii. p. 311.

     [561] _Loc. cit._, pp. 92, 93.

     [562] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 189.

     [563] Compare pp. 248, 249; and 269 _sqq._

Such stories and anecdotes could be easily multiplied from the
ethnographical material extant. They all corroborate our proposition,
viz. that the sentimental side of the parental relation expresses
itself quite clearly and tangibly in ever so many facts of different
order, and that it would be easy for a well-informed observer to give a
fairly exact account of the feelings in terms of facts. These facts, as
said above, are in the first place the facts of daily life, which are
quite unmistakable in their meaning and easily expressed in an accurate
manner. The proof of it is that we have now relatively abundant data,
although no methodical research was devoted to these facts. Then there
are different occasions on which the limit of affection, the maximum
and minimum of their range in a given society, is established. Such
are the foregoing stories. I think we can safely conclude that the
emotional side is on the one hand quite essential, and important enough
to take the first place in our considerations.[564] On the other hand
it can be accurately described in terms of objective data for the
purpose of being chosen as the chief characteristic of the parental
relation. It must be added that not a single other side or aspect of
this relation appears to fulfil these conditions in the same degree. As
will subsequently appear, our knowledge about the aboriginal _ideas_ on
parental relationship are not so ample by far as our knowledge about
their _feelings_ in that connection.

     [564] The importance of the emotional character of parental
     kinship has already been theoretically studied. Prof. K. Buecher
     (_loc. cit._, p. 19) represents the primitive parents as
     selfish, heartless, with no love or attachment for the
     child, and draws important conclusions from this. Dr.
     Steinmetz has subjected this assumption to a thorough
     criticism; taking his stand on a rich collection of
     ethnological data, he shows that this assumption is
     without any ground; he fully acknowledges the importance
     in sociological researches of behaviour, treatment and
     emotional attitude in the parental relation. Compare his
     important article in _Zeitschr. f. Soziologie_, i. pp. 608
     _sqq._, and _Ethnologische Studien_, ii. pp. 186 _sqq._

The foregoing discussion has been mainly concerned with the collective
ideas which define parental kinship, and the different sets of social
facts in which these ideas find their expression have been enumerated.
It also dealt with collective feelings, and the different facts in
which these are to be looked for were surveyed. We must now emphasize
the fact that just as we may say that the different ideas determining
kinship converge towards one central concept, or rather flow out of one
common central idea of kinship, so there is also an intimate connection
between the ideas determining kinship and the feelings bound up with
it. This becomes obvious if our own social conditions be considered.
As mentioned above, a father in our society loves his child in a great
measure because he knows that it is his own offspring. In societies in
which the idea of consanguinity (in the social sense) does not exist,
such a connection between feelings of paternal love and knowledge of
a physiological procreation would be impossible. And it would be of
the highest sociological interest to trace what form such connections
assume. An attempt at such a study would be possible in our own society
and in other higher societies, although there would be serious
difficulties enough. But there would hardly be sufficient material to
attempt it in any lower society, and there is absolutely no possibility
of doing this for Australia.

A brief summary of the foregoing argument may now be given. It was
stated at the beginning that parental kinship corresponds to a very
complex and manifold set of phenomena; moreover in various societies
this relationship is determined by various elements. The problem is
to find in all this complexity the structural features, the really
essential facts, the knowledge of which in any given society would
enable us to give a scientifically valid description of kinship. In
other words, the problem is to give a general formula defining kinship,
which would state its constant elements and give heed to the essential
varying elements therein; that formula being on the one hand not too
narrow for application to the various human societies, it would be on
the other hand not too vague to afford quite definite results when
applied to any special case. A final solution of this problem cannot be
arrived at _a priori_, but only by way of induction, after the facts
in the different human societies have been studied. And in order to
attempt such a preliminary study of the Australian facts, the foregoing
remarks have been given; they aim at a general definition of the kind
just described in the form of a tentative or preliminary sketch.
Consequently in the first place the attempt was made to ascertain what
could be taken as the constant elements in individual parental kinship.
What appeared to be nearly universal in this connection is the fact
that infants and small children are always specially attached, and
stand in a specific close relation to a man and a woman.[565] The woman
is invariably their own mother, who gave them birth; the man is the
woman's husband. The existence of this group, which may be called the
individual family, is the basis upon which kinship may be determined;
it is the condition under which it is possible to speak of individual
parental kinship in any given society.

     [565] Compare the footnote above, p. 174.

But it was shown that the knowledge of these facts is not sufficient
to yield a precise idea of maternal and paternal kinship, and that
many of its manifold aspects of foremost sociological interest would
remain unknown if the inquiry were broken off at this point. These
latter aspects depend upon factors which are by no means constant in
all societies, but have a very wide range of variation depending on the
general social conditions. A discussion of the concept of consanguinity
has shown that the variations go so far as to affect the main question
of paternal kinship: "Who is the father (in the social sense) of a
child, and how is he determined?"

In order to indicate in which direction the varying general conditions
of society must be investigated so as to yield all that is essential
for the sociological knowledge of kinship, it was found most convenient
to range the facts in two main lines of inquiry: (1) The different sets
of facts which express the central collective idea of what fatherhood
is; and the various other collective ideas--legal, customary, moral--of
a normative character referring to the relation in question. The
social facts in which these ideas must be looked for are: Beliefs,
traditions, customs referring to the relation in question (as for
instance the couvade type), and functions of kindred such as legal
duties and obligations between parent and child. (2) The facts in
which the expression of the collective feelings characteristic of the
relation in question is to be found. The facts of daily life, as well
as the dramatic expression of feelings, come in here. The emotional
character of the parental kinship relation is of the highest importance
in determining the social feature of this relation, and for the
comprehension of its social working.

These points of view will be applied hereafter to the discussion of
the Australian parental kinship. But in order to illustrate here their
theoretical bearing, a short discussion will be given of some of the
ways in which the concept of kinship has been applied to low societies
by sociologists. Morgan's way of dealing with the meaning of kinship
must be first mentioned.[566] He assumes without further discussion
that kinship was conceived always and in all societies, even the lowest
ones, in terms of consanguinity.[567] Our discussion of consanguinity
shows how great a mistake it was on the part of Morgan to impute to the
primitive mind a whole series of ideas which absolutely and necessarily
must have been foreign to it. As was said above, primitive mankind
was certainly wholly ignorant of the process of procreation, and the
relation of the sexes cannot possibly have been the source of kinship
ideas. How great a part this assumption plays in Morgan's deductions it
is easy to perceive.[568] And he was led to it by omitting to discuss
and analyze the concept of kinship, and by applying to low societies
our own social concept of it.

     [566] Compare also above, p. 171.

     [567] Compare especially _Systems, etc._, chap. ii.
     pp. 10 _sqq._ "The family relationships are as ancient
     as the _family_. They exist in virtue of the law of
     derivation, which is expressed by the perpetuation of
     the species through the marriage relations. A system of
     _consanguinity_, which is _founded upon a community of
     blood_, is but the formal expression and recognition of
     these relationships." (The italics are mine.) This is
     in other words the assumption that kinship was always
     conceived as consanguinity, or community of blood through
     procreation. Compare also _Ancient Society_, pp. 393, 395.

     [568] _Systems, etc._, pp. 474 _sqq._, where the only
     source of the classificatory system is attributed to
     different "customs" referring to the sexual aspect of
     marriage. As we saw, precisely this aspect is quite
     irrelevant to the formation of primitive kinship ideas,
     consequently also of primitive kinship terms.

J. F. MacLennan uses also the kinship concept as identical with that
of blood relationship.[569] But it must be emphatically stated that
MacLennan recognizes both the importance of feelings in relation to
kinship[570] and the fact that consanguinity was not known to primitive
man,[571] although he unfortunately does not develop these two
important ideas.

     [569] See _loc. cit._, pp. 83 _sqq._ It is difficult to
     pick out any one clear statement to show that the author
     identifies kinship with consanguinity. But a glance at the
     pages quoted is enough to prove this. I quote a phrase from
     the table of contents: "The most ancient system in which
     the _idea of blood relationship_ was embodied was a system
     of kinship through females only." (The italics are mine.)

     [570] Men are always "bound together by a feeling of
     kindred. The filial and paternal affections may be
     instinctive. They are obviously independent of any theory
     of kinship, its origin and consequences ... they may have
     existed long before kinship became an object of thought,"
     _op. cit._, p. 83. From these remarks it is only one step
     to say that feelings ought to be considered as determining
     elements, and that even if ideas corresponding to them did
     not exist, kinship could not be denied.

     [571] "No advocate of innate ideas will maintain their
     existence on relationship by blood," _op. cit._, p. 83.

The same use of the concept of kinship (Verwandtschaft) was pointed out
above as a mistake of Dargun's. The ideas on kinship of Prof. Frazer
and Mr. Thomas were also dealt with above, where it was found that they
were not adapted to the complexity of the facts.

Mr. Sidney Hartland rightly sees that kinship is not necessarily
identical with consanguinity in our sense. But he wrongly restricts
kinship to a specific kind of ideas about community of blood. "Though
kinship, however, is not equivalent to blood relationship in our sense
of the term, it is founded on the idea of common blood which all within
the kin possess, and to which all outside the kin are strangers. A
feeling of solidarity runs through the entire kin, so that it may be
said without hyperbole that the kin is regarded as one entire life,
one body whereof each unit is more than metaphorically a member, a
limb. The same blood runs through them all, and 'the blood is the
life.'"[572] This definition, illustrated as it is by many examples,
is one more instance showing that the idea underlying kinship may
be different from the idea of consanguinity in our sense, _i. e._
consanguinity of blood through procreation. But the affirmation that
kinship is always based on some idea of common blood, seems to be not
in accord with the facts. Moreover this passage, which is the only one
designed to define kinship, is quite inadequate to the importance of
the subject, especially in a treatise devoted to primitive paternity,
and the result is that in this admirable work the purely sociological
side presents some obscurities. The following remark: "Kindred with the
father is first and foremost juridical--a social convention"[573] is
also incorrect in the light of the foregoing discussion of the legal
aspect of kinship.

     [572] _Primitive Paternity_, i. pp. 257-258.

     [573] Sidney Hartland, ii. p. 99.

Dr. Rivers defines: "Kin and Kinship.--These terms should be limited to
the relationship ... which can be demonstrated genealogically." This is
quite a formalistic definition and does not at all meet the full facts
of the case. Moreover it seems that in this way we define the unknown
by what is still more indeterminate. For to draw up a genealogy we must
first know who are the individuals between whom the line of descent is
to be drawn; in other words we must know how fatherhood is defined in
a given society. Among the Todas, Dr. Rivers had to ascertain in what
way the father of a given child is determined, before he could proceed
to draw up the genealogies.[574] In any case the problem of kinship
requires in the actual state of things not only a purely formal
definition, but a detailed analysis. Much more important as regards
the present problem is the way in which Dr. Rivers has described the
kinship of the Torres Straits Islanders.[575] In introducing the study
of the functions of kin he points to a series of important facts which
determine some social aspect of kinship and afford an insight into some
of the collective ideas concerning this relation. It must be borne
in mind, however, that the set of functions described by Dr. Rivers
gives us only a partial knowledge of the social aspect of kinship. The
every-day functions corresponding to treatment, behaviour, feeding and
so forth, which characterize the intimate or home aspect of the kinship
relation, ought not to be omitted. They correspond, according to our
analysis, to feelings which make an essential part of the relation
in question. The social functions of kin collected by Dr. Rivers,
expressing certain duties and privileges of the kinsmen involved,
correspond to certain customary norms. A complete collection of all
legal norms and all moral rules would be an essential addition. That
such moral rules do exist among the Torres Straits Islanders appears
certain from the precepts given at initiation to youths.[576]

     [574] Of course I insist here only upon the logical and
     methodological priority of the psychological determination
     of kinship over the genealogical. In reality, wherever
     individual paternal kinship exists, the genealogies may be
     drawn first, and they possess an independent value, even
     if we did not know what is the content of the aboriginal
     idea of kinship. There is a series of highly valuable
     sociological conclusions that may be drawn from a system of
     genealogies (compare Dr. Rivers' article on this subject in
     _Sociological Review_, 1910, pp. 1 _sqq._).

     I do not, therefore, agree with the following remark of
     Sir Laurence Gomme (_op. cit._, p. 232): "It is of no use
     preparing a genealogical tree on the basis of civilized
     knowledge of genealogy if such a document is beyond the
     ken of the people to whom it relates. The information for
     it may be correctly collected, but if the whole structure
     is not within the compass of savage thought it is a
     misleading anthropological document." If it is possible
     at all to collect a genealogy, that means that individual
     kinship exists in such a community; in other words the
     "structure is within the compass of savage thought," only
     it is not apprehended by them in the same manner as by us.
     It is certainly true that in many cases the knowledge of
     this aboriginal apprehension is essentially needful for a
     sociologist. This has been argued in the text.

     [575] _Camb. Univ. Exp._, v. chap. iii. on Kinship, pp. 129
     _sqq._ In particular, pp. 142-152, under the headings "The
     Functions of certain Kin," and "Kinship Taboos."

     [576] Recorded by Dr. Haddon, _loc. cit._, v. p. 210.

Messrs. Fison and Howitt in their treatise on Australian kinship[577]
do not give anywhere a clear definition of the concept in question. The
only place where something like definition is given is page 121, where
kinship is said to be "membership in the same tribal division," and
where there is an acknowledgment that beyond "kinship" there still lies
"personal relationship" between the parent and child. This is true, but
this is only the first distinction upon which the actual discussion of
the problem ought to be based. That the want of such a discussion is a
serious defect in the book is obvious.

     [577] _Kam. and Kurn._

The important distinction between kinship (_parenté_) and
consanguinity, which is one of the chief results of the foregoing
pages, has been made already by Prof. Durkheim.[578] Nevertheless
the exclusive stress that M. Durkheim lays upon the legal aspect of
kinship would not seem adapted to the complexity of the facts. "La
parenté est essentiellement constitué par des obligations juridiques
et morales que la société impose à certains individus." This is not
enough. There are certain ideas which affirm a strong bond between
parent and child, and undoubtedly these ideas, although neither of
legal nor moral character, exercise a strong influence on the relation
in question. Possibly the difference could be reduced to the broader
sense in which Prof. Durkheim uses the words _legal_ and _moral_; as
his remarks are necessarily short, being contained in a review, it
is difficult exactly to ascertain their sense. We have tried to show
that, especially in reference to low societies, both these terms must
be used with caution, and that a definite sense must be given to them.
Besides, I do not share Prof. Durkheim's view that by substituting the
word "kinship" for the word "consanguinity" all Morgan's deductions
could be rectified.[579] The constitution of the family is something
quite different from and much more complicated than the sexual aspect
of marriage, and it cannot be at once seen whether the nomenclature of
kinship (systems of kinship terms) could be shown to be rooted in the
former with the same ease as it can be shown in the latter case. This
would require a special study.

     [578] _A.S._, i. p. 316.

     [579] _Ibid._, p. 318.

M. A. van Gennep also clearly establishes the distinction between
_parenté sociale_ and _parenté physique_.[580] According to our
terminology the latter would correspond to physiological consanguinity,
while the former would be identical with what we called parental
kinship. We see that this distinction is quite in agreement with our
theory. Only we called social consanguinity a special case of kinship,
where the collective ideas on procreation play the essential rôle.
Obviously these ideas may be more or less physiologically correct or
erroneous. But where they are completely absent (as in Australia)
we prefer not to use the suggestive term _consanguinity_, and to
distinguish these cases from the former we use the term _kinship_.
M. A. van Gennep remarks further that the Central Australians do not
know the real cause of procreation in spite of some illusory appearances
(we shall deal with this question in detail below and solve it quite in
agreement with the author in question); he shows the wide extension of
this negative belief in the Australian continent, and speaking of the
South Australian tribes, points out that the most important aspect is
that they prove the independence of kinship and consanguinity.[581]

     [580] _Loc. cit._, p. lxiii. (of the Introduction).

     [581] "L'indépendance réciproque du point de vue biologique
     et du point de vue social chez les Australiens." (_Ibid._,
     p. lxv.)

The same distinction between consanguinity and kinship is also made by
Prof. Westermarck in his discussion of the classificatory system of
relationship, and Prof. Westermarck has already brought the important
objection against Morgan, viz. that the latter has "given no evidence
for the truth of his assumption that the classificatory system" is a
system of blood ties,[582] an objection which has appeared also to us
as fundamental. Unfortunately, Prof. Westermarck has not given any
exhaustive discussion of the concept of kinship.

     [582] _H.H.M._, p. 89.

Finally, I wish to mention a passage by Sir Laurence Gomme, which
contains suggestive remarks nearly identical with some views set
forth in this chapter. "It is of no use translating a native term as
'father,' if father did not mean to the savage what it means to us. It
might mean something so very different. With us fatherhood connotes a
definite individual with all sorts of social, economical and political
associations, but what does it mean to the savage? It may mean physical
fatherhood and nothing more, and physical fatherhood may be a fact of
the veriest insignificance. It may mean social fatherhood ... and thus
becomes" (in some cases), "much more than we can understand by the term
father."[583]

     [583] _Loc. cit._, pp. 232, 233; compare also above
     p. 182, footnote. Apart from the naturally somewhat loose
     terminology (the passage about kinship is intended as an
     example only, and does not aim at a full treatment of the
     subject)--the passages quoted express the same ideas which
     served as a starting-point for this chapter.

     I came across the paragraph in question unfortunately only
     after the MS. of the present chapter had been finished
     and the foregoing chapters had been printed. The opinion
     of Sir Laurence Gomme would also have been of value in
     support of the views expressed in the Introduction, pp. 6,
     7, where I try to show that it is meaningless to use the
     word "family" as a rigidly determined concept of universal
     application. "The family as seen in savage society, and
     the family as it appears among the antiquities of the
     Indo-European people, are totally distinct in origin, in
     compass and in force" (Sir Laurence Gomme, _loc. cit._,
     pp. 236, 237). And the author applies his criticism to the
     same two writers who have been the objects of my attacks
     (Mr. A. Lang and Mr. N. W. Thomas, see _op. cit._, p. 236,
     footnote 1). And, again, Sir Laurence Gomme argues that
     the unqualified use of the term "family" is very harmful,
     "because of the universal application of this term to the
     smallest social unit of the civilized world, and because of
     the fundamental difference of structure of the units which
     roughly answer to the definition of family in various parts
     of the world" (_op. cit._, p. 235). Certainly there is also
     a _fundamental analogy_ of structure between all forms of
     human family; but the problem must be set forth and it
     must be acknowledged that this social unit undergoes deep
     changes as other elements of social structure change.

It may also be pointed out for the sake of completeness that in the
great majority of human societies parental kinship assumes the form of
consanguinity; the ideas that underlie kinship are generally gathered
round the facts of procreation. These facts are connected with such
deep and powerful instincts and feelings that in the majority of
cases they naturally shape and influence the ideas of maternity and
paternity. But the few exceptions to this rule which we meet with in
very primitive societies are of the highest theoretical interest,
both from the evolutionist's and psychologist's point of view. The
final remark I would like to make here is on the well-known fact
that physiological maternity is much more easily ascertainable than
physiological paternity. Paternal kinship, therefore, will much more
frequently differ from what we called consanguinity than maternal
kinship. But some of the Australian examples and our previous general
considerations should make us cautious in laying down _a priori_ any
assertion of the purely physiological character of maternity.


II

SOME EXAMPLES OF KINSHIP IDEAS SUGGESTED BY THE AUSTRALIAN FOLK-LORE

The foregoing remarks on kinship, and the sketch of a general
definition of kinship given above, of course bear upon the whole of
the present investigations, since parental kinship being one of the
relationships involved in the individual family, all that refers to
this latter unit relates more or less immediately to parental kinship.
In the other chapters we attempt to discuss the existence of the
individual family, and of those of its features which appear to be
universal, and which have, therefore, been adopted as the basis of
parental kinship. The general features of the Australian individual
family are given in the concluding chapter, and a comparison of the
results presented there with the foregoing general definition of
kinship[584] will be sufficient to satisfy the first point of this
definition, _i. e._ to prove the existence of individual parental
kinship in Australia and to describe its constant elements. In the
following chapter (Chap. VII.) attention will be paid to the functions
of kin, which correspond to the collective feelings of parents to
children. Here we shall discuss the data taken from Australian
folk-lore, which bear upon the parental kinship, and shall thus satisfy
that part of our definition in which it was laid down that the ideas of
kinship must be investigated.

     [584] pp. 198 _sqq._

The survey may commence with the Central tribes, the folk-lore of
which we know best, owing to the excellent information given by Messrs.
Spencer and Gillen, subsequently confirmed in its main lines by the
joint publication of Herr Strehlow and Frhr. von Leonhardi. In these
works we possess a very detailed description of the aboriginal views on
conception and birth, which are connected with their totemic beliefs.
These views will not be reproduced here _in extenso_, and the reader
is referred to the sources and the special works.[585] The reader is
therefore, supposed to be acquainted with the aboriginal views on
conception, and only the ideas which in these theories refer directly
to our subject, _i. e._ those underlying parental kinship, will be
dealt with here.

     [585] Here in the first place must be mentioned the works
     of Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 123-127, 255; _Nor.
     Tr._, pp. 144, 163 _sqq._, 169 _sqq._, 174-176, 150, 330,
     331; Mrs. Parker, pp. 50 _sqq._, 61, 98.

     Strehlow, _loc. cit._, i., on the second and third pages
     of the Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi (there is no
     pagination), ii. pp. 51 _sqq._, iii. pp. x.-xi. of the
     Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi. A short notice on totemic
     conception and on local distribution of spirit-children
     is communicated by Rev. L. Schultze, _Trans. and Proc.
     R.S.S.A._, xiv. p. 237 (1891). R. H. Mathews communicated
     in several places beliefs in reincarnation and totemic
     conception. See _Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W._, xl. pp. 108
     _sqq._, _ibid._, xli. p. 147. And _Queensland Geographical
     Journal_, xx. p. 73, and xxii. pp. 75, 76. _Am. Anthr._,
     xxviii. p. 144. _Bull. Soc. of Anthr._, Paris, vii. serie
     v. p. 171. Herbert Basedow, _Trans. R.S.S.A._, xxxi.
     (1907), p. 4. (Short communication concerning the Larrekiya
     tribe of the Northern territory, South Australia.) Amongst
     the sources must be quoted the communications given by
     Prof. Frazer on the authority of Dr. Frodsham, Bishop
     of North Queensland, and the Rev. C. W. Morrison, which
     refer to the Northern and North-Eastern tribes in general.
     Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i., p. 577.

     In fact, the theory of totemic conception is so closely
     connected with the whole of the aboriginal totemic beliefs
     that it is necessary to be acquainted with the latter in
     order to understand the former; and for this the perusal
     of both the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and of
     Strehlow is necessary.

     Among the theoretical works dealing with primitive views
     of conception and paternity (in Australia and in general),
     we must place first the treatise of Mr. E. S. Hartland,
     _Primitive Paternity_, which is the most extensive
     and thorough examination of all beliefs, referring
     to a supernatural cause of birth and all its social
     consequences. The beliefs in question play an important
     rôle in Prof. Frazer's work on _Totemism and Exogamy_. See
     especially vol. iv., on origins of Totemism.

     We may mention also the works of van Gennep, _Mythes et
     Légendes d'Australie_, especially chaps. v. and vi. of
     the Introduction, pp. 44-67, in which the ignorance of
     the natives is illustrated by several interesting remarks
     and inferences from other facts (for example, the beliefs
     of the aborigines about the rôle and nature of the sexual
     organs, pp. 111 _sqq._). Compare also the article of
     Frhr. v. Reitzenstein, _Z.f.E._, xli., pp. 644 _sqq._ Mr.
     A. Lang's views (comp. above, p. 181, footnote 1) are
     expounded in _Anthrop. Essays_, pp. 203 _sqq._, and in _The
     Secret of the Totem_, chap. xi.

Roughly speaking it may be said that these totemic beliefs and theories
of conception prevent the aboriginal mind from forming the idea of
physiological paternity and even probably weaken the social importance
of maternity. For the only cause of pregnancy is that a "spirit-child"
entered the body of a woman. "The natives one and all in these tribes
believe that the child is the direct result of the entrance into
the mother of an ancestral spirit individual. They have no idea of
procreation as being directly associated with sexual intercourse, and
firmly believe that children can be born without this taking place.
There are, for example, in the Arunta country certain stones which are
supposed to be charged with spirit children, who can, by magic, be made
to enter the bodies of women, or will do so on their own accord."[586]
Accordingly no tie of blood can be supposed to exist between the
father and his child; there is no room for any ideas of physiological
paternity; in other words, using our terminology, social consanguinity
between father and child does not exist.[587] This is the most general
conclusion that can be drawn from the beliefs quoted. But in connection
with this question there are still some details, some controversial
points into which we must enter in order to dissipate any doubts as to
the correctness of our general conclusions just mentioned, as well as
of some subsequent reasonings.

     [586] This refers to the whole Central and North Central
     area. Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 330. In a short
     note of recent date (_Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562), we
     read that Prof. B. Spencer has found the same absence of
     physiological knowledge in the tribes living North-West of
     the "Northern Tribes" (from Roper River to Port Darwin).
     According to his opinion this belief obtains from the South
     Coast of Australia over a broad belt right through the
     Centre to the North Coast. (_Ibid._)

     [587] It may be remembered here that this is not in
     contradiction with the passage in M. A. von Gennep's work,
     _Mythes and Légendes d'Australie_, p. lxiii, implying
     that there is social but not physiological consanguinity
     between father and child in the Central Australian tribes.
     The difference in terminology is explained above, p. 178,
     footnote 1, and reasons are given explaining why I did not
     adopt M. A. von Gennep's terminology, although I completely
     share his views.

(1) There seems to be some incertitude as to the complete absence among
the natives of any knowledge regarding the physiology of procreation.
We read in Strehlow,[588] "Übrigens wissen die alten Männer, wie mir
versichert wurde, dass die cohabitatio als Grund der Kinderkonzeption
anzusehen sei, sagen aber davon den jüngeren Männern und Frauen
nichts." This phrase might evoke some doubts as to whether we should
attribute so much importance to the alleged ignorance.[589] But
according to subsequent information in the same publication,[590] we
must not attach to this phrase too much weight. Possibly the knowledge
of the old men comes from alien sources; at any rate we see from the
explanation given below by Frhr. von Leonhardi that this phrase does
not rest on any concrete facts, or any well-founded information. From
the point of view of collective ideas it must always be remembered that
it is in the social institutions of a given people and in the whole of
their beliefs that we must look for the foundation and confirmation of
a given creed. It would be a superfluous digression to point out how
deeply the totemic theory of conception is connected with all the other
beliefs and the whole social life of the Australian aborigines--as this
has been done by so many students of the subject, and pre-eminently
by Prof. Frazer in his recent work on _Totemism and Exogamy_. Some
doubts might also arise from the fact that the natives apparently know
the real process of propagation in the case of the animals. There
is undoubtedly some difficulty here; and additional information on
this point would be most valuable. Nevertheless the case is not quite
hopeless: if we assume that this correct physiological knowledge is of
a relatively late origin, it is quite natural that it would arise first
in relation to the animal world, because the ideas about man, being the
most important and elaborate, would be the most conservative. Anyhow
this point requires further elucidation.[591]

     [588] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 52, footnote 7.

     [589] Attention was drawn to this phrase by P. W. Schmidt
     in his article in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_ (1908),
     p. 866 _sqq._, where the theory of conception among the Arunta
     is discussed. He doubts: "Ob wirklich eine vollständige
     Unkenntniss des Zusammenhanges von Koitus und Konzeption in
     primitivem Zustande vorhanden ist."--_Loc. cit._, p. 883.

     [590] Strehlow, iii. pp. x., xi.

     [591] Frhr. von Reitzenstein shares the view here accepted;
     comp. his review of Mr. Hartland's "Primitive Paternity" in
     _Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie_, 43 Jhg. (1911), p. 175.

(2) We must insist upon another point, which might at first sight cast
some shadow of suspicion even on the foregoing one. We read in Spencer
and Gillen[592] that sexual intercourse "prepares the mother for the
reception and birth also of an already formed spirit-child who inhabits
one of the local totem centres." And this belief of "preparation,"
although at first denied by Strehlow,[593] was substantiated by him
after a more careful investigation and emphatically affirmed.[594]
Although there might seem to be at first sight some room for doubt,
whether this belief does not create some connection between copulation
and pregnancy, and so a bridge for the formation of ideas of paternity,
a moment's reflection dissipates these doubts. For in this belief
there is absolutely nothing that would point to any _individual_ male
as the father of the child. We do not know whether, according to the
native beliefs, there must be this preparation for each incarnation,
or whether it means only that a female cannot conceive without being
deflorated. Considering the emphasis with which, according to Spencer
and Gillen, the natives deny any causal connection between copulation
and birth, the second supposition seems to be the more probable. But
even if the first supposition were the right one, it does not imply any
knowledge that a given man has contributed to the body or soul of the
child. The latter, already formed (although diminutive in form) enters
the womb of a woman. We see therefore that our general conclusion of
page 209 is by no means contradicted by this detail in the aboriginal
beliefs.

     [592] _Nat. Tr._, p. 265.

     [593] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 52, footnote 7.

     [594] _Loc. cit._, iii. p. xi.

(3) In the third place I would like to deal with the question whether
the totemic beliefs concerning conception contain the idea of any
reincarnation of ancestors, as this point will be subsequently of
importance to us. And on this important question there is controversy
too. Spencer and Gillen emphatically state: "In the whole of this
wide area, the belief that every living member of the tribe is the
reincarnation of a spirit ancestor is universal. This belief is just
as firmly held by the Urabunna people, who count descent in the female
line, as in the Arunta and Warramunga, who count descent in the male
line."[595]

     [595] _Nor. Tr._, p. xi. Compare also pp. 145, 606. Spencer
     and Gillen's statement is corroborated by various other
     independent authors, some of them being even critically
     disposed. The reincarnation of ancestors is asserted by the
     missionaries Teichelmann and Schürmann, in reference to the
     Adelaide tribe (compare below, p. 217, note 4). Mr. Thomas
     has shown (_Man_, 1904, § 68, pp. 99, 100) that the belief
     in reincarnation is implied in the Rev. L. Schultze's
     statement. Mrs. Parker quotes also beliefs containing the
     idea of reincarnation (_loc. cit._, pp. 50, 56, 73, 89;
     quoted by Mr. E. S. Hartland, _loc. cit._, i. p. 243). Mr.
     R. H. Mathews also emphatically affirms the existence of a
     belief in reincarnation amongst the Central and even all
     the other Australian tribes (_Trans. R.S.N.S.W._, 1906,
     xi. pp. 110 _sqq._). He says: "In all aboriginal tribes
     there is a deeply-seated belief in the reincarnation of
     their ancestors." And he gives illustrations of this belief
     among the Arunta. Mr. Mathews also draws attention to a
     series of analogous statements from older authors (Taplin,
     _loc. cit._, p. 88, Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 235). Prof.
     B. Spencer has ascertained the existence of ideas about
     reincarnation in his recent investigations among the
     natives of the extreme North Roper River to Port Darwin.
     _Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562.

On the other hand, the belief in reincarnation is expressly and
explicitly denied by Strehlow and Leonhardi: "Den Glauben an eine immer
wiederkehrende Reincarnation dieses altjirangamitjina (= alcheringa
of Spencer and Gillen), den Spencer and Gillen gefunden haben wollen,
hat Herr Strehlow nicht feststellen können."[596] In another passage
of the same work the expression of Spencer and Gillen, "in every tribe
without exception there exists a firm belief in the reincarnation of
ancestors," is simply designated as misleading ("irreführend") by the
editor (Frhr. v. Leonhardi).[597]

     [596] Bn. Leonhardi in Strehlow, i. Introduction (third
     page; there is no pagination).

     [597] Strehlow, ii. p. 57, end of the long footnote.

We seem here to be again at a loss. For behind the mere assertions
of both parties there is a considerable amount of fact which seems
to corroborate each of them. Spencer and Gillen do not give us bare
statements. Such concrete and detailed accounts of beliefs as those
quoted below[598] are very cogent. We see by them that Spencer and
Gillen's assertion concerning the existence of reincarnation is the
general expression of a series of positive facts; as there cannot be
any doubt as to the authenticity of the latter, the general assertion
of our authors is convincing! But if we inquire more precisely into
the nature of this reincarnation we find certain "contradictions" and
"inconsistencies" in these beliefs, and we can quite safely agree with
Frhr. von Leonhardi that if we "take the expression exactly to the
letter"[599] we are compelled to deny the existence of any ideas of
reincarnation. The only objection is that any attempt to give "strict"
or "exact" sense to aboriginal ideas is completely misplaced. The
aborigines are not able to think exactly, and their beliefs do not
possess any "exact meaning." And if an attempt be made to interpret
them in this way, we shall always fail to understand them and to trace
their social bearing. We must accept those beliefs as they stand in
their quaint concreteness, full of contradictions and inconsistencies,
and endeavour to mould our ideas upon the given folkloristic material,
of which an adequate knowledge is indispensable for sociological
purposes and gives us a very deep insight into the mechanism of
different social groups. So, for instance, the aboriginal beliefs of
reincarnation will be found to be of some importance as regards the
idea of kinship.

     [598] Compare p. 216.

     [599] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 56.

But let us return to our analysis of this aboriginal idea of
reincarnation. To define the word _exactly_ the expression of Baron
Leonhardi may be accepted; reincarnation means "that the given
totemic ancestor himself continually undergoes rebirth." In other
words the belief in reincarnation logically defined consists in a
strict identification of a given man with a given ancestor. From this
it is obvious that one would look in vain for such a belief amongst
the Australian savages, who do not know anything of logic, and can
neither affirm identity nor perceive contradictions.[600] Instead of
identifying two things, they feel only a strong but mystical bond of
union between them. In this sense the new-born child is obviously a
reincarnation of a given ancestor. For it is "identical" with the
spirit-child or _ratapa_ of which it is the incarnation, and this
again is "identical" with a given Alcheringa: obviously using the
word "identity" in the sense indicated above, _i. e._ that there is
some mystical tie between the Alcheringa and the spirit-child which
has emanated from him or her.[601] That this tie exists, we know from
the data,[602] from those given by Strehlow as well as from those
of Spencer and Gillen.[603] And consequently it may be said that the
Central Australians regard each man as the reincarnation of a given
ancestor; this being, of course, understood with the restriction here
laid down. Thus, any doubt as to this point--namely that all human
beings are reincarnations of _Alcheringa ancestors_--may easily be set
at rest.

     [600] M. Lévy-Bruhl writes: "En appelant la mentalité
     primitive 'prélogique,' je veux seulement dire qu'elle ne
     s'astreint pas avant tout comme notre pensée, à s'abstenir
     de la contradiction. Elle obéit d'abord a la loi de
     participation."--_Loc. cit._, p. 79.

     [601] In primitive thinking the identification is
     accomplished not according to logical categories, but
     according to the _loi de participation_ introduced by
     M. Lévy-Bruhl. (Compare foregoing footnote.) To this work
     the reader must be referred for a deeper insight into the
     standpoint adopted in the present discussion.

     [602] This assertion ought to be proved by a detailed
     analysis of the beliefs mentioned. As the problem is of no
     immediate importance, this discussion cannot be undertaken.
     The aboriginal ideas of reincarnation have been treated
     from the point of view of the _loi de participation_ by
     M. Lévy-Bruhl.--_Loc. cit._, pp. 396 _sqq._

     [603] Spencer and Gillen themselves in many places make
     statements that stand in direct contradiction with a
     theory of reincarnation _literally_ understood. Frhr. von
     Leonhardi takes the trouble to adduce several instances of
     these contradictions (ii. p. 56, footnote 1). They might
     easily be multiplied, but as argued in the text they do
     not affect in the least the value of the information. The
     description of these beliefs given by Strehlow (_loc.
     cit._, ii. pp. 51 _sqq._), does not differ radically from
     what we know about them from Spencer and Gillen, although
     Strehlow's account is more detailed.

There still remains, however, the question, much more important to us,
whether there be amongst these tribes the belief in the reincarnation
of _human ancestors_. Strehlow's information seems absolutely to deny
any idea of repeated reincarnation;[604] a man after death goes to
the _ltjarilkna-ala_, where after a certain time his ghost undergoes
perfect and final destruction.[605] A man who has lived his life never
returns. I confess that to assume amongst savages the existence of
such a neatly defined and categorically-formulated belief in absolute
destruction or annihilation seems to me rather suspicious; and there
is perhaps some misunderstanding of a rather theoretical character
on the part of the Rev. C. Strehlow. Moreover, we are informed by
this latter author that besides this belief in annihilation there
are ideas according to which the souls of "good" men go to heaven to
Altjira,[606] and the souls of the "bad" people are eaten up by the
_atna ntjkantja_.[607] Consequently not all souls perish after death,
and reincarnation is from this standpoint not impossible. And even
if there were some belief as to this annihilation, it might perfectly
well be connected by the natives with the ideas of reincarnation.
The primitive mind, as has often been urged, does not perceive
contradictions. It is not to negative instances that we must look for
an answer, but always to positive ones: if we do find indications
of a belief, we are then sure that it exists, even if it were in
contradiction with ever so many others. If we do not find it, we can
say nothing, and especially we are not justified in proving its absence
by showing that it stands in contradiction with any of the beliefs
ascertained.

     [604] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 56.

     [605] _Loc. cit._, i. 16, ii. 7.

     [606] The Altjira is the "good god (?) of the Aranda," i.
     p. 2.

     [607] I cannot help feeling that this very belief in future
     rewards (by the _good god_) and punishment appears somewhat
     tinged by Christian teachings.

Now Spencer and Gillen adduce in several places concrete instances of
beliefs which prove beyond doubt that the idea of the reincarnation
of human beings actually exists in the Central tribes. As this point
is of some importance in our present study, these instances must be
brought forward. One of them is the belief that infants, who either
die or are killed, soon undergo reincarnation. Such a belief exists
among the Arunta,[608] among the Kaitish and Unmatjera.[609] And
again, in another place, such a belief is reported to exist in all the
tribes examined by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.[610] That this belief
is deeply rooted is shown by the fact that it serves as an excuse
for the practice of infanticide; for the natives believe that the
same child will soon undergo rebirth from the same mother. It might,
nevertheless, be objected that here rebirth is undergone only by
persons who died in infancy; and that this has little connection with
the reincarnation of ancestors dead long ago. But, first, this belief
is the proof of the existence of reincarnation ideas in general, and
moreover there are better instances still. There has been found amongst
the Urabunna the belief that a person at each reincarnation changes
sex, class and totem.[611] The same belief in the alternation of sexes
at each successive reincarnation is held amongst the Warramunga.[612]
The knowledge of these concrete and detailed beliefs enables us to
affirm without hesitation that the general idea of the reincarnation
of human beings exists among the Central Australian tribes.[613] A
mere assertion on the part of our informants might leave some doubts;
but if they adduce these beliefs in detail, the doubts can be only
as to their trustworthiness; and this is out of the question in the
present case. There are yet other facts confirming the assumption we
are dealing with. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen give a detailed account
of the wanderings and doings of the ghost after death.[614] They say
expressly that the ghost after a time goes to a certain place, where it
awaits reincarnation. A similar belief in a land where the souls of the
dead await reincarnation has been found in the Adelaide tribes.[615]
So that, dividing the problem of reincarnation into two questions--Is
there among the Central Australians (1) a belief in a reincarnation of
the Alcheringa ancestors? (2) a belief in the reincarnation of human
ancestors?--both must be answered in the affirmative.

     [608] _Nat. Tr._, p. 51.

     [609] _Nor. Tr._, p. 506.

     [610] _Ibid._, p. 609.

     [611] _Ibid._, p. 148.

     [612] _Nor. Tr._, p. 358, footnote, and p. 530.

     [613] And probably among the Australian tribes in general.

     [614] _Nat. Tr._, p. 515.

     [615] Compare Mr. Thomas' article in _Man_ (1904), p. 99,
     § 68, where he quotes Teichelman and Schürmann. The
     widespread belief that white men are dead people
     returned to life is a proof of the existence of beliefs
     in reincarnation.

To sum up our somewhat extensive discussion of the totemic beliefs
of conception, we may say that the collective ideas of the Central
and North Central Australian[616] aborigines ignore expressly and
explicitly any connection of blood between a father and his child,
and probably greatly reduce the importance of the maternal blood tie;
that even allowing for the greatest amount of physiological knowledge
amongst these aborigines, there cannot be any question of paternal
consanguinity. We have seen further that in all these Central and North
Central tribes (and possibly in many others too) there is an idea
of reincarnation, not only of the Alcheringa, but also of the human
ancestors; the word reincarnation being used in the sense indicated
above, page 214.

     [616] Including the tribes recently investigated by Prof.
     B. Spencer.

So far the results regarding parental, and especially paternal,
kinship are purely negative; there is between father and child no
_consanguinity_.[617] But is there no kinship? According to the
theory of kinship sketched above, individual parental kinship must
be accepted as existing in the Central no less than in all the other
Australian tribes, for the reasons already specified. And, as was said
above, and will be discussed again, it is even possible on the basis
of the evidence extant to give an account of the emotional character
of this relation. The greatest difficulty is to know what idea the
aborigines themselves form concerning it; in other words, how is
fatherhood determined in the collective psychology of the natives? Some
indications at least of what we look for may be found.

     [617] Compare above, pp. 176 _sqq._, for discussion of this
     term.

If we examine the different items of the folk-lore, traditions, beliefs
and customs of the Arunta, we can at first sight hardly discover any
ideas that bear upon our subject. Fortunately, in the case of some of
the Northern tribes, we are in possession of information which appears
highly suggestive in regard to our problem. The Gnanji and Umbaia
tribes of the Northern territory share the belief in totemic conception
with all the more Southern tribes. But amongst them the child is always
of the same totem as its father, wherever conception may have taken
place. These tribes have a theory to reconcile these two beliefs that
apparently are incompatible, viz. descent of totem in paternal line and
birth by incarnation of a spirit-child.[618] They believe that spirits
of the husband's totem follow the wife wherever the married couple may
go, and that one of these spirit individuals enters the woman's body
whenever it pleases; no spirit-child of any other totem could enter
her. The infant is therefore always of the husband's totem, and it
is the _reincarnation of this individual spirit_ which has chosen to
follow the man and his wife on their wanderings. In this belief there
are, undoubtedly, contained ideas of a strong tie of sympathy, affinity
or kinship between the father and his future child. In the first place
the spirit-child, which undergoes reincarnation, belongs to the totem
of the husband; but that does not as yet create any individual relation
between the father and the child, although it constitutes a bond of
totemic kinship between them.

     [618] _See_ Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 169 _sqq._

Nevertheless it must be remembered that the individual spirit-child,
which sometimes has even to follow the married couple on their
wanderings, chooses its mother on account of her husband and not in
all probability on her own; for it is not of her totem, and it is
improbable that the natives assume ties of preference between two
beings of different clans, if there are at hand two members of the
same clan--the father and the reincarnated child. Now this act of
choosing, this special preference of a certain woman on account of her
husband, clearly points to a very close tie between father and child.
Unfortunately, the writers who report the beliefs in question have
not investigated the side we have discussed, and as all hypothetical
inferences are dangerous in sociology, we must consider this belief
to be highly suggestive but nothing more. Nevertheless, setting one
against another the two facts--the social existence of a close tie
between father and child on the one hand (as we can affirm it on the
ground of the emotional character of this relationship), and the
existence of a belief that the reincarnated spirit-child is of the
father's totem, and is, so to say, attached to him in his roaming
life--it is difficult not to suspect some inner connection between
them. Now, if our supposition is right, and if this belief has its
social influence in defining fatherhood, it may be said that in the
Gnanji and Umbaia tribes the essence of fatherhood is seen in the
fact that a given man has determined a given spirit-child to take up
its abode in his wife's body, and that the close tie of kinship lies
in this mutual affinity or attraction exercised by the man on the
spirit-child. This is hypothetical, but we may note another statement
of Spencer and Gillen's which appears to bear upon our subject and
corroborates our first hypothetical assumption.

We read that in the three coastal tribes of the Northern
territory--Binbinga, Anula and Mara--the natives are very clear upon
the point that the spirit-children know which are the right _lubra_
for them respectively to enter, and each one deliberately chooses
his or her own mother.[619] Now descent in these tribes is strictly
paternal both as regards totems and classes.[620] This means that the
father determines the class and totem of his child. We must assume,
therefore, that the spirit-child chooses its mother chiefly in regard
to her husband, _i. e._ its future father. It may, therefore, be
once more repeated here that such an act of preference involves the
idea of a very close tie between the spirit-child and the father;
whether this idea is a real kinship idea, that is, whether it has its
positive influence upon the different functions of the relationship
in question, is not mentioned by our informants, and it would be
quite vain to speculate upon the subject. But again, putting the two
items--_i. e._ the belief in question and the existence of a close tie
of kinship--side by side, it is difficult to deny that a connection
between them appears very probable.

     [619] _Nor. Tr._, p. 174. The same is related in the recent
     note of Prof. B. Spencer (_Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562).
     We read there: "The spirit-children know into what woman
     they must enter."

     [620] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 119, 172. Compare N. W. Thomas, _loc.
     cit._ Map No. 1, facing p. 40.

A similar social part appears also to be played by the most
general belief connected with the question of birth--the belief in
reincarnation. The question whether these beliefs may be assumed in the
Arunta has been discussed at length, and an affirmative conclusion has
been arrived at. Moreover, it has been seen that this belief appears
to be almost universal in Australia, and that it is reported by many
writers. There seems to be some reason for assuming that this belief
may possibly have some bearing on the aboriginal ideas of kinship.
As the child is an incarnation not only of a spirit individual, and
consequently of an Alcheringa ancestor, but also in the majority of
cases of a series of human ancestors, it comes into this world with an
already formed personality, and it stands in a definite relation to
an Alcheringa ancestor; to a Nanja place and to a given Churinga; it
has its place in a totemic group and in a class. We may, therefore,
reasonably assume that among other attributes the child brings its
individual kinship, derived from some vague ideas about a former life,
with it into the world. In other words, the child is probably supposed
already at its birth to stand in a definite kinship relation (dating
from a mutual previous existence) towards its individual parents.
In fact, if the child comes into the world as a member of other
social groups, it may be taken as very probable that it comes as the
individual kinsman of its father and mother. Father, mother and child
have already lived in the past; they may already have stood in a very
close relationship; perhaps they have even been members of the same
individual family.

This supposition may appear at first sight highly hypothetical;
plausible perhaps, but nothing more; yet there are other facts which in
considerable measure support it. There is the belief that the spirit
part of a child which is killed, or dies in infancy, comes to life
again by and by, and undergoes incarnation in the same woman.[621]
In this belief we see that the ties of individual kinship, once
established, do not give way after death, and that they determine the
rebirth of the child. This belief may be a special case of a more
general one, viz. that rebirth in all cases is determined by ties of
individual kinship established in a former life. There is yet another
series of beliefs leading more directly to the same conclusion. I
mean the well-known fact that white men were considered to be returned
dead relatives, and treated accordingly. We know that there were
several cases in which the life of a man was saved by this belief.
The best known is the case of Buckley, a run-away convict, who lived
about thirty years among the natives. He was treated with the greatest
kindness and tenderness by his "relatives."[622] The same tokens of
affection are related to have been shown to a settler in the vicinity
of Perth by his "parents," who merely to see him would travel more than
sixty leagues through a country which was in parts dangerous.[623] In
another place we are informed that a white convict identified with a
dead relative was presented with a piece of land which "belonged to him
by right." Similar statements are numerous.[624] In order to establish
the relevancy of these facts to our problem, it may be remarked that
the most important features of the beliefs in question are (1) that
white men are identified with a given dead individual, (2) that they
get then _ipso facto_ a definite place in the tribe, in the local
group, and--what is most important as regards the present question--in
the individual family. The belief that people after death become white
may account for the identification of white men with the dead. But
the fact that in ever so many cases a white man was identified with a
certain individual, and became thereby entitled to a social position,
implies some additional beliefs. One of these beliefs is the idea of
rebirth or reincarnation that we have established above in another
way. The other collective idea, which must be assumed in order to
explain the ease and readiness with which feelings of affection as
well as worldly goods were bestowed upon these alleged relatives,
is that in the ordinary form in which dead men return to this life,
_i. e._ in reincarnation by birth, each individual brings with him,
or her, full social position, including individual relationship. And
this is the point at issue in the present discussion. The fact that
white men were recognized as dead relatives compels us to assume
that children--who were considered as reborn men--were also accepted
as relatives. If the natives had not their mind turned that way, if
they were not used to identify every new member of their society with
some ancestor of their own, could they do it so easily in the case
of white men, who were so different from them, and could not present
any striking physical similarity? Of course this inference is not a
cogent one. But putting side by side all the facts we have gathered:
the belief in reincarnation of the dead; the easy recognition of dead
relatives in white men; and the promptitude with which, in some cases,
the latter were given their places in society, their hunting-grounds,
their parents, relatives, and so on--all this allows us to affirm with
a high degree of probability that a new-born child was looked upon as a
reincarnated member of the tribe, and that an intimate kinship between
him and his parents was considered to be established on the ground of
kinship in a previous life. Is not the parental affection which was
bestowed on some of the white men one of the most astonishing traits
in the evidence in question? Of course white men were considered to
be immediate reincarnations, or rather a return of the dead in ghost
condition; whereas rebirth was a much longer process, and was, perhaps,
considered as reincarnation of a long-dead ancestor. Consequently
the ties of kinship between a white man and his "relatives" were the
repetition of an actual relation which had already existed for the
native in his life. Whereas if a reborn child is considered, as we
here assume, to be a "previous" kinsman, this kinship is based upon
a relation obtaining in some former existence. But it may be urged
that if we deal with aboriginal collective psychology no very clear
ideas can be expected. The only thing that we assumed here was that
the ideas of rebirth, combined with some other specific Australian
beliefs, suggest very strongly that children might have been both
held, and felt to be, kindred, on the ground that they come with
some sort of ready-made personality; and on the ground that, as
E. S. Hartland argues, rebirth is the result of some spontaneous action
of the creature to be reborn. I think that if we ask for the source
of the widespread belief in white men being returned ghosts, and
especially for the readiness and ease with which they were accepted
into the family and into the tribe--we must presuppose some beliefs
and institutions to account for it, and the explanation proposed above
seems to me very plausible.[625] But the best example of the ideas of
kinship of the magic order is to be found among the tribes studied and
described by W. E. Roth.

     [621] Compare above, p. 216.

     [622] J. Morgan, _Life and Adventures of William Buckley_
     (Hobart, 1852). The value of this book and especially of
     the ethnographic information contained in it, has been
     disputed by Bonwick. See J. Bonwick, _William Buckley, the
     Wild White Man_ (Melbourne, 1856), p. 7. I have not used
     Morgan's book as a source. The life-story of Morgan told
     therein is admittedly authentic.

     [623] Stokes, quoted by M. Lévy-Bruhl, _loc. cit._, p. 400.

     [624] Another instance where a white woman was received by
     a man as his daughter and accepted into the tribe and into
     all her rights and relationships, is told by Macgillivray,
     _loc. cit._, i., p. 303. She was shipwrecked, came into
     the power of the natives, and, of course, lived in a very
     miserable condition. Her only comfort was derived from
     the man who imagined that she was his reborn daughter.
     Henderson says that among the blacks of New South Wales the
     belief in white men being dead relatives who had returned
     was quite general. Such white men were accepted into the
     tribe and cordially treated. _Loc. cit._, p. 161.

     For other statements about white men being reincarnated
     dead relatives see Wilhelmi, _Trans. R.S.V._, v. p. 189.
     Br. Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, ii. p. 224. (Article
     by Chauncy) _ibid._, p. 307 (article by Howitt).
     R. H. Mathews, _Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W._, xxxviii.
     (1905), p. 349. W. E. Roth, Bull. 5th, p. 16. R. H.
     Mathews, _Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W._, xl. pp. 113, 114.
     Earl, _loc. cit._, p. 241. Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 445,
     446. The latter says that the natives were "ready to do
     anything" for the white people, once they recognized in
     them their relatives.

     [625] Similar ideas have been enunciated by M. Lévy-Bruhl,
     _loc. cit._, pp. 388-402. Some of the Australian facts
     are quoted and interpreted there in an analogous way.
     M. Lévy-Bruhl naturally does not enter into as many
     particulars as has been necessary here, but his conclusion,
     "l'enfant-esprit qui se réincarne est déjà dans une
     relation determinée avec le père et la mère qui lui
     donnent naissance," is nearly identical with what we have
     endeavoured to prove here. Perhaps the word "relation" does
     not quite coincide with what we are especially concerned
     with in this place, _i. e._ individual kinship, and has a
     wider, more general meaning.

Before we proceed to the North Queensland tribes, there may be
mentioned some customs of the _couvade_ type, referring to the Central
tribes. These customs, as has been said above, express an intimate
connection of a mystic character between father and child. They also
involve a considerable amount of paternal affection and care for
the welfare of the offspring, as they expose the father to various
inconveniences, privations and hardships for the benefit of the child.
Thus we read that among the Central tribes the father has to observe
certain taboos and restrictions during the pregnancy of his wife,
otherwise she would have a difficult confinement.[626] This only
shows a connection between the behaviour of the man and the act of
birth. But we read in another place that the non-observance of certain
hunting taboos by the man during the pregnancy of his wife would have
baleful consequences for the offspring.[627] We are informed, also, of
a few functions of parental kin expressed in different customs which
accentuate the intimacy of this relation. Thus the mother plays some
part in the initiation ceremonies,[628] as well as in mourning and
funerals. Concerning the important social functions of the father, I
may quote what Mr. R. H. Mathews writes about the Central tribes: "The
privilege of working incantations, making rain, performing initiatory
ceremonies, and other important functions, descends from the men of the
tribe to the sons."[629] Moreover all the ceremonies in common with
totems "are likewise handed down through the men."[630] We see from
this that many important social functions descend from father to son.
Messrs. Spencer and Gillen report that the position of the Alatunja is
hereditary amongst the Arunta.[631] And similarly the position of the
headman is hereditary amongst the Northern tribes.[632] All these facts
serve on the one hand socially to define individual kinship, and on the
other to show that there exist certain ideas of a mystic bond between
father and child. How far these ideas, as expressed in the customs of
the _couvade_ type, harmonize with the ideas dealt with above, it is
quite impossible to know. It may be said that in both respects we have
hints showing the existence of ideas on kinship, but that we can by no
means go beyond mere supposition when we try to reconstruct these ideas
and to find some mutual connection. Let us now pass to the other tribes.

     [626] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 466, 467.

     [627] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 344, 607.

     [628] _Nat. Tr._, p. 250.

     [629] _Trans. R.S.N.S.W._ (1907), p. 75.

     [630] _Ibid._, p. 77.

     [631] _Nat. Tr._, p. 10.

     [632] _Nor. Tr._, p. 23.

The belief in a supernatural cause of pregnancy is spread not only
all over the Central and North Central area, _i. e._ among all the
tribes included in the researches of Spencer and Gillen.[633] The same
ignorance of physiological fatherhood is found in the whole of the
Northern territory, in Queensland, and probably in West Australia.
We read that among the tribes of the North-West territory of South
Australia (Port Darwin and Daly River) "conception is not regarded as
a direct result of cohabitation."[634] And we read in Dr. Frazer's new
work: "The view is shared by all the tribes of Central and Northern
Australia. In point of fact, I am informed by the Bishop of North
Queensland (Dr. Frodsham) that the opinion is held by all the tribes
with which he is acquainted both in North Queensland and in Central
Australia, including the Arunta; not only are the natives in their
savage states ignorant of the true cause of conception, but they
do not readily believe it even after their admission into mission
stations, and their incredulity has to be reckoned with in the efforts
of the clergy to introduce a higher standard of sexual morality among
them."[635] This is a very strong proof of the depth of these beliefs,
and of the absolute ignorance of the natives on this point.[636] In the
South-Eastern region this belief is to be found as far as the Northern
part of New South Wales. We have statements of Mrs. Parker[637] which,
although not very clear, seem at least to imply a great amount of
magical beliefs as to procreation, if not complete ignorance of the
physiological part borne by the father. With regard to the Western
tribes, Mrs. Bates writes in a letter to Mr. Lang[638]: "They did not
believe that procreation had anything to do with conception."

     [633] _Ibid._, p. 330.

     [634] H. Basedow, in _Trans. R.S.S.A._, xxxi. p. 4, of the
     reprint quoted by Prof. Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 576.
     This has been recently verified by Prof. B. Spencer; compare
     above, p. 209, footnote 1.

     [635] _Tot. and Exog._, i. pp. 576, 577.

     [636] That the ignorance in question was complete is also
     the opinion of Mr. E. S. Hartland, _loc. cit._, ii.
     pp. 275, 276. He adduces several reasons and statements in
     support of it. Compare also what we said above about the
     completeness of this ignorance among the Central tribes.

     [637] _Loc. cit._, pp. 50, 61, 98.

     [638] See _Man_ (1906), p. 180.

That in spite of this absence of any kind of consanguinity, especially
in the father's case, there exists in the Queensland tribes an
individual kinship relation between both parents and their children,
is clear from the statements collected on page 245, and from the
conclusion on page 249, to which the reader may be referred, as well
as to the theoretical conclusion on page 198. Looking at the rich
and interesting collection of folk-lore of these tribes given by
Mr. W. E. Roth, it will be possible to find the way in which fatherhood
is determined by the animistic ideas of the aborigines. As just said,
among the North-West Central Queensland tribes, the causal nexus
between conception and copulation is not known. We read in Roth that,
according to aboriginal ideas, there are several ways in which a child
may enter a woman's body: it may be inserted into her in a dream;
she may be told by a man that she will be pregnant and so on. But in
whatever mode the child has come, "the recognized husband accepts it
as his own without demur."[639] This phrase seems to point to the fact
that a man has certain ways of recognizing a child as his own, and
ideas under which he conceives this tie.

     [639] Roth, _Bull._ V. p. 22, § 81.

In fact we read that man possesses several "souls" or vital principles.
One of them, _ngai_, leaves the body soon after death; if the deceased
was a male his _ngai_ "passes into his children, both boys and girls
equally." The _ngai_ of a female goes to her sister or passes away.
Nobody has a _ngai_ before his father dies, but receives his father's
_ngai_ after the latter's death.[640] This is an important connection,
which by itself might very well serve to establish the most intimate
tie of kinship. The child is supposed to be its father's spirit's
heir. It shares in his most personal and individual element. Is this
spiritual communion not something quite as strong and deep as any
community of blood?

     [640] Roth, _Bull._ V. p. 18, § 68. This refers to the
     Pennefather River tribes.

In another tribe of this area there is a similar belief concerning the
_choi_ (another "soul"). The aborigines of Pennefather River believe
that babies are made out of swamp mud and then inserted into the wombs
of women by a being called Anjea. Now it is particularly important for
us to note that Anjea animates the baby with a piece of its father's
spirit if it is a boy, and with a piece of its father's sister's
spirit if it is a girl. For each new baby Anjea provides a new piece
of spirit. But he does not take these pieces from the spirit of the
living father or his sister. He has a special source from which to take
it; he takes it from the father's or father's sister's afterbirth.
When a child is born a portion of its spirit stays in its afterbirth.
Hence the grandmother takes the afterbirth and buries it in the sand,
and marks the place by thrusting sticks into the ground. So when Anjea
comes along and sees it, he knows where to look for the father's (or
father's sister's) spirit, which he wants in order to animate the new
baby. And in this way all babies are animated by a spiritual part of
their father or paternal aunts.[641]

     [641] _Ibid._

Both these examples illustrate perfectly well the general definition
of kinship ideas we have given above. Here the relation between father
and child is established in the native ideas by a purely spiritual
connection. But obviously this connection is a very important one. The
deep tie between a man and his child is here explicitly indicated and
not inferred by us, as in the foregoing cases, in which we could only
state that the beliefs and facts point to such a tie. In the present
case the father's spirit is the material from which the child's soul is
to be built up. It is not his bodily germ that procreates the child,
but his spiritual germ. What does it matter that the mother gives birth
to the child? The latter is animated by the father's (or father's
sister's) spirit, and this spiritual connection is of course as strong
a bond of kinship as can possibly be imagined.

There is in the second of these examples a complication produced by
the fact that a female child is not animated by her father's, but by
her father's sister's, spirit. But this complication is more apparent
than real. We must always remember that the aborigines do not think in
clearly defined ideas, and that there is always a question rather of
some broad emotional connection than of a tie logically apprehended.
And here the connection between the female children and their father
is broadly marked by the spiritual tie between his sister and the
children. It may be said that "spiritual propagation" follows the male
line exclusively, for all children are animated by a spirit taken from
their father or his sister.

We have still a few examples to quote where there appears to be
involved a tie between father and child established on other grounds
than the sexual act. In some of the North Queensland tribes (Cairns
district) "the acceptance of food from a man by a woman was not
merely regarded as a marriage ceremony, but as the actual cause of
conception."[642] A similar belief obtains among the Larrekiya and
Wogait of Port Darwin. "The old men say that there is an evil spirit
who takes babies from a big fire and places them in the wombs of women,
who must then give birth to them. When in the ordinary course of events
a man is out hunting and kills game or gathers vegetable food, he gives
it to his wife, who must eat it, believing that the food will cause her
to conceive and bring forth a child. When the child is born, it may on
no account partake of the particular food which produced conception
until it has got its first teeth."[643] In these cases we might look
also for some material from which the ideas of individual paternity
might have been evolved, but this is a supposition merely, which
obviously is much less well founded than our inferences referring to
the Central and North Central tribes.

     [642] J. G. Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 577, on the
     authority of Bishop Frodsham.

     [643] H. Basedow, _loc. cit._, quoted by Frazer, _Tot. and
     Exog._, i. p. 576.

Let us turn to another portion of the continent, to the South-Eastern
tribes, where the natives have to a certain extent inverse ideas on
procreation. They seem to know that conception is due to copulation.
But they exaggerate the father's part. The children are begotten
"by him exclusively; the mother receives only the germ and nurtures
it; the aborigines ... never for a moment feel any doubt ... that
the children originate solely from the male parent, and only owe
their infantine nurture to their mother."[644] This theory is not a
logical and consistent one, but none of the aboriginal views possess
these qualities! But this theory of procreation is quite clear and
categorical in acknowledging exclusively what seems to the native
mind important for the formation of consanguineous ties in the act of
procreation. Let us adduce the examples in detail, as they are very
instructive. The Wirdajuri nation[645] believe that the child "emanates
from the father solely, being only nurtured by its mother." There is
a strong tie of kinship between the child and the father; the latter
nevertheless has not the right to dispose of his daughter in marriage;
that is done by the mother and the mother's brother. We see here that
curiously enough strong paternal consanguinity coincides with weakening
of the _patria potestas_ (provided the information be accurate on both
points). For disposal of the daughter is one of the chief features
of a parent's authority over the child. Among the Wolgal the child
belongs to the father, and he only "gives it to his wife to take care
of for him."[646] This is probably an interpretation of the facts of
procreation. In this tribe the father disposes of his daughter; in fact
"he could do what he liked" with her on the ground of his exclusive
right to the child. Here, apparently, the ideas on kinship enhance
the paternal authority. A strong proof of this unilateral paternal
consanguinity is given yet more in detail in the case of the Kulin
tribes. There, according to a native expression, "the child comes from
the man, the woman only takes care of it."[647] And when once an old
man wished to emphasize his right and authority over his son he said:
"Listen to me! I am here, and there you stand with my body."[648]
This is clearly a claim to kinship on the basis of consanguinity.
It is interesting to note that in the examples just quoted this
consanguineous kinship seems to give some claims to authority.
Analogously amongst the Yuin the child belonged to his father "because
his wife merely takes care of his children for him."[649]

     [644] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xii. p. 502.

     [645] Cameron, _J.A.I._, xiv. p. 351.

     [646] Aboriginal phrase quoted by Howitt, _Nat. Tr._,
     p. 198.

     [647] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 255.

     [648] _Ibid._

     [649] _Ibid._, p. 263.

Withal this information leaves us in the dark about the detailed
working of these ideas. Especially we are not quite clear whether the
assertions of "being of the same body," of "belonging to him," etc.,
do actually refer to the act of procreation, whether they form an
interpretation of this act, or whether they have quite a different
basis; although it seems from the expressions quoted above that the
first alternative is the right one. On the other hand, when we read
that the mother only nurtures the child, that she merely takes care
of it and so on, does it mean that the aboriginal mind _decrees_ or
interprets that during pregnancy the mother is a kind of nurse only,
that she is the soil in which the father has deposited the seed? And
as the relation between the plant and the seed is closer than that
between the plant and the soil, so the relation between father and
child is nearer than that between mother and child? All this is left
to hypothesis, strongly supported by the statements, but unfortunately
not affirmed by them in a clear and unambiguous way. We are not at all
sure whether all these ideas, instead of being theories of the act of
impregnation, have not some mystic, legendary basis like the beliefs of
the Queenslander dealt with above.

A survey of different points of Australian folk-lore has been made in
order to find some kinship ideas corresponding to the definition given
on page 183. From all the results obtained, the most certain and best
founded one is the negative fact that the majority of the Australian
tribes are wholly ignorant of the physiological process of procreation.
This result, although at first sight a negative one, leads, when viewed
in the proper light, to sociological conclusions of some importance. In
regard to the discussion on consanguinity (given pp. 176 _sqq._), it
follows from this fact that we cannot speak of paternal consanguinity
among these tribes in the social sense of this word,[650] and that
the individual tie of kinship, which does nevertheless exist between
father and child, must be conceived of by the natives in some different
way. This conclusion is also very important, for it obviously tears
asunder the intimate connection between the sexual side of marriage and
kinship, a connection that has often been assumed hitherto. The lack of
sexual exclusiveness found in Australia does not affect the structure
of the individual family, of which kinship is the index. Waiving the
question whether this holds good for primitive mankind in general, it
may be assumed as quite a final result for the majority of Australian
tribes.

     [650] It has been already remarked above on page 179, that
     there can be no question of physiological consanguinity for
     other reasons.

The positive ideas of kinship enumerated in this survey fulfil the two
conditions set up on page 183; they refer to the individual relation
between father and child,[651] and they affirm a close tie between
the two. But in order to prove that such ideas are sociologically
relevant ideas of kinship, it must yet be shown that they possess some
social functions; that is to say, that they play an essential part in
the collective formulation of the various norms regulating individual
parental kinship. Now it was not possible to find any data on this
point, so this gap remains unfilled, and therefore the results arrived
at here must be considered as incomplete. It was necessary to introduce
the conjectural assumption that all the facts known which give
sociological evidence of individual parental kinship stand in close
connection with the beliefs in question. Nevertheless, this assumption
is neither arbitrary nor scientifically barren, as far as I see. It
may first be remarked that the complete absence in our ethnographic
information of any attempt to connect the data of folk-lore and the
facts of sociology is not astonishing at all, as it is the consequence
of one of the shortcomings in social science at the present day. This
lack is due to reasons connected with the ethnographer and not with
the material. The intimate relation which must exist between social
beliefs and social functions was quite a sufficient justification
for the introduction of this assumption. Moreover, this assumption,
although hypothetical, lies quite within the limits of verification. A
conjectural assumption referring to facts which lie necessarily outside
the reach of observation, incurs much more the risk of scientific
barrenness. But this cannot be the case with new points of view, the
enunciation of which imposes itself as an inevitable logical inference,
and which, being capable of verification, may serve as a fertile
working hypothesis.

     [651] Defined at first only as members of the same
     individual family.




CHAPTER VII

PARENTS AND CHILDREN


I

Consideration may first here be given to the cares and benefits a child
receives from its mother during the first few years of its infancy.
These facts constitute a very strong bond of union between the child
and its nurse. Suckling is a physiological tie between the child and
the mother, and next to the fact of birth it marks very strongly the
individuality of this relation. Group motherhood has therefore never
been a very popular idea and has never found a favourable reception
amongst sociologists. We saw above, however, that it is very probable
that the facts of birth may lack any social significance in the native
mind. If it be further possible to imagine in the same tribe suckling
performed, according to Dr. Rivers's suggestion,[652] not by the actual
mother, but by a group of kindred women, group motherhood would be
quite comprehensible in such tribes.

     [652] Compare above, p. 6.

In Australia, however, suckling seems to be strictly individual. This
might indeed be inferred in the first place from the aboriginal mode of
living. Communism in suckling and rearing a small child would involve a
complete communism in life; and we know that unless two women are wives
of the same man, they are to a great extent isolated in daily life. It
is also highly improbable that in the two or three families which are
roaming together there would be always a woman at hand who could help
the other in these cares.

There are several other reasons which still more strongly support our
view. The best argument may be deduced from the statements referring
to infanticide. It is practised amongst all Australian natives. One
of the chief reasons given for it is that the mother cannot possibly
suckle and carry two children at one time, especially as children are
not weaned before their third to fifth year. If there were a custom
of common suckling and nursing a child, and another woman who would
replace the mother in her functions could be easily found, the practice
of infanticide could scarcely be attributed to the above-mentioned
reasons. Let us adduce a few statements.

  _Statements._--Infanticide is carried on among the Lower Darling
  natives to prevent the toils and troubles of carrying and caring
  for too many children. The mother's brother decides if the child
  should be killed or not.[653]

     [653] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 125.

  Amongst the Encounter Bay natives "no mother will venture to bring
  up more than two children, because she considers that the attention
  which she would have to devote to them would interfere with what
  she regards as the duty to her husband in searching for roots,
  etc."[654]

     [654] Meyer in Woods, pp. 186, 187.

  Amongst the Adelaide tribes "female infants at birth are not
  infrequently put to death for the sake of more valuable boys who
  are still being suckled."[655]

     [655] Wyatt in Woods, p. 162.

  As justification of infanticide "women plead that they cannot
  suckle and carry two children together."[656] It is clear from this
  statement that the impossibility of suckling more than one child at
  a time is given as justification for infanticide by the _natives
  themselves_; and that it is not only an inference of the observer.

     [656] Chas. Wilhelmi, quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 51. (Port
     Lincoln Tribes.)

  Infanticide was practised among the Port Lincoln tribes. "In
  extenuation of this horrible practice the women allege that they
  cannot suckle and carry two babies at once."[657] This statement
  also quite unmistakably points to the fact that children were
  suckled and attended by their own mother.

     [657] Schürmann in Woods, p. 224.

  Bennett writes that among the New South Wales natives women
  practice infanticide in order to avoid too much trouble in carrying
  their infants about.[658]

     [658] _Loc. cit._, i. pp. 123, 124.

  Another statement, maintaining still more strongly the view that
  only the mother suckled her child, is that of Collins.[659] He says
  that he knew two instances in which infants were killed by the
  father at their mother's grave, the reason alleged being that as no
  one else could be found to suckle the child and to rear it it must
  have died a worse death. Collins supposes that this is a general
  custom.

     [659] Collins, i. pp. 607, 608.

  Gason states that among the Dieri nearly thirty per cent. of the
  children were destroyed by their mothers at birth to avoid the
  cares and trouble of rearing.[660]

     [660] In Woods, p. 258.

  "The Arunta native does not hesitate to kill a child--always
  directly it is born--if there be an older one still in need of
  nourishment from the mother; and suckling is continued up to the
  age of three years and even older."[661] And again: "The child is
  killed ... when the mother is ... unable to rear it owing to there
  being a young child whom she is still feeding."[662]

     [661] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 264.

     [662] _Ibid._, p. 51.

  Among the Kabi and Wakka: "The motive for infanticide with these
  tribes could not be to save food in times of dearth, for the food
  supply was constant and plentiful. It would be mainly, if not
  entirely, that mothers might escape the irksomeness of nursing
  and caring for infants and of carrying them on their frequent
  journeys."[663]

     [663] Mathew, p. 166.

  Mrs. D. M. Bates writes that when a mother died at childbirth the
  infant was put to death.[664] We are not informed what reasons the
  natives gave for this practice; but most probably they are the same
  as those mentioned by Collins.

     [664] _Loc. cit._, p. 50.

All this evidence makes it nearly impossible to suppose that suckling,
carrying the baby and caring for it, was the task of a group of women.
For then it would not be necessary to kill the infant at the death of
its mother, or to kill it when there was another one to be suckled,
as the toils could easily be shared by the other women of the group.
The assumption we are now able to draw, namely that the mother always
suckles and nurses her own child, is of great importance.[665]

     [665] It is very important to note that this individual
     rearing is, in all probability, deeply connected with the
     aboriginal mode of life; viz. their scattered manner of
     living in small groups and their roaming habits. Both these
     latter seem to be, on the other hand, dependent upon the
     economic conditions of the stage of primitive hunting and
     fishing, and it may be assumed that all lower races have
     passed through, broadly speaking, the same circumstances of
     life; it is, therefore, probable that the fact of common
     nursing can never have taken place in very low societies. I
     do not think, consequently, that Dr. Rivers's hypothesis,
     basing group motherhood on communism in suckling and
     rearing, can be accepted even in its general form.

Amongst the Australian aborigines suckling establishes undoubtedly much
stronger bonds between mother and child than amongst civilized races,
for it lasts much longer. As we saw and shall see in a few statements,
the child is never weaned before its third year, and sometimes suckling
lasts much longer. Between a bigger child and its mother this constant
dependence upon each other must necessarily create a strong bond of
union. The child must be continually with its mother. During infancy
it is carried by her in a pouch or bag on the shoulders. Afterwards
it accompanies her on all her wanderings and in all her work. A
great addition to her work is the continuous care she must display
towards it. This will be exemplified in our statements referring to
the economic division of labour. To sum up, we may say that natural
necessities of nurture and of the earliest cares, combined with the
aboriginal mode of living, make the child absolutely dependent on the
personal, individual help it receives from its mother, and creates
therefore an intimate relation between the two.

This is not so much in evidence as regards the relationship between
the father and child. But here it must be remembered that owing to the
character of the native mode of living the man lives in close contact
and to a great extent in isolation with his wife, and consequently
also with his wife's children. Some of our statements show that he
shares to a certain extent in the cares and labours connected with
carrying children, feeding them, etc.; he seems to have a great
affection towards them and never to treat them with severity. So that
we may infer that the general character of his feelings is of the same
description as that of the mother's, _i. e._ one of parental love and
attachment.


II

An attempt will be made to illustrate by a series of statements all
these characteristics of domestic life as far as they embrace the
relations of parents to children. The chief points of inquiry will
be: Is there between parents and children any kind of affection? What
is the general character of the treatment of children by parents? Are
rudiments of education given by father or mother to their offspring?
In what way does the position of the father differ from that of the
mother--is there any special trait of severity? In what consists the
paternal authority and how does it show itself? Is there any strong
difference made between male and female children?

  _Statements._--"In infancy the young Kurnai is an object of love
  and pride to its father and mother. From observation of various
  tribes in far distant parts of Australia, I can assert confidently
  that love for their children is a marked feature in the aboriginal
  character. I cannot recollect having ever seen a parent beat or
  cruelly use a child; and a short road to the good-will of parents
  is, as amongst us, by noticing and admiring their children." The
  greatest grief is exhibited at the death of a child by all the
  relatives in a camp. These observations refer as well to the Kurnai
  and the other South-Eastern tribes, as to the Dieri, of whom the
  author gives an illustrative story.[666] The boy lives with his
  parents and "is very much under the control of his mother."--This
  statement is very valuable. It gives us the opinion of perhaps our
  best Australian observer on the psychology of parental feelings;
  it refers to all the tribes known to Howitt, _i. e._ to a very
  extensive area. And it states in plain terms that the feelings of
  love and affection for children which form the chief characteristic
  of parental relations are to be found with an intensity which is as
  strong as that prevailing in our society. In another place the same
  author quotes an instance "of a mother watching her sick child and
  refusing all food, and when it died she was inconsolable."[667]

     [666] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 189.

     [667] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 766.

  Curr says that among the Bangerang the father had absolute
  authority over his children.[668] In another place he says that
  the father had to decide in case of infanticide and in every
  more important occasion of the child's life.[669] But we read:
  "Parents were much attached to their children and rarely punished
  or corrected them." Not only did they not control them (although
  occasionally a child was beaten in a fit of anger),[670] but "they
  were habitually indulged in every way; and as a consequence, in
  case of the boys at least, grew up as self-willed, thorough little
  tyrants as can well be imagined."[671]

     [668] _Recollections_, p. 278.

     [669] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 76.

     [670] A similar statement is given by Spencer and Gillen,
     _Nat. Tr._, p. 51.

     [671] _Recollections_, p. 252.

  In his general book on Australia the same author gives us some more
  information on family life. The father makes small weapons as toys
  for his sons. The children are seldom chastised and they are very
  independent. The real training of the boys begins when they leave
  their parents' camp and undergo the series of initiations.[672]
  These statements point also unmistakably to feelings of attachment
  and love, which are, as we tried to prove above, the very essence
  of family ties. The father seems to care as much as the mother for
  his children's education, and he is very kind and lenient to them.

     [672] _A.R._, i. p. 71.

  As a crude and pathetic example of maternal love there is the case
  reported by Angas, of a mother carrying for ten years the corpse of
  her dead child.[673] Similar cases are reported by Howitt about the
  Kurnai.[674]

     [673] _Loc. cit._, p. 75.

     [674] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 244.

  We find many statements referring to this subject in the
  compilation of Br. Smyth. I mention them only shortly, as the
  author was never directly acquainted with the aboriginal life, and
  we value him only when he quotes some little-known authorities,
  or gives actual facts gathered for him by his correspondents. He
  speaks of the heavy task of a woman having to carry her babe,
  besides all the other work and trouble of a journey.[675] The
  father occasionally nurses the baby too and is very fond of
  it.[676] The child is suckled for three years; it is carried
  in an opossum rug during infancy and attended to solely by its
  mother.[677] A description of the way in which an opossum rug is
  dried is given.[678] In another passage the same author speaks
  again of the general kindness, affection and indulgence of parents
  to children, as of a well-known fact. He adds besides that the
  parents were very judicious in the treatment of their children.[679]

     [675] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 47.

     [676] _Ibid._

     [677] Mr. John Green (superintendent of a station, see vol.
     i. p. vi.), quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 78.

     [678] _Ibid._, p. 48. Another description of the mode
     of child-carrying is given by Basedow, _Jour. and Proc.
     R.S.S.A._ (1907), xxxi.

     [679] Br. Smyth, i. p. 51.

  "As a general rule, both fathers and mothers are very kind to
  their children and very rarely indeed strike them; and I have been
  often amused at seeing a rebellious urchin, of perhaps eight or
  nine years of age, take up his mimic spears, run a few yards away
  and then hurl them with all his force at his mother." "They are
  very fond of their children, and will at any time venture their
  lives for them."[680] And the author tells of an occurrence in
  corroboration.[681] Here, again, we hear of kindness, leniency and
  real affection. The instance of a native losing his life in trying
  to save his child is very convincing.

     [680] J. Moore Davis in Br. Smyth, ii. p. 311. He speaks in
     this article indiscriminately of South Australians.

     [681] Referring to natives of Victoria.

  The children that escape infanticide enjoy great affection from
  their parents.[682]

     [682] Br. Smyth, ii. p. 290. Note on Australians, by A. Le
     Souëf. It refers, probably, to the Victorian blacks.

  Of the Lower Darling River tribes it is stated that the children
  are not only very leniently treated by their parents, but that
  they are not spoilt at all. "One word from the parent generally
  is sufficient to check a child when doing wrong, and the greatest
  respect is shown to parents by their children."[683] The loss of
  a child would be lamented by the whole camp; the mother and near
  relatives would especially mourn.[684] A description of the mode
  of carrying children by their mother is also given by the same
  author.[685] In this statement we may remark that the children are
  said not to be spoilt; this does not agree quite with some of our
  other statements. But this information agrees with all others in
  respect of the affection and lenient treatment the children enjoy.

     [683] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 126.

     [684] _Ibid._

     [685] _Ibid._

  According to Mitchell children are carried by the mother in skin
  bags on the shoulder. She carries also toys for her children.[686]
  As we have said above, the close connection in life between child
  and mother must have been of importance in making the tie between
  them especially close. The existence of toys, mentioned already in
  J. M. Davis' statement, characterizes the tender care bestowed on
  the young folk by their parents.

     [686] Vol. i. pp. 332, 333.

  "The child is brought up with great care.... Should it cry, it is
  passed from one person to another and caressed and soothed, and
  the father will frequently nurse it for several hours together.
  When the child commences to walk, the father gives it a name."[687]
  They are long suckled--sometimes up to five or six years of age.
  A boy "when weaned, accompanies his father upon short excursions,
  upon which occasion the father takes every opportunity to instruct
  his son. For instance, if they arrive at a place concerning which
  they have any tradition, it is told to the child if old enough to
  understand it. Or he shows him how to procure this or that animal,
  or other article of food, in the easiest way."[688] We see here
  that the tie between father and child is a very close one. The
  father nurses the child when it is small, and educates it when it
  is bigger. Affection, care and kind treatment are stated here as
  everywhere else. And again we read: "If the father dies before a
  child is born, the child is put to death by the mother."[689] This
  marks again how important is the father's part in bringing up a
  child.

     [687] Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer, _loc.
     cit._, pp. 186, 187.

     [688] Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer, _loc.
     cit._, p. 187.

     [689] _Ibid._, p. 186.

  Wyatt says of the Adelaide tribe that "they display strong
  affection towards each other," which is shown especially in a
  "great fondness for children."[690]

     [690] _Loc. cit._, p. 162.

  We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Both sexes are very fond of
  their children."[691]

     [691] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 181.

  Howitt, speaking of infanticide among the Murring tribe, adds:
  "Yet they are very fond of their offspring, and very indulgent to
  those they keep, rarely striking them, and a mother would give all
  the food she had to her children, going hungry herself."[692] In
  several statements on infanticide it is said that no difference
  was made between boys and girls.[693] Here again we have a strong
  assertion of parental love, and of the kind treatment the children
  enjoy.

     [692] _Nat. Tr._, p. 748; informant: H. Williams.

     [693] _Ibid._, pp. 748-750.

  Among the Murrumbidgee tribes "it is well known that as their
  children become older they [the parents] evince much attachment
  towards them."[694] A well-known tragic instance of parental love
  is reported about the New South Wales natives by the same author.
  "They display an extraordinary degree of affection for their dead
  offspring, evidenced by an act that almost exceeds credibility, had
  it not so often been witnessed among the tribes in the interior of
  the colony. I allude to the fact of deceased children, from the
  earliest age to even six or seven years, being placed in a bag
  made of kangaroo skin, and slung upon the back of the mother....
  They carry them thus for ten or twelve months, sleeping upon the
  mass of mortal remains, which serves them for a pillow, apparently
  unmindful of the horrid fœtor which emanates from such a putrefying
  substance."[695]

     [694] Bennett, i. p. 123.

     [695] _Ibid._, pp. 125, 126.

  G. S. Lang in his account of the Australian blacks speaks of great
  leniency of treatment, and quotes several examples.[696]

     [696] p. 33. The author knew personally some tribes of New
     South Wales and Queensland.

  An exceptional statement is given by a member of the United States
  expedition. "As far as our observation went, the women appear to
  take little care of their children."[697] But we gather from the
  whole account that the authors had no good opportunities of making
  observations on the natives, if they had any at all. Probably the
  natives they saw were in a state of deterioration, hanging round
  towns, etc.

     [697] Chas. Wilkes (smaller ed.), i. p. 225.

  We read in the old account of J. Turnbull about the natives of New
  South Wales, that all children who escape infanticide are "nursed
  with an anxious affection, very creditable to these savages. The
  infant no sooner begins to use his limbs than he is instructed in
  throwing the spear; a bulrush or other reed being put into his hand
  for this purpose."[698]

     [698] p. 100.

  In his memoirs, Hodgson says that aboriginal children are very
  kindly and tenderly treated by their parents.[699]

     [699] p. 244 (N. S. Wales).

  The following statements, referring to New South Wales blacks, give
  a good testimonial to their parental feelings. "An old _mammy_, who
  was much about the farm of another of my friends, was a perfect
  picture of maternal sorrow," after the death of her son. "If you
  spoke of her son, she was dissolved in tears, and answered in
  whispers." "The women appear to be always kind to their children,
  carrying the young ones on their backs."[700]

     [700] Henderson, p. 121.

  "They are remarkably fond of their children," says R. Dawson. In
  another place the author speaks of a great liberality towards
  children, displayed in distributing food. He speaks also of the
  adoption of orphans. "When the parents die, the children are
  adopted by the unmarried men and women and taken the greatest care
  of"; and "children of both sexes who had lost their parents were
  uniformly adopted by those who had no families, and sometimes by
  those who had."[701]

     [701] pp. 239, 268. Port Stephens blacks.

  As a matter of illustration I may adduce what Dr. J. Fraser says
  on that subject in his compilation on the New South Wales tribes.
  The aborigines love their children and treat them very kindly.
  The father makes for the boy a toy spear to practise throwing
  it and the girl gets a small stick to learn how to dig with it.
  The parents teach them to do all these things, and they "take as
  much delight in this business as we do in teaching our children
  their alphabet. The son is soon able to go out with his father on
  hunting expeditions," imbibes all sorts of woodcraft and learns to
  know his tauri (hunting district).[702] We may add that the book
  of Dr. Fraser, although only a compilation, seems to be a very
  reliable one, and he probably had much personal information from
  settlers, missionaries, etc.

     [702] pp. 4, 5, 60.

  We have already seen from the first statement of Howitt that
  parental love obtained among the Dieri. Gason affirms that parental
  love for children and the love of these for their parents is one
  of their greatest virtues.[703] We read also that "the children
  are never beaten, and should any woman violate this law she is in
  turn beaten by her husband."[704] This statement would astonish
  us at first sight, as we usually expect severity from the father.
  But when we remember that the mother had probably all the drudgery
  and work with the children we can understand that she might easily
  lose her temper, and then the father took the children's part. It
  is characteristic that the father's authority was directed rather
  to protect the children from a probably merited punishment than to
  punish and correct them.

     [703] _Loc. cit._, p. 258.

     [704] _Ibid._

  Amongst the Urabunna, where, as we are informed, "individual
  marriage does not exist either in name or in practice,"[705] all
  children of "men who are at the same level in the generation and
  belong to the same class and totem are _regarded_ as the common
  children of these men." Still there exists "a closer tie between
  a man and the children of the woman who habitually live in camp
  with him."[706] This statement is the only one which tries to
  deny individual fatherhood and states the existence of group
  fatherhood. But as we do not know what sense should be given to
  the words "closer tie" and to the phrase "are regarded as the
  common children" we must drop this statement as quite meaningless.
  We know already that the relations of a father to his child have
  several very characteristic features; the father fondles his child;
  is especially attached to it; he often carries it on the march
  (as these same authors state in another place, see below); he has
  certain economic duties towards his family; he lives in the same
  wurley with his children. Not a single word is said about any
  of these things, and only quite general assertions are made. We
  may repeat here, with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew more
  concrete facts about this question they ought to have communicated
  them. If they told us everything they knew about the subject, then
  their inferences are false. This statement loses its force for the
  reason especially that we know how close the personal tie between
  the Dieri parents and their children was, and that it was quite
  individual. And the Dieri had the same Pirrauru institution which
  induces Messrs. Spencer and Gillen to inform us that there was no
  individual fatherhood or marriage, amongst the Urabunna. There is,
  therefore, much reason to mistrust this statement.[707]

     [705] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 63; repeated _Nor.
     Tr._, p. 73.

     [706] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 64.

     [707] Compare what has been said about the Pirrauru and
     Piraungaru above, pp. 108 _sqq._; especially p. 117,
     under 7.

  Children are treated with extreme leniency among the Central
  Australian tribes. "If the children are unruly the mothers try
  to quiet them with fair words, or may scold them a little, or
  even slap them gently, but never take any extreme means." Mothers
  often quarrel and even fight with each other defending their own
  offspring. "When a child sickens, the mother takes it in her lap,
  and does not leave the spot, the father sitting by."[708] All this
  shows a deep parental affection towards the children. And that it
  is limited to individual parents is confirmed by the following
  phrase: "Orphans fare the worst, and usually the nearest relative
  looks after them, but does not assume a parent's position. Such
  children receive blows and have to provide for themselves as best
  they can."[709] Although I avoid the problem of relationship terms,
  as lying outside the narrow limits of the present study, that
  deals exclusively with facts of family life, I quote the following
  statement of the same author as especially instructive. "_Kata_
  signifies father of the class; _Kata iltja_ sexual father." The
  affix _iltja_ indicates the individual relationship and the affix
  _lirra_ class reference. "Ordinarily they leave out the words
  _iltja_ and _lirra_ and do not use them, because they all know,
  among themselves, who is personally related, and who is not. They
  are only used casually when conversing with strangers, to whom they
  wish to explain their family relationship."[710]

     [708] L. Schultze, _loc. cit._, p. 238 (Finke River
     natives).

     [709] _Ibid._, p. 240.

     [710] _Ibid._, p. 237.

  We read of the Arunta: "To their children they are, we may say
  uniformly, with very rare exceptions, kind and considerate,
  carrying them, the men as well as the women taking part in this,
  when they get tired on the march, and always seeing that they get
  a good share of any food."[711] Here it is stated explicitly that
  the cares are shared by father and mother. In another place the
  authors, speaking of the burial ceremonies, say that the display
  of grief and sorrow is not so much due to real feeling, as to
  tribal custom and fear of offending the dead one's spirit. And
  they add, "At the same time, he (the native) is certainly capable
  of genuine grief and of real affection for his children."[712] The
  foregoing statement appears to be very emphatic. Parental love is
  apparently quoted as a genuine feeling conspicuous _par excellence_
  and therefore to be opposed to any other more or less fictitious
  display. The intimate connection between the mother and her child
  appears also from some details in the initiation ceremonies.[713]

     [711] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 50, 51.

     [712] _Nat. Tr._, p. 511.

     [713] _Ibid._, pp. 227, 250.

  In the Kabi and Wakka tribes, "the wife was the regular nurse
  of the infants, but the husband occasionally took a turn."[714]
  "Children were over-indulged."[715]

     [714] Mathew, _loc. cit._, p. 153.

     [715] _Ibid._, p. 153.

  "The mother is always fond of her child, and I have often admired
  her patience with it. She constantly carries it with her, at first
  in a basket, but later on ... on her shoulder. Thus she carries
  it with her till it is several years old. If the child cries she
  may perhaps get angry, but she will never allow herself to strike
  it. The children are never chastised either by the father or the
  mother." But they are nevertheless as a rule "obliging and kind."
  "The black children are not ... as bad as one might suppose,
  considering their education, in which their wills are never
  resisted."[716] "The woman is often obliged to carry her little
  child on her shoulders during the whole day, only setting it down
  when she has to dig in the ground or climb trees."[717] The mother,
  in one instance, was much excited when a white man struck her
  naughty child. The same author says that the tie between mother and
  child is closer than that between father and child. The children
  "are fonder of their mother than of their father." (This seems
  quite "natural" to us as we observe it as a rule in our society.)
  Sometimes the father cares much for his child too; "he frequently
  carries it, takes it in his lap, searches ... its hair, plays with
  it, and makes little boomerangs, which he teaches it to throw. He
  ... prefers boys to girls." "Boys are not permitted to go hunting
  with their fathers before they are nine years old."[718]

     [716] Lumholtz, on the Herbert River Natives, _loc. cit._,
     pp. 192, 193.

     [717] _Ibid._, p. 160.

     [718] _Ibid._, p. 193.

  Amongst the Georgina blacks the child's education is carried on
  chiefly by the mother. She teaches the boys respect for the tribal
  elders.[719]

     [719] Purcell in _R.G.S._, Victorian Branch, xi. pp. 19, 20.

  The way of carrying a child among the Queensland blacks is
  described by E. Palmer.[720]

     [720] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.

  Among the North Central Queensland aborigines the mother carries
  her child in a koolamon or on a sheet of bark, slung to her side;
  later on her shoulders.[721] She is accustomed to lullaby it to
  sleep by a sort of droning humming sound.[722] She suckles it until
  it reaches the age of three to five years.[723] "A father could do
  what he pleased with his children, but neither parent would ever
  strike a boy; if beaten the latter was supposed to lose courage."
  The mother taught the girls, and could beat them if necessary.[724]
  The father taught the boys climbing trees and making arms and
  implements.[725]

     [721] Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 183, § 330. See also figs.
     436-438.

     [722] _Ibid._

     [723] _Ibid._

     [724] Roth, _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 51.

     [725] _Ibid._, p. 60.

  In North-West Australia (Pilbarra district) children are reared
  affectionately and never chastised. They often listen to stories on
  native traditions.[726]

     [726] Withnell, pp. 8, 9.

  Ph. Chauncy, speaking of the West Australian blacks, says that love
  between children and parents was very strong, and that it was one
  of the principal virtues of the aborigines. He gives an example of
  a native who after five years, seeing again his son, a grown-up
  lad, displayed a good deal of affection and tenderness.[727]

     [727] Br. Smyth, ii. p. 275.

  The mode in which women carry their children in West Australia is
  described by Moore.[728]

     [728] _Loc. cit._, p. 32.

  Oldfield says: "Sometimes the love of their offspring (male) is
  excessive." As an example he describes an old man "who had a son,
  a lad of about nine years of age, of whom he was excessively fond,
  always tenderly embracing him and recommending him to the care of
  others when he went on any expedition." When he returned from the
  chase "he invariably first of all fondly kissed the boy before
  proceeding to cook," and all the best parts of the meal "were
  bestowed on the child." The child was consequently quite spoilt and
  tyrannized over his father, who was quite obedient to him.[729]

     [729] _Loc. cit._, pp. 224, 225.

  "Elles aiment d'ailleurs éperdument leurs fils et aussi celles de
  leurs filles qui ont échappé à la mort. S'il arrive que quelqu'un
  de leurs enfants s'éveille en sursaut ou se fasse du mal, ses
  gémissements sont couverts par ceux de la mère, qui ne se donne
  aucun repos jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait trouvé le moyen de guérison,
  quelque fatigue qu'il doive lui en couter. Elles nourrissent avec
  soin leurs petits enfants et les veulent toujours propres et bien
  tenus, autant que leur permet leur position. Elles les allaitent
  pendant plus de quatre ans; aussi n'est-il pas rare de voir de
  petits garçons jouer et faire des armes avec leurs petits _ghicis_,
  et puis courir se restaurer au sein de leur mère, qui souvent
  allaite ainsi deux enfants à la fois. J'ai vu des enfants de six ans
  prendre encore le sein, et les mères non seulement s'y prêter, mais
  les caresser et se priver des meilleurs morceaux pour les leur
  donner."[730] I quote this statement _in extenso_, as it includes a
  good deal of what we know in general of this subject. We see that a
  mother might suckle two children at a time, but if it were too
  difficult for her, the child is killed. Salvado speaks also of
  adoption by another woman as an alternative (comp. above, Dawson's
  and Shultze's statements); but adoption seems rather to be an
  exceptional escape from infanticide.[731] In another place, the same
  author speaks of a "véritable tendresse maternelle" showing itself
  towards a child recently dead. Often did he observe that a mother
  who had just lost a child would rise in the night and go for miles
  through the woods, calling her child by its name, speaking to it,
  and giving many tokens of her tender feelings.[732] This instance
  gives us a good insight into a class of feelings that the general,
  popular mind would hardly ascribe to savages.[733] Salvado says
  that they make a great difference between a boy and girl, in the
  joy which they display at a child's birth. Not only the mothers
  (as we saw above), but also the fathers show great fondness for
  their children. Salvado blames the "déférence des pères pour les
  enfants." Whatever a child might do, it is never chastised. If a
  small boy wishes to obtain something from his parents, he cries,
  bites and beats them, until he succeeds in his purpose. The only
  punishment ever inflicted on their children is "une fâcherie plus
  ou moins remarquée par eux, et cela encore après leur avoir accordé
  tout ce qu'ils demandent." The father prepares for his son small
  arms and teaches him how to use them. He displays the greatest
  tenderness towards him and is extremely fond of him.[734] And
  the author gives as the reason why the aborigines would not send
  their children to white men for education, the parental attachment
  to their offspring.[735] The father disposes of his daughters in
  marriage.[736]

     [730] Salvado about the natives of Swan District, West
     Australia, pp. 275, 276.

     [731] _Ibid._, p. 275.

     [732] _Ibid._, p. 250.

     [733] _Ibid._, p. 274.

     [734] _Ibid._, p. 276.

     [735] _Ibid._, pp. 276, 277.

     [736] _Ibid._, p. 278.

  Among the natives of King George Sound the mothers display a great
  love for their children, often crying after the death of one of
  them.[737]

     [737] Browne, _loc. cit._, p. 450.

  About the same tribes it is recorded: "Of their children they
  appear to be fond, and rarely chastise them; but their treatment of
  the women is not always gentle."[738] Here the difference between
  the usual good treatment that children uniformly enjoy from their
  parents, and the unsettled character of marital treatment is
  clearly expressed.

     [738] Scott Nind, _loc. cit._, p. 37.

  Our best information on many points comes rather from anecdotes and
  reports of real occurrences than from bare statements. Some stories
  illustrate very well the present question. So, for instance, the
  following, which proves beyond any doubt that paternal affection
  among the Australian aborigines might amount to a passion.[739]
  Old Davie was a native of great personal strength and skill,
  strong will, and great courage. He was not especially clever, but
  was apparently kind to children and to his wives. His inoffensive
  exterior, however, hid a truly demoniac character; he was quite
  egotistical, "he had never had any strong liking for anything
  else," but had only one peculiar passion: "his special craving was
  for murder." He had ever so many lives on his conscience. When he
  grew old, he became the father of a rather nice boy. He got deeply
  and passionately attached to his son, called the Jumbuk-man. "To
  watch the gradual expansion of Jumbuk-man's faculties; to see him
  balance himself with his feet astride and throw his spear at his
  sister's back; to observe him tomahawk the sleeping dogs, maltreat
  any birds or insects he could lay hands on, bite his mother; to
  hear him lisp foul words, and give himself up to the charming ways
  of savage infancy, became henceforth the chief delight of his
  father." Here we see a neat, condensed picture of what might be
  called educational training under the father's eyes. After a few
  years of life the boy died; the death of the boy was a terrible
  blow "to Old Davie. He had been his special delight ... and (he)
  bore his loss in a very unstoical way. He sat on the ground,
  streams of tears welling from his eyes." The end of the story (Old
  Davie's murder of a young woman in revenge for "sorcery" done by
  her tribe) does not touch our subject.

     [739] Told by Curr, _Recollections_, ch. xxviii. "Old
     Davie."

  As an interesting and good illustration of parental authority may
  be adduced the story of how a Bangerang girl was made to join her
  promised husband. She was, apparently, quite unwilling to do it;
  consequently her father tried to persuade her. After his patience
  had been exhausted he tried to compel her; having at last resource
  to his club. This and the unanimous and rather strong persuasions
  of both parents made her follow the prescribed course.[740] This
  story shows that the father had not a great amount of authority
  over his daughter. He had to persuade her for several hours and she
  brought him by her stubbornness to a fit of anger, which finally
  settled the matter.

     [740] Curr, _Recollections_, pp. 141-145.

  Another story clearly exemplifying paternal affection, is told by
  Grey.[741] For some small trespass Capt. Grey got hold of a young
  boy, the son of an influential native. The father tried to liberate
  him. "The natives are always ardently attached to their children,
  and this the boy's father now evinced in the strongest manner. He
  tried by persuasion, begging and even threats to induce the white
  man to give him back his child. He fairly wept upon his child's
  neck." When this had no result, and the boy was imprisoned, he made
  all possible efforts to plead for him. The paternal love is clearly
  conspicuous in the whole tale.

     [741] _Loc. cit._, ii. pp. 350-361 (refers to natives of
     King George's Sound).

Our forty-one statements agree fairly well on many points, but
especially on the principal question, namely on the existence of very
close personal and individual bonds of union between parents and
children.[742] As so much stress has been laid on the emotional element
in these bonds, it may be shown now how far the evidence confirms the
views expressed above.[743] Speaking in concrete terms, the evidence
affirms beyond any doubt the existence of strong feelings of affection
and attachment between parents and children. Thirty-five of our
forty-one statements explicitly affirm the existence of such feelings.
In many places this is expressed in a very clear and emphatic manner.
We read that the children are the "pride and love" of their parents;
that affection for their children is a "marked feature" of the
aboriginal character (Howitt). Deep affection is quoted as their chief
virtue (Gason); and as the most sincere and strongest feeling (Spencer
and Gillen); and so forth. Instances might easily be multiplied. The
only negative instance is the completely unreliable statement of
Wilkes. This exceptional agreement of all authors and the uniform
emphasis that they lay upon their statements is in itself a very strong
proof not only that this assertion is true, but that these facts
strongly impressed themselves upon the observers.[744] On this point
our best authorities entirely agree with the remaining observers. Such
an agreement on the point of a general judgment, which is necessarily
an induction from a considerable number of observations, can only mean
that the latter were not liable to misinterpretation; that they plainly
expressed their deeper psychological meaning. These observations seem
at first sight very difficult to be made correctly, for they are of a
rather subtle character, referring to impalpable psychological facts.
And yet all authors interpreted them correctly, of which fact such an
agreement is the best proof. The expression of the feelings in question
amongst savages must obviously differ very little from our ways of
showing feelings. The complete agreement of the statements points,
therefore, to the unmistakable clearness and strength in which the
native feelings show themselves, in all the details of family life as
well as in some more important facts.[745]

     [742] An exception may be seen in the statement of Spencer
     and Gillen on the Urabunna, as far as it seems to point
     to a group relationship, but there are reasons for not
     attaching too much importance to this statement. We dealt
     also above (p. 117) with the question whether there is
     group relationship between parents and children in the
     tribes where the Pirrauru custom prevails, and it was found
     that the assumption of its existence must be absolutely
     discarded, and that everywhere there is individual
     relationship between parents and children.

     [743] pp. 191 _sqq._

     [744] Compare above, pp. 193, 194.

     [745] Compare the passages above, pp. 195, 196.

But even if unwilling to trust to the emphasis of our informants'
general affirmations and to the agreement between them, we find many
concrete details and examples, mentioned by the authors, which convince
us that the conclusions they have drawn from observation were correct.
Howitt says that to secure the good-will of the parents the most direct
way is to admire their children; a fact which is characteristic of
parental infatuation in our own society. When the children are ill
the parents watch over and look after them most carefully (Schultze,
Salvado, Meyer, Howitt); they make toys for their children (Mitchell,
Curr, Fraser); and they look very carefully after their food (Spencer
and Gillen, Dawson). On the death of a child the parents display great
sorrow (Browne, Henderson, Curr in the story of old Davie).[746] And
the horrid custom of carrying a dead babe on their wanderings is also
a token of deep affection (Angas, Bennett, Howitt). After long absence
the parents display great joy and tenderness (Chauncy). And although
adoption is reported in some tribes (R. Dawson, Schultze, Salvado),
nevertheless there is not always the same degree of love and affection
towards adopted children as towards the offspring. And the former are
often illtreated (Schultze). Such examples could easily be multiplied.
And they show in how many quite unmistakable facts the main features
of the parental feelings for children found their expression. These
feelings as a rule consisted of love, pride, affection and attachment.

     [746] Compare also the examples referred to in foregoing
     footnote.

All this seems to hold good for the father, as well as for the
mother. In the majority of statements both the parents are mentioned
indiscriminately. Some of them say expressly that they refer to the
father also (Meyer, Wilhelmi, Moore Davis, Br. Smyth, Fraser, Gason,
Mathew, Spencer and Gillen, Mrs. Parker, Salvado). Nevertheless we must
assume that owing to the closer tie in daily life the relationship
between mother and child was a yet more intimate one (Lumholtz,
Salvado). There seems to have been but little difference made between
male and female children. We read in a few places (Schürmann,
Spencer and Gillen) that boys were more welcome than girls, and that
infanticide was more frequently carried out amongst the latter. But
this is contradicted elsewhere,[747] where we read that in several
tribes no difference in infanticide was made between boys and girls.

     [747] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 748-750.

Parallel with great affection towards the children ran considerable
leniency of treatment. In about eighteen of our statements (_i. e._ in
all of those in which there is anything said about treatment besides
affection) we read that the natives treat their children with kindness,
absolute leniency and indulgence, never chastise them, and give them
their own way in everything. It is well to notice that these two
things--real love on the one hand and leniency of treatment on the
other--must be treated as two independent phenomena. Affection may
be perfectly well combined with severity and rigour; and a want of
punishment need not be necessarily based upon love; it may result just
as well from carelessness. But this latter does not seem to be the
case; we know that the parents are not careless about their children;
that on the contrary they take the greatest trouble about them and look
carefully after all the necessities of their life. Here the leniency
of treatment seems to be exclusively due to excessive fondness for
their children and the resulting weakness shown towards them. In other
societies the reason of the same phenomenon is often (especially in
the case of male children) the wish not to frighten the boy and not to
make him a coward, in which belief magical elements may also play a
rôle. (Compare Steinmetz, article in _Z.f.S._ i.) A suggestion of such
a reason is contained in only one of our statements (Roth in _Trans.
R.S.Q._) In general it may be said that the way in which the aborigines
treat their children is a symptom of their great parental love.[748]
Only in two places (Spencer and Gillen, Lumholtz) is it said that in
fits of anger and impatience the natives chastise their children, and
even this seems to be quite exceptional. Very interesting is Gason's
statement, according to which it seems that the father was even more
lenient than the mother; and this seems quite natural, for the mother
had much more opportunity to get angry with the child.

     [748] Compare also the general reason given by Steinmetz
     for the prevalence of this indulgence among savage peoples.
     _Zeitschr. für Sozialwissenschaft_, Band i. pp. 254-285.

It is characteristic that even those authors who write in strong terms
of the bad treatment which the husband shows towards his wife (compare
the statements above) say nothing of the kind as to the treatment of
the children by their fathers. On the contrary, we read in several
places of the tyranny of the young boy, under which often his mother
and sisters and sometimes even his father had to suffer (Curr in
several places, especially in the story of Old Davie; J. Moore Davies,
Oldfield, Salvado). But two other writers (Lumholtz and Bonney) inform
us that in spite of the entire lack of severity the children are not
naughty at all, as might have been expected.

It may be safely concluded that the evidence gives a quite true picture
of the parental feelings. The latter may be considered as elements
which essentially characterize the relation of parents to children.
And it may be said that in Australia the parents are most devoted
and loving to their children. The importance of this conclusion in
regard to our ideas of parental kinship in Australia has been argued
sufficiently above.[749]

     [749] See pp. 191 _sqq._

The facts stated in this conclusion seem to have an important bearing
upon the relation between husband and wife. This point is completely
ignored by the first-hand observers, who never troubled to inquire
deeper into the mutual dependence of such most important sociological
facts, viz. of the relationship between parents and children on the
one hand and between husband and wife on the other. There are no
statements on this point, and consequently one is obliged to draw the
inference for oneself. But the bearing of the parental relationship
upon the conjugal relations is so obvious and the mutual dependence of
marriage and family so clear, that the following inference seems not at
all hypothetical and arbitrary. If both parents are strongly attached
to their children, if their feelings are so outspoken, these must
constitute a strong binding tie between them. It is hardly possible to
think that a man could be merely a brutal master and tyrant to his
wife if they both had the same feelings for the same object. But it is
still less possible to admit that a man and a woman would on the first
occasion, or even without any reason, part and form new unions if they
were both attached so strongly to the same person--an attachment which,
as in so many examples, sometimes amounted to a real passion.

Turning to the other question, to be answered from our evidence--the
question of paternal authority or _potestas_--let us first fix the
meaning of the word. To the word authority (_potestas_) a legal sense
can be given. Then it expresses the sum of the rights that legally are
allotted to the father over his children. So in Rome _potestas_ meant
the absolute power of life, death and liberty that the father legally
possessed over the persons of his children.[750] Every legal relation
presupposes a possibility of interference or enforcement on the part of
some social authority, and it assumes a set of fixed norms sanctioned
in some way by society. Now we do not possess any knowledge of any such
possibility in the case of the parental relationship, or of any norms
that are laid down in any form by the Australian aboriginal society for
the said relationship. The terms _authority_ or _potestas_, therefore,
cannot be used in their strict sense or indeed in any sense at all if
we imply a _legal meaning_ to them. We are more justified in applying
them to the Australian natives, if we use them as an expression of
the mere fact that the father could do anything he liked with his
children, that he had an absolute power over them. But even here we
should be careful in ascribing the exclusive power to the father. In
the only cases where the question of a decision as to the child's lot
arises, _i. e._ in the cases of infanticide and giving the girl away
in marriage, there are contradictory instances ascribing the power of
decision to some one else. So, for instance, in the Mukjarawaint tribe
the father was not allowed to decide whether his child was to be killed
or not at birth; it was the grandparents' affair. Curr affirms, on the
other hand, that infanticide depended exclusively upon the father. In
some tribes it was not the father's privilege to give his daughter in
marriage. Nevertheless, as was shown above in Chapter II, as a rule it
was the father who disposed of his daughter.

     [750] Compare also the discussions above, pp. 185 _sqq._

Although our information on these points is scanty, these few hints
seem to prove that there were some infringements of the father's
liberty from outside. How far they were _legal_ is difficult to
ascertain. At any rate we see that the father's authority was rather
limited by legal factors than enhanced. But even if this be an
exceptional instance, and if as a rule nobody could interfere with
the father in whatever he was pleased to do with his children--a
supposition which seems fairly to agree with the general authority of
the husband and the isolation of families--it must still be remembered
that the father as a matter of fact never made use of his unrestricted
authority. In the first place, as will be plainly shown below, the
father's contact with and exclusive influence over his children ceased
at the moment they reached puberty. Our question is therefore limited
to the period before reaching puberty (in the boys perhaps even sooner,
from about seven to ten years; see below), and _eo ipso_ loses a great
deal of its contents. A small child living with its parents alone
in the wilderness is naturally entirely in their hands and at their
mercy. But it would be a fallacy to lay any stress on that point. As
our statements show, the child is protected against any ill-treatment,
or even against any severity from either of its parents, by their own
feelings much better than it could be by any legal measures. And the
fact remains that the father's _potestas_ or authority (or whatever any
kind of coercive power may be called) is by no means a characteristic
feature of his relation to his children, for according to aboriginal
custom and psychology, any element of that kind is absolutely absent
from their family life.

In other words we may say that our information on the regulation of
paternal authority in the few cases where it can come into play is
very scanty. Probably there are no rules, or only a few,[751] and the
father is more or less free to dispose of his child. But I mentioned
some contradictory instances, and I would not lay any stress on that
assertion. What appears to be quite clear is that paternal authority
does not play any important part in family life; for the parental
relation is a _régime_ of love, and not of coercion. And considering
that we know very little about the father's authority and only feel
sure that it is insignificant, it cannot be reasonably chosen as a
determining factor of the paternal relation.

     [751] As mentioned above it is impossible to say how far
     such rules are legal, _i. e._ laid down and _enforced_ by
     society.

From the lack of any chastisement we may infer that the education given
by the parents to their children was a very insignificant one, for it
is impossible to conceive of any serious education without coercive
treatment, especially at that low stage of culture. But as the children
are continually with their mother and very often with their father,
the parental influence must be of great importance in the questions of
the arts of life and of all the knowledge necessary in tribal affairs.
We read in several places of the control and educative influence
exercised by the mother on her children (Kurnai, Euahlayi, Georgina
Blacks, Herbert River tribes, North-West Australian tribes according to
Withnell, Salvado). The father makes toys for his children and teaches
the boys how to throw the spear, use the boomerang, and so on (Curr on
Australians in general; Encounter Bay; Turnbull; Salvado; compare also
Dr. Fraser's statement).

Here it must be remembered that education depends still more on another
set of facts, namely on the facts of initiation and the secret society
formed by all initiated men. The boy's education begins with the moment
when he leaves his parents, joins the young men's camp, and begins
to undergo a series of initiations. At any rate he begins then to be
educated in quite a new order of ideas, initiated into the tribal
mysteries, etc. And apparently he has then to submit to a severe
_régime_, besides going through the ordeal of initiation itself. It
seems, therefore, that the education received by the children in their
parents' camp, where they are probably more under the influence of
their mother and perhaps of other women who happen to be in the same
encampment, that this education is definitive only for the females,
who can learn from their mothers all they will want in their future
life. For the boys this first education is of secondary importance. All
they have learned of the tribal traditions and beliefs--their whole
knowledge of the world--is destroyed at the initiation and replaced by
a new one. We see, therefore, that the relations between parents and
children are limited to a relatively short period; for the girls marry
at about ten years of age, and the boys at the same age leave their
parental camp and begin a new life. These facts are so important, as
characterizing the aboriginal family life, that we must dwell upon them
more in detail.


III

The relation of children to their parents undergoes an essential
change at the time when the former arrive at puberty. At this time
they are removed from their parents' immediate presence and control.
The girls marry very early, that is they are very early removed from
their parents' camp to that of their husband. Boys have to undergo
the initiation ceremonies at about the age when the girls marry, and
according to all we know never return any more to their parents' camp.
The fact of the early marriage of Australian aboriginal females is well
known. The age at which it takes place is stated to be from eight to
fourteen years of age; but generally the age of about ten to twelve is
alleged.[752]

     [752] Curr states it to vary from eight to fourteen, at
     various places: _Recollections_, pp. 50, 129, _A.R._, i.
     p. 107; Meyer in Woods, p. 190, states it to be from ten
     to twelve; Schürmann in Woods, p. 222, at arriving at
     puberty; Fraser, p. 2, at a very young age; Eyre, ii.
     p. 319, at about twelve years of age; Br. Smyth, i. p. 77,
     very early; Spencer and Gillen at from fourteen to fifteen
     years of age (_Nat. Tr._, p. 92 and _Nor. Tr._, p. 134);
     Withnell, p. 8, at about twelve years of age; Parkhouse,
     _A.A.A.S._, vi. p. 641, at arriving at puberty; Grey, ii.
     pp. 229, 231, very early.

Very important is also the point which Curr emphasizes, viz. that
no girl above about sixteen or widow under about forty-five is left
unmarried.[753] So that, according to this statement, practically all
women who are marriageable would be married. But this is perhaps in
contradiction to a couple of statements we shall meet below, which
affirm the existence of a camp of unmarried females. So that this point
seems to present some ambiguity. At any rate it seems quite certain
that unmarried females are not left long in this state.

     [753] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 129.

We know very little as to how far the relations between a girl and her
parents cease when she leaves them. Marriage seems to be as a general
rule patrilocal; the wife leaves her parents' camp and removes to her
husband's. The only exception to this rule will be quoted below (see
p. 266). With that, a great part of the parents' influence and contact
seem to be necessarily interrupted; for we saw in the discussion on
the mode of living that the families camp either separately or in very
small groups. And therefore a wife living in her husband's camp would
probably not live in the same local group with her parents. And in some
cases, where as in the Bangerang the local divisions seem to have been
more numerous, or as in the Kurnai the population seems to have been
more dense (the local groups living nearer each other), local exogamy
prevailed and the girl naturally went away.[754]

     [754] Such local exogamy prevailed also in some of the
     North Central tribes, viz. in the Warramunga nation, owing
     to the local segregation of the two moieties. There the
     girl must always marry far away from her natal place.
     Compare _Nor. Tr._, pp. 28-30.

Moreover, the mother-in-law taboo obtained well-nigh in all tribes, so
that the husband was cut off from contact with his parents-in-law;
therefore his wife was to some extent also handicapped in her relations
with them. That when the married couple were in the same local group
with the wife's parents there were some binding elements and forms of
close intercourse between both parties appears in the description given
below of the economics of the household. But in all probability the
authority of the parents over the girl and the real intimacy of their
relations ceased at the moment she was given over to her husband.[755]

     [755] Grey, ii. pp. 229, 231, and Parkhouse, _A.A.A.S._,
     vi. p. 641.

There is another point connected with marriage and age. We saw that
girls marry very early, at the age of about twelve years. The men on
the other side do not marry so early. We do not possess very copious
information on this point. It is certain that boys were not allowed to
marry before they passed the initiation ceremonies. Now these began at
puberty, and were extended probably over several years. So it appears,
at least, from all the more exact and detailed descriptions we possess
of these ceremonies.[756] And it seems that the males had to pass
through a whole series of ceremonies before they were allowed to marry.
We read in Salvado (p. 277) that it was a crime, severely punished,
often by death, for a man to marry below the age of thirty. And he
adds that they had a marvellous skill in ascertaining age by means of
a series of ceremonies through which every male had to pass. The same
is stated by Curr (_A.R._, i. p. 107), viz. that the men seldom marry
under thirty. According to some statements from the South-Eastern area
boys appear to be allowed to marry younger.

     [756] Compare the description of initiation ceremonies in
     the works of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Roth, and Mathew.

From these few data it appears that males married much later and that
consequently there must have been some disparity of age. But this
disparity was much greater, owing to the circumstance that the young
girls were as a rule allotted to old men, and the boys whenever they
were allowed to marry got old _lubras_ as wives. We have a whole
series of statements affirming this and reporting the difference of age
to be usually about thirty years, if the female was younger; and at
any rate stating that there was seldom a couple in which both partners
were young. These statements refer to tribes scattered all over the
continent, so that disparity of age in marriage seems to be quite a
universal feature in Australia.

We may point to the circumstance that this disparity of age stands
in connection with the very prevalent form of betrothal, viz. the
promising of a girl in infancy usually to a mature man. Other modes of
obtaining wives, as exchange of a daughter for a wife, and levirate,
stand also in connection with the disparity of age.

  _Statements._--We read in Curr: "The Australian male almost
  invariably obtains his wife or wives either as a survivor of a
  married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in
  life for his daughters." An old widow often falls to the lot
  of some young bachelor.[757] On the other hand young girls are
  allotted to old men. "One often sees a child of eight the wife of
  a man of fifty." And we read further: "The marriage rules of the
  blacks result in very ill-assorted unions as regards age; for it is
  usual to see old men with mere girls as wives and men in the prime
  of life married to old widows. As a rule women are not obtained by
  the men unless they are at least thirty years of age. Women have
  very frequently two husbands during their lifetime, the first older
  and the second younger than themselves."[758] "I never heard of
  a female over sixteen years of age, who, prior to the breakdown
  of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites, had not a
  husband."[759]

     [757] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 107. This is said about the
     Australians in general.

     [758] _Ibid._, p. 110.

     [759] _Ibid._

  Speaking again on marriage among the Bangerang, Curr says: "As a
  rule, girls would be about twelve or fourteen years of age, and
  their husbands-elect some five-and-thirty years older, and already
  the lords of one or two spouses." "In this way it happened that one
  seldom saw a couple in which both the parties were young."[760]
  And further on we read, "Few men under thirty have lubras." But in
  the age between fifty and sixty men usually possess two or three
  wives. The difference between the spouses is usually twenty years;
  sometimes much more.[761]

     [760] _Recollections_, p. 129.

     [761] _Recollections_, p. 171.

  We find the disparity of age in marriage mentioned by Howitt in
  several places. So we learn that old men were often betrothed to
  young girls among the Wolgal.[762] We read that in Australia old
  men secure the young females for themselves.[763] And that young
  men obtain for wives some old repudiated wife of one of the old
  men.[764] Among the Geawe Gal "girls were affianced to men much
  older than themselves."[765] Speaking of the Dieri and other South
  Central tribes he says that old wives of old men are handed over to
  young boys.[766]

     [762] _Nat. Tr._, p. 197.

     [763] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 354.

     [764] _Trans. R.S.V._ (1888), p. 126.

     [765] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 280.

     [766] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 55.

  Howitt informs us also that no man might marry before duly
  initiated; and then the old men of the tribe had to give their
  consent.[767] Obviously, therefore, the age at which men could get
  married was much later than that in which females were given away.

     [767] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.

  Eyre found in the tribes with which he was in contact that women of
  between thirty and forty years of age were often cast off and given
  to young boys.[768] Young girls were often allotted to old men.[769]

     [768] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 322.

     [769] _Ibid._, p. 319.

  Disparity of age is stated also by Angas. Old men get often the
  youngest and comeliest women; whilst the old and haggard females
  were left for the young men.[770]

     [770] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 82 (Murray River tribes).

  Among the Encounter Bay tribes the girls "are given in marriage at
  a very early age (ten or twelve years)." And as it is very often
  the father who exchanges his daughter for a wife, it is evident
  that a great disparity of age must prevail.[771]

     [771] Meyer in Woods, p. 190.

  Mrs. Parker says that among the Euahlayi baby girls were often
  betrothed to "some old chap" who might have even already as many
  as two or three wives.[772] Whereas quite a young man was often
  allotted to an old woman. Age is not a disqualification for a woman
  to marry.[773]

     [772] _Loc. cit._, p. 55.

     [773] _Ibid._, p. 56.

  In the Central tribes, owing to the Tualcha Mura institution,[774]
  "men very frequently have wives much younger than themselves,
  as the husband and the mother of a wife obtained in this way
  are usually of approximately the same age."[775] And it may be
  remembered that this is the "most usual method of obtaining a
  wife."[776]

     [774] See above, p. 41.

     [775] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 558.

     [776] _Nat. Tr._, p. 558.

  We are informed that among the tribes near Victoria River
  Downs[777] a man may marry at about thirty years of age, and the
  older he grows the younger girls he gets. Girls are married on
  reaching puberty; and usually to old men; whereas young men often
  receive old women.

     [777] Northern Territory, South Australia, _J.A.I._, xxiv.
     p. 181. In the answers to the _Questions_ of Prof. Frazer.

  In the Kabi and Wakka tribes "the elder men had sometimes a
  plurality of wives, while the young men had for a long time after
  reaching manhood to remain, perforce, single. I never knew a man
  to have more than two wives at the one time, and generally one
  sufficed. There was no minimum of age for the marriage of girls,
  and so it occasionally happened that a child of twelve became the
  wife of a man of sixty. I knew a case in point."[778]

     [778] Mathew, p. 162. Compare also Lumholtz, _loc. cit._,
     p. 192.

  "Il est défendu a un Australien ... de se marier avant au moins
  vingt-huit à trente ans, et la mort est le châtiment de tout
  infracteur de la loi."[779]

     [779] Salvado, p. 277; natives of South West Australia.

  In the tribes of King George Sound the old men seem partly to
  monopolize the young females.[780]

     [780] Scott Nind, _loc. cit._, pp. 38, 39.

As we have mentioned above, boys leave their parents' camp to undergo
the initiation ceremonies. These latter seem to obtain in all tribes,
with a few insignificant exceptions such as the Bidwelli mentioned
by Howitt. This is a quite well-known fact. But what is their mode
of living during this, in some tribes, rather prolonged period and
afterwards, before they marry? They do not live in their parents' camp;
and they have not yet their individual settlement. They appear in the
great majority of cases to club together, have their own encampment,
roam and hunt on their own account, and in general to live a life apart.

  _Statements._--Howitt, speaking of the camping rules among the
  Kurnai, says that a "'brogan' (a man initiated at the same time,
  a comrade, or tribal brother, see _Nat. Tr._, p. 737), although
  calling the man's wife 'wife' and she calling him 'husband,' would
  have to camp with the young men, if any were there, or else by
  himself."[781] And again: "The young men (brewit) and the married
  men who have not their wives with them, always encamp together at
  some distance from the camps of the married men."[782] "The young
  man, or brewit, after his initiation, may be said to have commenced
  a life independent, to some extent, of his parents."[783] "He lived
  with the other young men, and with those who were initiated with
  him, and accordingly his brothers."[784]

     [781] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 210.

     [782] _J.A.I._, xiv. p. 318.

     [783] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 199, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 737.

     [784] _Ibid._, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 737.

  We read of the Wolgal tribe: "A married man would never stay in
  the young men's camp when travelling, unless he were without his
  wife, when he would be considered as being single. The married
  people and the single young men camp entirely apart."[785] Howitt
  mentions further the young men's camp in connection with animal
  food division amongst the Ngarigo (Maneroo blacks).[786] That the
  bachelors' camp was a rule is confirmed by Howitt's statement that
  amongst the Mukjarawaint there was no young men's camp.[787] The
  unmarried men seem to have lived with their grandparents.[788]

     [785] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 776.

     [786] _Ibid._, pp. 759, 760.

     [787] _Ibid._, p. 764.

     [788] _Ibid._ Compare Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 183.

  Curr, speaking of the laying out of a native camp in the Bangerang
  tribe, says: "the fire of the bachelors ..." is "rather further
  off and somewhat isolated from the rest."[789] The same author
  says: "Over the girls his (the father's) authority ceased when
  they became wives, and after his twelfth year or so the boy was
  very little subject to the father."[790] "When eight or ten years
  of age he was sent to sleep in the bachelors' camp, when there
  was one at hand, with the young men and boys of various ages, his
  parents still supplying him with food. In his new home, though no
  violence was used, its inmates being all his relatives, the child
  gradually became to some extent the fag" of all older and stronger.
  In short this was the real school he had to pass through, the most
  important moment of which formed the initiation, when he became
  _kogomoolga_.[791] "The bachelors, in their camp, cooked each for
  himself"[792] (at least the older ones; as for the quite young,
  the family provided, according to what we were told above). "The
  bachelors had one (hut) in common."[793] Curr also emphasizes the
  importance of the training enjoyed by the youths in the bachelors'
  camp for the general tribal order.[794]

     [789] _Recollections_, p. 133.

     [790] _Ibid._, p. 248.

     [791] _Ibid._, pp. 250, 253.

     [792] _Ibid._, p. 256.

     [793] _Ibid._, p. 259.

     [794] _Recollections_, p. 252.

  J. Dawson says that one partition of a big wuurn "is appropriated
  to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and
  widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers. While travelling or
  occupying temporary habitations, each of these parties must erect
  separate wuurns."[795] Here the young boys and young unmarried
  girls lived with their family, but in separate compartments of
  the hut. We are not informed if, when travelling, they formed a
  separate group in the encampment.

     [795] _Loc. cit._, p. 10; this refers to the West Victorian
     tribes.

  "Young, unmarried men frequently muster in parties of six or eight,
  and make a hut for themselves."[796] In cases when a larger number
  of natives are assembled it is required by custom that "all boys
  and uninitiated young men sleep at some distance from the huts of
  adults."[797]

     [796] Eyre, ii. p. 302 (Murray River tribes).

     [797] _Ibid._, p. 304.

  "Until his fourteenth or fifteenth year he (the boy) is mostly
  engaged in catching fish and birds, because already, for some
  years, he has been obliged to seek for food on his own account.
  Thus he early becomes, in a great measure, independent; and there
  is nobody who can control him, the authority of his parents
  depending only upon the superstitions which they have instilled
  into him from infancy."[798]

     [798] Encounter Bay tribes, Meyer, _loc. cit._, p. 187.

  A vague but suggestive piece of information as regards our point
  is given on the Turra tribe, by the Rev. J. Kühn: Two or three
  months after initiation the lad is allowed to marry. But some of
  the married men undergo a further operation and become "Willeru";
  "after this they are not permitted to go to their wives for two
  years."[799] Do they live in a separate camp during these two
  years? It is probable, but the statement is not clear enough to be
  useful for us.

     [799] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 286.

  We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "If there be any young
  unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[800] This
  statement throws some light on the preceding one: there we had no
  mention of any separate camp. But as both these tribes lived quite
  close and must have had similar institutions, we may safely assume
  that the seclusion from wives which is reported in the foregoing
  passage was combined with an independent mode of living, _i. e._
  with a bachelors' camp.

     [800] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 222.

  Teichelmann and Schürmann report that there was a separate hut in
  which women dwelt during their period.[801]

     [801] In Waitz Gerland, p. 778. That refers probably to
     South Australian aborigines in general.

  We read in the description of the United States expedition to New
  South Wales that the youths have to avoid women from initiation
  till marriage and that they have their separate encampment.[802]

     [802] Chas. Wilkes, smaller ed., i. p. 225; larger ed., ii.
     p. 205.

  In the Euahlayi tribe boys go after their seventh year to the
  Weedeghal, bachelors' camp.[803]

     [803] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 61.

  Among the Central tribes (Krichauff Ranges) there is a separate
  men's camp and a camp for women, where these latter are confined
  during certain periods of their life.[804]

     [804] Krichauff, _loc. cit._, p. 78.

  We read that among the natives of Finke River (Central Australia)
  "separate places are assigned for the unmarried men and for the
  single females respectively."[805] The same author reports that
  the natives are fond of visits. "The meeting-place is usually the
  Tmara-nkanja for the men, _i. e._ the bachelors' camp."[806]

     [805] Schultze, _loc. cit._, p. 230.

     [806] _Ibid._, p. 234.

  In the Arunta tribe the boys "go out with the women as they
  searched for vegetable food and the smaller animals," up to the
  first initiation ceremony. Afterwards "they begin to accompany the
  men in their search for larger" game. At this first initiation they
  change also their mode of living; "in the future they must not play
  with the women and girls, nor must they camp with them as they have
  hitherto done, but henceforth they must go to the camp of the men,
  which is known as the Ungunja."[807] Among the Arunta there is a
  "special part of the main camp where the men assemble and near to
  which the women may not go."[808] It must exist only when a greater
  number of natives are assembled,[809] for normally the people roam
  scattered over the country. But during these latter periods the
  unmarried men lead probably an existence of their own, as they
  cannot live with families (compare above mode of living). This
  information about the bachelors' camp in the Arunta is not quite
  clear, as we see. But all we read points to its existence.

     [807] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 215, 216.

     [808] See index, p. 656; the Ungunja is mentioned several
     times in the text, p. 557 and _passim_.

     [809] See Chap. V.

  We find the bachelors' camp (Lagerplatz der jungen Männer;
  tmarankintja) mentioned by the Rev. E. Strehlow, in connection with
  the totemic ceremonies amongst the Arunta.[810]

     [810] Part iii. p. 7 and _passim_.

  We read about the tribes near Port Darwin: "Children live with
  their parents until puberty, when girls become members of their
  husband's households, residing sometimes with him, and at other
  times at the parental camp."[811] I may add here, that this is the
  only example where matrilocal marriage is mentioned in Australia.
  Everywhere else we find it stated that the girl removes to her
  husband's camp.[812] We read farther that the boys are taken, after
  their initiation, "in charge by those whose duty it is to train"
  them. "They lived in a large wurley, which would accommodate all
  the boys. As a fact ... no boys between seventeen and nineteen are
  seen at Port Darwin."[813] Here we are told that there was one big
  hut in which all the boys lived; but this seems rather to be an
  exception.

     [811] T. A. Parkhouse, _loc. cit._, p. 641.

     [812] Compare N. W. Thomas, _loc. cit._, p. 16.

     [813] _Ibid._, p. 643.

  Roth says that children of about seven years of age leave their
  parents' camp and go to stay with their grandparents.[814] We
  are not informed whether there exists a bachelors' camp in the
  North-West Central Queensland tribes; but this statement does
  not deny it, for boys are apparently not at once initiated after
  leaving their parental camp. Another statement of the same author
  about the natives of Koombana Bay (Queensland), affirms it
  explicitly: "The younger single males at a certain stage (puberty
  and onwards) always had a fire to themselves."[815] And again: "The
  grown-up lads sleep together, apart from the others."[816]

     [814] _Eth. Stud._, p. 183.

     [815] _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 48.

     [816] _Ibid._, p. 51.

  Grey says that strangers visiting a tribe, if unmarried or without
  their wives, "sleep at the fire of the young men."[817]

     [817] Grey, ii. p. 252.

  Bishop Salvado, according to whose information the South-West
  Australian natives live in small tribes of six to nine persons,
  says that when a family disposes itself to sleep "les garçons
  qui out passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls autour du feu
  commun."[818]

     [818] p. 280.

  It is stated in two statements above (Dawson and Schultze), that
  there were camps of unmarried females as well as of single men.
  We may add here two other statements about such camps.[819] In
  the Maryborough tribes there were camps of unmarried girls, in
  connection with which there was some sexual licence. Similarly in
  the North-West Central Queensland tribes,[820] studied by Roth,
  single girls lived in groups, under the control of an old man. Such
  phenomena would account for the licence of unmarried females, which
  we find sometimes reported. But they do not seem to have a very
  large extension in the Australian aboriginal society.

     [819] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 232, 233.

     [820] _N. Q. Eth. Bull._ 8, p. 6.

We see in the first place from this evidence[821] that boys were
actually removed from their parents' care and that they acquired a
complete independence of their parents on reaching puberty. This is
especially mentioned in several of our statements (Kurnai, Bangerang,
Lower Murray River tribes, Encounter Bay tribes, Port Darwin tribes).
It appears also to result _ipso facto_ from the circumstance that the
boys lived in quite a different part of the encampment, and so could
not be under the control of their parents. It appears from Curr's and
Parkhouse's statements that they even lived in a separate locality.
And confronting our evidence concerning the bachelors' camp with what
we know about the aboriginal mode of living, it appears also highly
probable that if the boys' camp numbered from six to eight inmates
(compare Eyre's statement) they must have roamed about in a separate
group. We read that in two cases the boys joined their grandparents
(Howitt about the Mukjarawaint tribe and Roth). Only the statement of
Dawson suggests that boys remained with their parents, and even that,
as we saw, does not follow very clearly from this statement.

     [821] We have collected here twenty-two statements in which
     there are many more tribes included.

We are informed in several places about the mode of living of the
lads in their separate camp. They seem to have partly provided their
own food and cooked it (Curr). They slept in one big hut (Parkhouse)
or round a common fire (Salvado and others). In general they seem to
have formed a distinct, separate social unit. This time, spent in the
bachelors' camp, was the real time of training (see Curr's statement.
Compare Hutton Webster, _loc. cit._, chap. iv. pp. 49-51). They came
under the influence of a new authority--the authority of the tribal
elders. And, especially during the actual time of initiation, all
the wisdom and morality they had to learn was imparted to the young
people by the old men of the tribe. Probably there also they formed new
acquaintances and relationships besides the family ones in which they
were brought up. The institution of bachelors' camp is general among
all the Australian tribes. Our evidence is not detailed enough to allow
us to trace geographical differences in any particular feature. We may
mention here, by the way, that the bachelors' camp of Australia was a
form of the widespread institution of the men's-house.[822]

     [822] In this connection the bachelors' camp in Australia
     is mentioned by Hutton Webster (amongst the Kurnai,
     Euahlayi, Arunta and Port Darwin tribes). The author speaks
     of it as a symptom of the general principle of separation
     of sexes. _Primitive Secret Societies_, pp. 1, 3.

In sum, all these factors give great weight to the facts here
discussed; viz. to those of the early marriage of girls and the
initiation of boys. We see that these facts take away from the
Australian family its patriarchal character. The father's authority is
exercised over his children merely during their early childhood, _i. e._
during a period when there is in a general way very little room
for the display of any serious authority. Still more, as there was
no serious and real training during this time, all education, as far
as it was given at all by the father, assumed more the form of play,
as we saw above (p. 256); and, as we saw, during that period great
leniency towards the offspring was the chief feature of the father's
behaviour.[823] When a serious and often harsh training took place, it
was not the father's individual authority that enforced it, but the
tribal elders'. So we see that our former result is hereby confirmed,
viz. that there is no foundation for designing the father's relation to
his child as based upon authority or any idea of proprietorship. That
applies to a girl as well as to a boy. But in the case of the former we
might attribute some meaning to the word property, although it would be
rather straining the sense of the word.

     [823] On these connections in general compare the
     interesting article of Steinmetz, _Zeitschrift f.
     Sozialw._, II, pp. 613, 614.


IV

It was seen that on reaching a certain age the children leave their
parents' camp and are removed from their control; still the personal,
individual bond of kinship is not broken. And although it does not find
its expression in facts of daily life, for the children and the parents
live apart, yet there are some facts which unmistakably reveal the
existence of a strong lifelong affection and attachment between parents
and children.

These facts are: real sorrow displayed at the death or funeral of a
near relative, and especially that displayed by parents at the death
of their children; joy and tenderness shown to children whenever met
for the first time after a long absence. Here also must be placed the
numerous occurrences in which love was displayed for white men who were
recognized as dead relatives. In these cases their supposed parents
always displayed the greatest amount of tenderness towards them, and
often underwent considerable sacrifices for the sake of helping or even
seeing their "children." The close connection between grandchildren and
grandparents shows also that there was a near individual tie between
the parents of the children and their parents. Let us adduce some
statements.

  _Statements._--Curr remarks shortly but clearly: "Parental
  affection always endured," after the children left their parents
  and became practically independent of them.[824]

     [824] _Recollections_, p. 248.

  A story showing strong filial attachment is told by R. Dawson.
  Relating an anecdote, he concludes: "The manner in which Youee
  told the story was exceedingly interesting; his lamentations, that
  'white pellow' should treat his father so, and the mild complaining
  tone in which they were made, thoroughly portrayed his filial
  attachment to his father, of whom he said several times, turning
  to him with a tone and manner that could not be mistaken, '_Murry_
  good wool man! _Murry_ good wool man, massa.'"[825]

     [825] R. Dawson, _loc. cit._, p. 312. Pt. Stephens tribes.

  A characteristic story, proving paternal affection, is told by
  Bonney. An old man was once cut with a tomahawk by his son, a big,
  strong man who had fits of madness. "The old man returned to the
  camp and with tears in his eyes told me what had happened, and
  begged me to assist him to bring back his mad son before he had
  perished in the bush."[826]

     [826] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 135. Riv. Darling tribe.

  We have also a few statements about the relations between
  grandparents and grandchildren. We are informed that among the
  Mukjarawaint the grandparents had the exclusive right to decide
  whether the child should be killed directly after birth or allowed
  to live. In the former case the grandparents had the privilege
  of eating the child.[827] We read of the important rôle the
  grandmother played in the North Queensland tribes at the naming
  of the child,[828] and amongst the Euahlayi at the Betrothal
  Ceremony.[829] Amongst the Kurnai also "the name is given by the
  paternal grandfather or grandmother, or in default by the mother's
  parents."[830]

     [827] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 243, 749.

     [828] Roth, _Bull._ V. p. 8.

     [829] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 51. Comp. above, p. 40.

     [830] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 190, 191.

  A series of interesting instances is told by Fraser. He says,
  "Their natural affections are keen; in proof of this I need only
  refer to their grief over a dead relative, even though it be a very
  young child; they utter loud lamentations and cut and burn the
  flesh of their bodies in grief. This expression of grief is not all
  artificial or professional like the hired 'ululatus' of the Romans
  or the 'keening' of the Irish. That it is genuine on the part of
  the near relatives of the deceased I can prove by examples. Jackey,
  the 'king' of the Gresford blacks, died and was buried; his mother
  could not be induced to leave the spot; she sat there night and
  day, refusing food, until one morning she was found dead on his
  grave. She was buried beside her son."[831]--"A woman of the Dungog
  tribule had a child which was hunch-backed and otherwise deformed;
  she carried it on her back for eighteen or nineteen years; it
  seemed always no bigger than a child of six or seven years. Her
  husband also carried about, for two or three years, a son whose
  feet from the ankles had been destroyed by frostbite."[832]--"At
  Durham Downs (Queensland), 'king' Brady had a little boy, two years
  old, who became helpless from disease; the mother carried him
  about with her for many years."[833]--"Then again, the transport
  of delight with which Buckley was received by a woman of a local
  tribe who believed that this white man was her deceased son come to
  life again, is a proof of the strength of natural affection among
  them."[834]

     [831] J. Fraser, _loc. cit._, p. 44.

     [832] _Ibid._

     [833] J. Fraser, _loc. cit._, p. 44.

     [834] _Ibid._

  To this last might be added several other instances where white
  people were received with the greatest love and affection by their
  "black parents," who believed them to be their dead children. As we
  mentioned these examples above (p. 222) in another connection we
  merely refer the reader to that place.

  Salvado says: "Reprenant la suite de mon récit, je dirai que les
  fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils
  sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleures pièces de gibier,
  ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses.
  Enfin ils leurs témoignent leur amour au delà de la tombe, en tuant
  un ou deux sauvages quand leur père vient à mourir."[835]

     [835] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 277.

  In the description of mourning and burial it appears in several
  places that the "immediate relations," probably in the first
  place their own parents and children, have special duties and
  obligations. "In the Tongaranka tribe, when a death occurs, the
  immediate relations smear themselves with _Kopai_ (gypsum)."[836]

     [836] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 451.

  "When one of the ... Wiim-baio tribe died ... the relations used
  to lie with their heads on the body, and even stretched at length
  on the corpse."[837] In the same tribe after a man's death "his
  immediate relations cut off their hair and applied to their heads a
  paste."[838]

     [837] _Ibid._

     [838] _Ibid._, p. 452.

  In the Chepara tribe "the relations of a dead person for several
  months after wore emu feathers, dyed red." "The mother of the
  deceased had her nose and all her body painted with stripes of
  white pipeclay, and wore red feathers over the whole of her head.
  A sister had also her head covered with red feathers, but was
  not painted white. After a few weeks the painting was changed to
  red, and then was worn by father, mother and sisters for a long
  time."[839]

     [839] _Ibid._, p. 469.

  At Port Stephens "an old couple had an only daughter of whom they
  were very fond. She died, and her parents built their hut over
  her grave close to the shore of the harbour, and lived there many
  months, crying for her every evening at sunset."[840]

     [840] _Ibid._, p. 465.

  In the description of mourning ceremonies given by Spencer and
  Gillen it appears plainly that the rôle of the individual mother
  was quite singular and the most important. "The actual mother of
  the deceased was painted deeply all over with pipeclay."[841]
  "On the way to the grave the actual mother often threw herself
  heavily on the ground and attempted to cut her head with a digging
  stick."[842]

     [841] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 508.

     [842] _Ibid._, p. 509.

  Also the blood brother plays, apparently, a part different from
  that of the tribal ones. "After going a short distance they were
  met by a man who was a blood brother of the dead woman, and was
  accompanied by a number of his tribal brothers."[843]

     [843] _Ibid._, p. 508.

All this evidence, although relatively scanty, shows clearly that
the individual relations between parents and children continued to
be strong and intimate. This fact also throws light on the character
of these relations during early childhood. In this period the bonds
were formed, and they must have been formed in a very strong and
thorough manner indeed if they lasted so long. This conclusion is
of such a general and fundamental character, and the evidence is so
scanty, that it would be futile to attempt tracing any geographical
distinctions between the different tribes. Like the other general
conclusions arrived at in this chapter, it has features common to all
the aboriginal tribes of Australia.

We have extremely scanty information concerning the relation
between brothers and sisters; and the few hints we possess are very
contradictory. Thus Gason says that a brother and sister "would
sacrifice their lives for one another if called upon."[844] And Fraser
informs us that when a man is sick it is his brother's duty to tend
him and carry him about. And the author gives an example in support
of this statement.[845] And again we read in Oldfield that a girl,
if her mother is dead, "is bound to supply them (her brothers) with
food for a certain period; indeed, brothers in general retain the
privilege of maltreating their sisters long after these latter became
the property of another."[846] On the other hand, Grey states that
no "common bond of union" exists between brothers and sisters of the
same father.[847] And according to Spencer and Gillen a man may never
speak from a near to his younger sister, although he may speak freely
to his older one.[848] Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula brothers
and sisters were not allowed to converse.[849] In some West Australian
tribes the boy was never allowed to speak to his sisters after the
initiation ceremony. He had to say farewell to his sisters before he
went to the initiation. The "own" brothers and sisters keep apart from
each other. And even boys or girls of the same class cannot speak or
play together.[850] The first three statements appear to indicate a
close individual relationship between brother and sister; the four
following seem to deny it again. Recalling to mind what we learned
about the relation in question in other connections, we hardly get much
help therefrom. The exchange of sisters would point to some ties; but,
it is too uncertain a hint. The facts that children are suckled for a
long time, and that owing to that and to the practice of infanticide
connected with it, the children succeed each other at long intervals,
reduce the possibility of close ties between the children of the same
parents; especially as they so soon leave the parental camp, and as
probably afterwards the intercourse between the sisters and brothers
is interrupted (compare statements of Curr and Spencer and Gillen). On
the whole we know very little about the relation in question; and we
may only conjecture, although with a high degree of probability, that
the tie is not a very strong one and does not play an important part in
family life; if it were otherwise we probably would know more about it.

     [844] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170.

     [845] _Loc. cit._, p. 44.

     [846] Oldfield, p. 249.

     [847] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 230.

     [848] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 89.

     [849] Sutton, _loc. cit._, p. 19.

     [850] Mrs. D. M. Bates, _loc. cit._, p. 5. The same is
     reported by A. L. P. Cameron of the natives of Cooper's
     Creek. _Science of Man._ July 1904.




CHAPTER VIII

ECONOMICS


Now we proceed to pass in survey the economic facts connected with
family life in Australia. As we are dealing with the individual family,
the first question that naturally presents itself is: How far in
Australia is the individual family an economic unit? In other words, in
what way is the individuality of the single family determined by the
economic facts?

To answer this general question we are led to examine various sets of
facts. In the first place, we know that in primitive societies there
is already a rudimentary division of labour, or rather a division of
economic functions, within the household. It is usually called the
sexual division of labour; obviously it makes the household an economic
unit; for it is just the division of labour which establishes the
unity of a social group from the economic point of view. We must ask,
therefore: Which, respectively, are the chief functions of the husband
and of the wife? Who provides the food and performs the labours of the
camp?

The economic unity of the family may also be constituted by other
facts. It is necessary in this connection to say a few words again
of individual land ownership, discussed above in connection with the
mode of living; several statements must be adduced referring to the
well-known features of communism and general liberality among the
Australian blacks. These features throw considerable light upon native
economics with reference to the constitution of the family. Let us
begin by examining the evidence on the sexual division of labour.

  _Statements._--The question of the economic side of family life is
  quite correctly set forth and answered by Howitt[851]: Amongst the
  Kurnai, as "the pairing family is strictly established," we might
  expect "that the domestic life, the arrangements of the family
  circle, and the division of labour should conform, more or less
  perfectly, to that condition.... The man has to provide for his
  family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for
  their support and to fight for their protection." The woman has to
  build the hut, to fish, to gather fruit seeds and all vegetable
  food, and to weave rush bags or nets. "The supply of vegetable food
  procured by the woman is all devoted to her husband, her children
  and herself."[852] The man's contribution goes only in part to
  supply the wants of his own family, the rest being divided between
  other relatives (see below). Fishing belonged to both sexes.[853]

     [851] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 206, 207.

     [852] _Ibid._, p. 263.

     [853] _Nat. Tr._, p. 761.

  Dawson reports the existence of permanent and temporary dwellings
  in his tribes. "The men share the labour of making the permanent
  dwelling, but the women are compelled to erect the smaller
  one."[854] The women carry in bags on their back all domestic
  utensils, as sticks, tinder for producing fire, gum for cement,
  shells, tools, charms and food. The custom of carrying burning
  fire-sticks is also reported by Dawson.[855] And in another place
  we read: "After marriage the women are compelled to do all the hard
  work of erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying
  burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making
  baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food, and
  attending to the children. The only work the men do in time of
  peace is to hunt for opossums and large animals of various kinds,
  and to make rugs and weapons."[856]

     [854] It is probable that these are innovations since the
     advent of white men. See Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 206.

     [855] J. Dawson, p. 11.

     [856] _Ibid._, pp. 36, 37.

  A still clearer picture of the division of labour between the sexes
  is drawn by Curr in his Memoirs. On the march the men carried the
  arms and their personal effects; the women had to carry all the
  other implements as well as the small children. The supply of
  vegetable food belonged to them.[857] When several families camped
  together the women went in parties to procure roots, small animals
  and other food, carrying babies on their backs and followed by
  other children. The men, in parties of three or four, went out
  hunting. After returning to camp, each party cooked its food. The
  men, however, gave to their wives only the remainder of their food,
  sharing it first with the children; it seems, therefore, that
  the food supply provided by the female was much more regular and
  reliable, and therefore of greater importance to the family, than
  the man's share.[858] And again we read: "At the family fires the
  father generally cooked the animals which he brought home, and the
  woman the roots which were her contribution."[859]

     [857] _Recollections_, p. 251.

     [858] _Recollections_, p. 256.

     [859] _Ibid._

  Speaking of all the Australian tribes in general, Curr says:
  "Among the Australian blacks the common occupations of the men are
  the manufacture of arms and implements for hunting, fishing and
  occasionally war. The women generally procure and cook vegetables
  and fish, collect wood for fire, manufacture nets and bags. On the
  march the woman carries child, household effects, fire-stick, and
  digs for roots and vegetables."[860] "Wives have to undergo all the
  drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the
  hardest work."[861] This statement gives quite clearly the division
  of labour, the greater share falling on the wife.

     [860] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 99.

     [861] _Ibid._, p. 110.

  Amongst the Mount Gambier tribes (West Victoria) the females have
  to construct the lodge, to collect firewood, and to make the
  fire.[862] They always carry the fire-stick when travelling.[863]
  They fetch water and collect all vegetable food, roots, and
  mushrooms, with their digging-stick.[864] The men's task is
  hunting; they do it generally in company.[865] Men make arms and
  prepare skins; women, objects of use and adornment.[866]

     [862] Stanbridge, _loc. cit._, p. 290.

     [863] _Ibid._, p. 291.

     [864] _Ibid._

     [865] _Ibid._, p. 293.

     [866] _Ibid._, p. 295.

  We read in Angas that carrying all the things, digging of roots,
  and making the huts is woman's work.[867]

     [867] _Loc. cit._, pp. 82, 84, 87.

  Eyre says that the women had to dress the huts.[868]

     [868] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 302.

  We read in Br. Smyth that women had to carry all the "worldly
  goods" of their husbands, even part of their arms.[869]

     [869] _Loc. cit._, p. 85. This is a quotation on the
     authority of an observer (Jardine).

  The men hunt and women collect food during their march according
  to Protector Thomas. There exists a customary communism among
  them.[870]

     [870] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 767.

  Mitchell says that because of their great skill in manufacturing
  all the things of daily use as "nets, cloaks, mussel-fishing,
  rooting, etc.; and their patient submission to labour, always
  carrying bags containing the whole property of the family while
  they follow their masters, the great value of a gin to one of these
  lazy fellows may be easily imagined."[871] They are, therefore, the
  chief objects of all their fights.

     [871] Quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 85.

  Meyer states about the Encounter Bay tribes that the man regarded
  his wife as a slave and let her do all the hard work, employing
  her in all ways to his advantage.[872] He even prostituted her for
  objects of use.[873] But he states also the typical division of
  labour: "the men employ themselves ... either in fishing or hunting
  emus, opossums, kangaroos, etc., while the women and children
  search for roots and plants." It is also the women's task to
  arrange the encampments.[874]

     [872] _Loc. cit._, p. 191.

     [873] This may be the influence of culture, as Europeans
     are mentioned in connection therewith.

     [874] pp. 191, 192.

  In the Port Lincoln tribes men provided animal and women vegetable
  food.[875]

     [875] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 221.

  We read in another author, about the same tribes, that women have
  to collect vegetable food, while the men are hunting.[876] There
  is also some kind of division of consumption; men eat male, women
  female animals, and children the small ones.[877]

     [876] Chas. Wilhelmi, pp. 174, 175, 177.

     [877] _Ibid._, p. 176.

  Among the Wiradjuri (New South Wales): "The wife always looks after
  the camping arrangements."[878]

     [878] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 776.

  Speaking of the Port Jackson tribes, Tench says that they derive
  their principal food supply from fishing. Both men and women take
  part in this; the men spearing the fish and the women catching them
  from land and sea. Both husband and wife bring their shares to the
  common household.[879]

     [879] _Loc. cit._, pp. 193-196.

  Both men and women take part in procuring the fish supply among the
  natives of Botany Bay.[880]

     [880] Phillip, p. 31.

  According to Henderson, among some of the New South Wales tribes
  the women have to carry children and all burdens; they procure also
  roots and shellfish.[881]

     [881] _Loc. cit._, p. 122.

  Gribble says: "The women always look after camp arrangements."[882]

     [882] _Loc. cit._, p. 117.

  Fishing was the chief support of the aborigines of Port Jackson
  described by D. Collins. In procuring this food, men, women and
  children were employed.[883]

     [883] Collins, i. p. 556.

  In the compilation of Dr. Fraser, on the New South Wales tribes, we
  have a detailed account of the sexual division of labour. The woman
  has to put up the wurley; to light and keep the fire, to carry
  the fire-stick, to cook the food. On the march she carries the bag
  containing the whole property of the family, the children and the
  yam-stick. Her duty is to provide fish and vegetable food.[884] The
  man has only to hunt.[885]

     [884] _Loc. cit._, p. 2.

     [885] _Loc. cit._, p. 60.

  All the drudgery of the camp and all the hard work was the lot
  of the women. They made nets and bags and they carried, on the
  marches, all the domestic implements as well as the children.[886]

     [886] Port Stephens tribes. R. Dawson, p. 67.

  In the Arunta tribe the women have "to do a considerable part, but
  by no means all, of the work of the camp."[887] From a detailed
  description we see that the women have to procure vegetable food
  and small animals, marsupials, etc., which they do with their
  digging-sticks. The man's task is hunting.[888]

     [887] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 50.

     [888] _Ibid._, p. 19.

  In the Port Essington tribes, the digging of roots and collecting
  of shellfish was the woman's task.[889]

     [889] Macgillivray, i. p. 148.

  "I have observed that upon the northern coasts of Australia the
  amount of the population upon a certain tract of country is great
  or small in proportion to the quantity of _vegetable_ food it
  produces. However abundant animal food may be, a toilsome search
  for edible roots gives almost constant occupation to a portion
  of every tribe. Women and children labour for hours together,
  with no other implement than a pointed stick, in following up the
  creeping stem of the wild yam through the earth until the root
  is arrived at, often at a depth of six or eight feet below the
  surface. A certain proportion of vegetable food appears, indeed,
  to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and they willingly
  forego the use of the animal food, if this more grateful diet can
  be obtained in sufficient abundance."[890]

     [890] Earl, p. 251.

  We are informed that among the Bunya-Bunya people (Turrubul and
  kindred tribes, South East Queensland) the woman had all the heavy
  work to do.[891]

     [891] Petrie, p. 61.

  Among the aborigines of Moreton Bay, women have to erect the huts
  and provide vegetable food for the whole party, as the men only
  have to supply fish and game.[892]

     [892] B. Field, p. 75.

  We owe a good description of the division of labour on the march
  to Mathew: "When shifting from one campingground to another they
  usually moved slowly through the bush, the families separating
  and gathering their food on the way--opossums, bandicoots, honey,
  grubs, birds, and so forth. At other times they marched along
  singly, the lords of creation stepping out with elastic tread and
  graceful bearing, carrying their light weapons with perhaps some
  game, the weaker vessel loaded with the chattels and possibly a
  baby on the back in a loop of a rug or sitting stride-leg on a
  shoulder. Some would carry live fire-sticks to save the trouble of
  producing fire by friction. Arrived at the familiar, well-chosen
  rendezvous, it was the duty of the women to cut the bark of the
  humpies (dwellings) and prepare the fires."[893] Further on we
  read: "The women were skilled in the manufacture of nets and of
  dillie-bags made of grass or twine."[894] "The man's chief home
  duties consisted in cooking and eating. He would also spend much
  time in fashioning his weapons."[895]

     [893] _Loc. cit._, p. 83.

     [894] _Ibid._, p. 82.

     [895] _Ibid._, p. 86.

  Lumholtz speaks of the woman as the slave of her husband. "He
  does only what pleases himself, and leaves all work to his wives;
  therefore the more wives he has the richer he is."[896] We see here
  again the economic value of a wife directly stated. In another
  place: "It is the women who daily provide food," often making long
  excursions for this purpose, and collecting fruits, digging roots
  and chopping larvæ out of the tree-stems. "She must do all the
  hard work," carry the baby, make the fire, cook, provide water and
  fuel, dress the hut. She carries all the baggage on the march, as
  well as the children. The man carries only his arms. "The husband's
  contribution to the household is chiefly honey, but occasionally he
  provides eggs, game, lizards, and the like. He very often, however,
  keeps the animal food for himself, while the woman has to depend
  principally upon vegetables for herself and her child. Upon the
  whole he feels no responsibility as the father of a family."[897]
  It is interesting to find that the men make not only weapons but
  also, exclusively, baskets.[898]

     [896] _Loc. cit._, p. 100.

     [897] _Loc. cit._, p. 160, 161.

     [898] _Ibid._, p. 193.

  Among the North-West Queensland tribes: "It is the husband's
  business, in the main, to supply the animal food for the family,
  and although a particular dietary may be forbidden him he has no
  compunction in hunting or killing it for his kith and kin."[899]
  It is necessary to add that according to Roth's information each
  member of a given family has some special food forbidden to him;
  because each class has its special food taboos, and in a family the
  father, the mother and the children, each belong to a different
  class.[900] Roth sees in this institution the chief aim of the
  class system.[901] Vegetable food and fish seem to be supplied by
  women chiefly.[902] The same general principle of sexual division
  of labour is reported in another place by the same author. We read
  there that the father's duty was to supply his family with animal
  food, whereas the mother had to provide the vegetable food. On the
  wanderings the wife follows her husband at a considerable distance,
  carrying all the implements and often the children.[903]

     [899] _Eth. Stud._, p. 184.

     [900] _Ibid._, p. 57.

     [901] _Ibid._, p. 69.

     [902] _Eth. Stud._, ch. v. _passim_, especially pp. 91, 94,
     95.

     [903] _N.Q. Eth. Bull._ 8, p. 9, § 2.

  Among the natives of Cape York the woman has to procure practically
  all food for herself and her husband.[904]

     [904] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 9.

  Moore describes the women in West Australia as being almost the
  slaves of their husbands. They have to attend upon the men and to
  carry all their property. They construct the hut, kindle the fire,
  and have to provide all the vegetable food.[905] The digging of the
  yams is a very laborious task.[906] In return they often do not get
  even their share of game.[907]

     [905] _Loc. cit._, p. 80.

     [906] _Ibid._, p. 74.

     [907] _Ibid._, p. 80.

  John Forrest writes in his account: "The women are nearly slaves,
  having to do most of the hard work, such as making huts, carrying
  wood, and also carrying all the baggage, which includes many
  weapons, grease, 'wilgie,' and a host of articles, wooden dishes,
  etc., besides often a child. The man does not generally carry much
  except his spears, etc."[908]

     [908] _Loc. cit._, p. 319.

  Among some of the West Australian blacks, a female, before she is
  married, has under certain circumstances to provide "individuals of
  a certain degree of relationship to herself with a certain amount
  of vegetable food."[909] After her marriage her husband is entitled
  "to the chief part of her services. While she has to supply him
  with unlimited quantities of yams and other roots, he does very
  little towards providing for her wants, merely giving her the offal
  of game." The woman is thus the chief caterer of the family. She
  is "a slave in the strictest sense of the word, being a beast of
  burden, a provider of food."[910]

     [909] Murchison District, Oldfield, p. 249.

     [910] _Ibid._, p. 250.

  In South-West Australia the woman carries all the domestic
  implements on her back. "Pendant que la femme chemine avec toute
  cette charge, l'homme marche devant sa famille, portant seulement
  ses armes de la main gauche." He looks for animals,[911] the chase
  is his task.[912] The woman has to light the fire, carry the
  fire-stick,[913] fetch the water[914]; she has also to construct
  the hut.[915]

     [911] Swan District, Salvado, p. 295.

     [912] _Ibid._, see ch. viii. _passim_.

     [913] p. 317.

     [914] _Ibid._, p. 315.

     [915] _Ibid._, p. 321.

  We are informed by Browne that all the hard work, the carrying of
  heavy burdens, camp arrangements, etc., is done by the women among
  the natives of King George's Sound.[916]

     [916] _Loc. cit._, p. 450.

  The economic division of labour, based upon the co-operation of
  both sexes, is stated by Scott Nind. The women and men go out in
  search of food, or hunting, in separate parties. The women chiefly
  collect roots and small animals; men go out hunting. Each sex
  reserves a part of its share for the family. "The women are very
  useful for them (their husbands), not only in procuring food, but
  also in preparing their cloaks, building their huts and other
  menial offices."[917]

     [917] _Loc. cit._, pp. 36, 37. Refers to the tribes of King
     George's Sound.

We see that our thirty-five statements agree pretty well as to the
general features of the division of labour. Certain of the economic
functions, like hunting, making of weapons and, undoubtedly, the
important function of protecting the family, are allotted to the men.
Other work--the providing of roots, bulbs and other vegetable food,
camp work and carrying heavy burdens, manufacturing nets and usually
fishing--all this is the duty of the woman. Our statements more or
less agree upon this division of labour. The more detailed ones
(Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Mathew, B. Field,
Oldfield, Moore) depict to us the occupations of the man and of his
wife in nearly the same words. Only in the statements of Collins, Tench
and Phillips is fishing mentioned as a common occupation of men and
women. But these statements (probably not independent of each other)
are not so explicit and reliable as to lead us to make exceptions
of the Port Jackson tribes. We may, therefore, affirm the existence
of a very marked sexual division of labour, which seems to present
everywhere the same features and to be nearly identical over the whole
continent. _Prima facie_ this division of labour consists only in each
sex having its different occupations prescribed by custom. But more
careful analysis shows that there are other features which more deeply
differentiate the economic activities of the sexes.

It is easy to see that the amount of work allotted to women is
_considerably greater_ and that their labour is much _harder_ than
the men's work. This is directly affirmed by a series of statements
(Curr, Dawson, Stanbridge, Tom Petrie, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest,
Salvado, Scott Nind, Moore). This is also undoubtedly a reason why
so many authors designate the wife's position as that of a slave
and drudge. But it also results directly from a comparison of the
occupations allotted to women with those allotted to men. A woman had
to carry all the heavy things, all the objects of domestic use, her
own as well as her husband's; for the man carried only his weapons
(Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Angas, Br. Smyth, Thomas, Phillips, Fraser,
Lumholtz, Salvado). The woman had to construct huts and look after
camping arrangements (Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Stanbridge, Meyer,
Schürmann, Angas, Howitt on the Wiradjuri, Gribble, Henderson, Fraser,
Field, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest, Salvado, Browne). All this was rather
hard work, especially when compared with the man's share of work, which
was mainly hunting and fashioning weapons. It must not be forgotten
that women were often encumbered in their work by suckling, carrying
their children, and by the various cares demanded by the latter. The
digging for roots is also exceedingly hard work (Moore, Earl).

_More regular_ and _systematic_ kind of labour is also called for by
the nature of the woman's tasks. These are intimately connected with
the wandering mode of life of the aborigines. Obviously in a people
which was forced by natural conditions to lead a roaming life, such
tasks must necessarily have required regular labour. The other chief
female occupation--collecting roots and small animals--required also
a regular kind of labour. All these occupations--being, as just said,
harder and more systematic than men's work, clearly appear also to be
much more wearing and tiresome; compared with the men's occupations
they appear much less in the light of sport and amusement. The man
makes his weapons and hunts, and this is a natural and pleasant sport
for him. There are no elements of excitement or variety in the women's
work; it is just this element of system and of regularity which makes
work repulsive and hard to man, and especially to primitive man.
Work of this kind is usually done only under a strong compulsion;
and woman's work in Australia appears also to be compulsory. This is
directly stated in several places (Dawson, Curr, Mitchell, Forrest,
Moore, Oldfield). This compulsory character is undoubtedly another
reason why the women's position is described in other statements as
that of a slave and drudge.

A very important point is that the woman's share in labour was of much
more _vital importance_ to the maintenance of the household than man's
work. This is quite obvious, seeing that the general occupations of
camp life were of essential necessity for a roving people. But even the
food supply, contributed by the women, was far more important than the
man's share. We read that the chief resource of the natives, especially
in bad seasons, is vegetable food (Oldfield). And the interesting
statement of Earl confirms this in a still stronger manner. So that it
appears fairly probable that, on the whole, food collected by women
was the staple food of the natives. But not only does the kind of food
supplied by the man appear on the whole to be less important than that
contributed by the woman, but it seems as if the man's contribution,
which in the main was reduced to his hunting products, was devoted much
less exclusively to his family's benefit. In order to understand this,
let us adduce some statements relating to communism of food, and giving
besides some interesting details about aboriginal economics.

  _Statements._--Among the Kurnai[918] the hunter who killed a big
  piece of game gave some of it to the men who assisted him in
  killing, cooking or carving. The chief parts were divided among
  his wives' parents and his own parents. These in return supplied
  their son and son-in-law respectively with meat the next day.
  Similar rules, varying according to the game and tribe, obtained
  also among the Murring tribes of New South Wales.[919] Important
  for us is the general feature of communism; the preponderancy given
  to the parents of a man and his wife. If the man be unmarried he
  provides chiefly his parents and his brother and sister.[920] The
  grandparents cared especially for their grandchildren.[921]

     [918] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, App. D, p. 261. Compare
     _Idem_, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 756-759.

     [919] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 264-267, and _Nat. Tr._,
     pp. 759-760 (refers to the Ngarigo tribe of the Murring
     nation).

     [920] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 259.

     [921] _Ibid._, pp. 262, 263.

  In the Wurrunjeri tribe a kangaroo was distributed among those
  present in camp and the hunter's family. The man had (even in case
  of a limited food supply) to provide for his own and his wife's
  parents. They cared in turn for him.[922] Communism obtained among
  the Kulin tribes.[923]

     [922] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 765.

     [923] _Ibid._, p. 767.

  A communism, similar to that of the Kurnai, prevailed among the
  Narran-ga.[924] The same is related about the tribes of the
  Karamundi[925]; the Wolgal tribe,[926] amongst whom the woman was
  provided for with food by her parents; the Wiradjuri; Wotjobaluk;
  Mukjarawaint.[927] Among the Gournditch-Mara game was divided
  amongst all present in camp.[928]

     [924] Of South Australia, Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 762.

     [925] _Ibid._

     [926] _Ibid._, p. 764.

     [927] _Ibid._

     [928] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 277 and _Nat. Tr._, p. 765.

  J. Dawson states that food brought by a hunter to the camp was
  distributed so that he and even his brother gets the worst part
  of it. "The best pieces of birds and quadrupeds and the finest
  eels" were given away. An anecdote is told in support of this
  statement which appears trustworthy.[929] It may be pointed out
  that this apparently refers only to food brought by men; and that
  this statement only says that the shares of the individual and his
  brother were neglected; but it does not make clear how the shares
  of the other relations (family, wife, parents) were regulated, if
  they were favoured or the reverse.

     [929] Dawson, p. 22.

  In the Chepara tribe, the men, women and children went out every
  morning to hunt and search for food. It was a man's duty to provide
  food. This food was divided equally amongst all those present by
  the old men. A man had special duties towards his wife's parents
  if they were sick and unable to hunt.[930] Here we see a communism
  which gives no preference to any relation, and apparently treats
  equally all the members of the local group.

     [930] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 768.

  Curious customs obtained among the Narrinyeri, when an emu was
  killed. It was first divided by an old man with some ceremonies,
  apart from the camp, and then carried to the camp and eaten by men,
  women and children alike.[931] This shows, by the way, that big
  game like emu, or kangaroo, must be rather an exceptional feast;
  and as all the communistic customs in this connection refer to
  bigger game, they do not affect, perhaps, so much the everyday food
  supply, which is due chiefly to females.

     [931] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 763.

  Among the Port Lincoln tribes "the custom of dividing their food
  amongst each other is so common that he who fails to observe this
  rule is branded as a sort of miser."[932]

     [932] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 192.

  Among the Yerkla-Mining tribe, all present in camp shared equally
  the animal killed. The slayer had to distribute it. Women and
  children had also their equal share.[933]

     [933] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 762.

  In his book about the New South Wales aborigines, the
  Rev. J. B. Gribble writes: "Food is distributed on the principle
  of community of goods."[934]

     [934] _Loc. cit._, p. 117.

  Amongst the Port Stephens blacks each family provided for its own
  subsistence, "except in a general kangaroo hunt, where the game
  is impounded and taken in large quantities, when it is fairly
  distributed."[935]

     [935] R. Dawson, p. 327.

  Game was divided according to customary rules among the
  Euahlayi.[936] We are informed also of some other interesting
  details in this tribe: stones, used to grind seed, are kept in
  family possession.[937] There seems also to be a kind of harvest,
  and the storing up of some kinds of food is known.[938]

     [936] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 117.

     [937] _Ibid._

     [938] _Ibid._, p. 118.

  A series of interesting regulations as to how game is distributed
  among several New South Wales tribes is given by
  Mr. R. H. Mathews.[939]

     [939] _J.R.S.N.S.W._ (1904), p. 258.

  We read in Spencer and Gillen[940] that a man shares his food with
  his father-in-law and other relatives. It is there explicitly
  stated that he shares it not only with his actual but also with
  his tribal relations; in another place, however, the same subject
  is treated as if the father-in-law in question were the actual
  one, not a group of them. So we read[941] that if the man or boy
  neglected his father-in-law the latter would take revenge at the
  initiation ceremony; and that the giving of food may be considered
  as a form of payment for his wife.[942]

     [940] _Nat. Tr._, p. 469.

     [941] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 610, 611.

     [942] Compare above, ch. ii.

  Among the Bunya people (Turrubul tribe, near Brisbane), the trees
  belonged to the people of the place. Visitors might be invited to
  the feast; but they "purchased bags of the seeds when they returned
  home."[943]

     [943] Petrie, Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, p. 768.

  Exact rules of division of game are followed among some Queensland
  blacks (North-West Central), "the best part going to the father's
  camp, the next to the father's brother."[944] The man himself goes
  often very short, being with his gin quite neglected.

     [944] Palmer, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 285.

  Among some of the West Australian tribes (Murchison District,
  Watchandee tribe) a very high degree of communism in food is
  reached among the men. If a man was unlucky at the chase he was
  sure to receive food in the evening at camp from all the other
  hunters. Was a man pre-eminently successful, he divided his booty
  with all his friends.[945] We find also another testimonial to the
  high liberality of the natives and their sense of communism, in
  a passage of the same writer,[946] where we are informed that a
  native supplied a party of white settlers with game for many days,
  being told that they were short of food.

     [945] Oldfield, p. 271.

     [946] _Ibid._, p. 226.

Let us apply these statements in the first place to the question of the
division of labour. We see that in all this evidence, the question is
merely one of communism in game. With the exception, perhaps, of the
summary statements of Mrs. Parker, J. B. Gribble and Wilhelmi, all the
others speak clearly of communism in game only. And, on the other hand,
we can conclude, as so many statements report the customary division of
any large hunting products, that game was practically always divided
more or less equally among those present in camp, the relatives of the
hunter receiving the major part, but he himself and his wife being
probably neglected.[947] The valuable statement of R. Dawson expresses
this directly: in other respects each family provided for its own
subsistence, but if big game were killed it became the property of the
whole group. We see that in all probability the results of the man's
labour--the big game--did not go to the exclusive use of his family.
This is stated emphatically by some authors, who say that the woman did
not get even her share of the results of the man's work (Moore, Curr,
Lumholtz, Oldfield). But some say, on the other hand, that both husband
and wife shared equally in providing food. From several statements
of the authors (Roth, Spencer and Gillen, Howitt) it must probably
be assumed that the husband also gave in his share to the common
household. But on summing up all the data here brought forward, it may
be considered positively certain that the woman's part is of vital
importance for the maintenance of the family, while the husband's share
is quite secondary.

     [947] This communism and liberality stand in close
     connection with the fact that the natives did not lay in
     provisions. They have to partake with their neighbours of
     any large booty, since otherwise it would perish.

To sum up, it may be said that the sexual division of labour consists
not only in different occupations being laid upon the man and the woman
by custom. This division of labour is much deeper rooted, viz. in
the fact that man's and woman's work is of quite different kind. The
woman's work is on the whole much heavier than that done by the man;
her work is much more regular; it is compulsory, and it forms the chief
support of the household. These features of the division of labour are
of great sociological importance.

1. It appears that the sexual division of labour is based only partly
on differences in the natural capacities of the sexes. Heavier work
ought naturally to be performed by men; here the contrary obtains.
Only so far as the hunting is allotted to men and collecting to women,
do natural gifts appear to be taken into account. But even here the
woman's work appears to be much more exacting, inasmuch as it requires
a steady strain, patience and regularity. Such work is the most
repulsive; it differs most essentially from sport, and it is carried on
only under strong compulsion. Compulsion is therefore, as we saw, the
chief basis of this division of labour, and it may be said that in the
Australian aboriginal society the economic fact of division of labour
is rooted in a sociological status--viz. the compulsion of the weaker
sex by the "brutal" half of society. This fact gains a deeper and more
general aspect if brought into connection with the "terrorism produced
upon women"[948] by the members of the tribal secret society, _i. e._
by all the initiated men.

     [948] Hutton Webster, _loc. cit._, pp. 99, 100 (ch. vi.).

2. From its compulsory character it follows that the distribution of
economic functions does not correspond to true co-operation, but that
the relation of a husband to his wife is, in its economic aspect, that
of a master to his slave.[949] And this throws also some light on the
value of a wife to a man. (Compare the statements of Mitchell, Br.
Smyth, Lumholtz.)

     [949] Compare Niboer, _loc. cit._, p. 23.

3. The woman's work appears as the chief basis of the economy of the
Australian household. Her work goes exclusively towards the benefit
of the individual family, and this latter economically is entirely
dependent upon woman's work. It is her work which, taking to itself the
most considerable share in the sexual division of labour, plays the
main part in giving to the individual family its economic unity.

There is still to be noted the statement of Roth, who reports the
existence of class taboos which establish what we would call a division
of consumption between the father, mother and children; each of these
three parties belonging to a different class. That this statement is
a result of careful and frequent and not merely casual observation,
further, that this division of consumption plays an important part
in the native family life, may be accepted as very probable. For the
author, who is undoubtedly among our best, most exact and conscientious
ethnographers, builds upon the rule in question a theory of the origin
of classes. The whole class system has been devised by a process of
natural selection, to regulate the proper distribution of the total
quantity of food available.[950] And although we cannot enter here
into the discussion whether this view be right or not, it may serve
us as a guarantee that Roth had ascertained the great importance of
the class taboo he describes and its prevalence over a wide area. For
otherwise he would not have based such an important theory about one of
the most crucial problems of ethnology on a single fact. Besides Roth's
statement there is further the information of Wilhelmi about division
of consumption within the family.

     [950] In a paper read before the Royal Society of
     Queensland, December 11, 1897, _Proc._, p. 10. Quoted by
     Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 137. Also in _Eth. Stud._,
     p. 69.

At all events, although the evidence upon the division of
consumption is rather scanty, the evidence about the division of
labour is plentiful, and this latter may be regarded as one of the
well-established features of Australian sociology.[951] The features
of communism show us also that individual property in land has little
economic meaning. If there is game, the privilege of hunting it is not
an important one, since all members of the friendly group will partake
of the results. To what was said regarding the unity of the family as
an exclusive land owner (above, pp. 150 _sqq._), there is, therefore,
nothing to be added.

     [951] Prof. Durkheim has pointed out (_D. Tr. S._, pp. 19
     _sqq._) that the division of social functions has a most
     important share in creating the unity of a given group,
     and amongst other things in creating the solidarity of
     marriage: "C'est la division du travail sexuel qui est la
     source de la solidarité conjugal" (_loc. cit._, p. 19).
     This view is fully appreciated in the present study where
     the sexual division of functions is represented as being
     of foremost importance in defining individual family and
     marriage in Australia. But Prof. Durkheim says that in
     low or primitive societies division of sexual labour and
     conjugal solidarity are both quite rudimentary: "plus
     nous remontons dans le passé, plus elle se réduit à peu
     de chose" (_loc. cit._, p. 20). The same applies to the
     persistence of marriage--"la solidarité conjugale y est
     même très faible" (_loc. cit._, p. 22). If Prof. Durkheim
     applies both his assertions to hypothetical prehistoric
     societies, then this is not the place to discuss his
     views. But if he has had before his mind actually existing
     primitive societies, then the evidence here collected, on
     both these points, might possibly compel him to discuss
     his views more in detail, as far as the Australian society
     is concerned. Prof. Durkheim lays the stress of his
     argument on the small sexual differentiation in respect to
     physiology and anatomy of primitive and prehistoric men
     and women. But sexual division of labour may have as well
     _social_ as _physiological_ sources, as shown above.

The custom of a communistic division of game points also to the
acknowledgment of family ties beyond the narrow circle of the
individual family.[952] For the duty of a man in distributing the game,
according to the majority of our statements (about eight in thirteen),
is governed in the first place by the degree of relationship in which
he stands to different people. And it is the individual, not the
group relationship that is to be taken into account here. In Howitt's
statements (which are the best) we see that the parents-in-law stand
always in the first place. This agrees with what we read in Spencer
and Gillen; and from both these statements we may conclude that these
duties are a sort of continuation or equivalent of the bride-price, of
which we find traces in Australia.

     [952] It will be remembered that individual family means
     throughout this book: husband, wife and their young
     children living with them.

Let us say a few words about inheritance. As inheritance implies
the existence of private property, we may look for it only where
there is private property in Australia. In the first place there is
"private landed property." We saw that "property" must be understood
in the cases of individuals much more in a mystic, magical sense than
otherwise.[953] Moreover, in the few cases where there is any mention
of individual property in land, we found very little information about
the principles according to which it is inherited. According to Roth,
whose statement on individual proprietorship is the clearest one,
we know that this individual right to land is not hereditary, but
determined for magical and mystical reasons. In the other cases we are
not informed at all how the individual or family comes into possession,
or are informed in such an inexact way[954] that we cannot attach much
value to the information. From our best sources (Spencer and Gillen and
Roth) we know that the ties binding an individual to a given locality
are of mystical, magico-religious character, and were determined not by
heredity, but by a special principle connected with their beliefs, and
we may suppose that this was the rule, especially as individual land
ownership seems to be on the whole more of a magico-religious than of a
purely economic order. As to the inheritance of other property, there
is little to say about it, unimportant as it was itself.[955] According
to some writers, it passes from father to son (_e. g._ Fraser).
Elsewhere we read that it is inherited by certain groups of men from
their common relations.[956] On the whole, inheritance does not seem to
form any important binding element between parents and children, either
in the male or in the female line.[957]

     [953] Compare above, pp. 150, 153.

     [954] Compare Eyre's and Grey's statements, where heredity
     appears to be in the male line. Also Salvado, p. 265.

     [955] Compare Wheeler, _loc. cit._, p. 36.

     [956] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 615-617.

     [957] Compare also the statements collected by Wheeler on
     this point, _loc. cit._, pp. 36 _sqq._




CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The aim of the foregoing pages was to give a correct description of the
Australian individual family.[958] The chief practical difficulties lay
in the methodological treatment of the evidence; in other words, in
making the fullest possible use of the material, without inadvertently
introducing conjectural elements. We established the necessity of our
task by pointing out the following facts: (1) The contradictions,
incompleteness and lack of precision in the descriptions of the
individual family, given by field ethnographers, who sometimes even
go so far as to deny the existence of this institution, such denials
being based not upon observation, but upon speculative inference. (2)
The discussion of the problem in question or of parts of it (marriage,
relationship, descent, etc.), as usually found in ethnographical and
sociological works, relates chiefly to the earlier stages of this
institution, and as a rule leaves out of sight a series of important
points, concerning its actual working, to draw attention to which was
in part the aim of the present investigations. Now, considering that
ethnological material, especially that from the Australian continent,
plays a very important rôle in all general speculations on the history
of marriage and the family--Australia being the best-known and the most
extensive country inhabited by a very primitive race--it seemed that a
careful examination of the facts of family life in Australia would be
useful. (3) In the third place it appeared that a minute investigation
in this direction might be interesting as an example of a correct
sociological definition of the individual family in a given society. To
give it, there had to be made a careful collection and classification
of material in order to show which facts play an important part in the
structure and functions of this institution.

     [958] _See_ p. 290, note 1.

An over-hasty comparative survey of social phenomena, especially if
the writer is disposed to see everywhere analogies or even identities
without due criticism, too often exaggerates irrelevant features and
under-rates the most essential ones in a given area. To obtain an
adequate picture of any social institution, even if so well marked by
many physiological facts as is the individual family, it is necessary
to set forth those of its features which are characteristic in a given
society. Further, it appeared necessary to point out some facts, which
show that the institution of the individual family is deeply connected
with a whole series of customs, beliefs and fundamental phenomena of
Australian society; and that it thus appears deeply rooted in its
social conditions. In other words, that the individual family is the
object of a set of well-determined, categorical, collective ideas. This
modest task of a correct and detailed description, made on the basis of
sufficient ethnographical material, was the chief aim of the present
study.

A few words may be said in the first place about the practical
difficulties met with in dealing with the evidence, as foreseen and
discussed in the chapter on methodology. The views there set out were,
briefly, that it is impossible to use the statements in their crude
form, and that consequently they must be submitted to criticism;
and that it is necessary also to use caution and method in drawing
inferences from the evidence. The results seem to confirm these views.
So, for example, we often met with a great deal of inaccuracy--_e.
g._ in expressions like tribe, tribal, community, group, family--and
we had always to be cautious and to ascertain carefully their meaning
when dealing with the aboriginal mode of living. Sometimes we were able
to ascertain this real meaning; sometimes the statement was quite or
nearly useless owing to complete confusion. Furthermore, all qualifying
expressions referring to the treatment and behaviour of husband and
wife, expressions referring to sexual morality, etc., were in the
highest degree inexact. Throughout the whole study there was constant
necessity for dealing critically with the text of the evidence.

In the second place we had always to analyze the information and to ask
a series of definite questions of it. So, for example, in the sexual
side of family life we divided our problem into three main questions,
and these again into sub-headings. Again the relations between husband
and wife were viewed from the legal point (authority of husband), from
the psychological point (affection), and in their functional aspect
(behaviour and treatment). The relations between parents and children
were divided into several headings (affection, treatment, education,
etc.), and so forth. On some of such particular points it has been
possible to obtain quite definite answers. Where there was a hopeless
contradiction, it was carefully pointed out. In the same manner a
reliable but apparently singular statement was carefully noted, even
if it differed from all the rest of the information. In general the
chief methodic rule in utilizing the evidence was to arrange the whole
argument and inferences in the clearest possible manner. To this end
the number of the statements for and against any opinion was always
given; the compatibility of a given inference with the well-established
facts of Australian sociology was investigated; and the _experimentum
crucis_, so much recommended by Steinmetz, was applied wherever
possible. Attention also has been paid to the geographical point of
view. Wherever it has been possible to ascertain local differences in
customs, beliefs or institutions, or to show that such differences are
localized in more extensive areas, care was taken to point it out. It
is obviously an error to take "the Australian Aborigines" as an ethnic
unit. Nevertheless many general, fundamental features of family life
are undoubtedly common to all the tribes.

The individual family involves both the individual relations between
husband and wife, and between parents and children.[959] These
two relationships are obviously so intimately connected that the
individuality of one of them has as its consequence the individuality
of the other; each characteristic feature of one of them stands in a
functional relation to some characteristic feature of the other. Both
these relationships were studied and their mutual dependence in several
respects was indicated.

     [959] In the more restricted sense used throughout this
     book. Extended family, _Grossfamilie_, involves more remote
     relationship.

A series of facts was adduced in order to prove that the individual
relationship between husband and wife is unquestionably affirmed in the
collective ideas of the natives. These facts, chiefly connected with
the modes of obtaining wives (also with burial and mourning), implied
even more detailed ideas: the affirmation that the husband has a series
of individual rights and duties in regard to his wife; in other words
that there is a mutual personal appropriation of husband and wife.

From some of the details as to the modes of obtaining wives the idea
of individual appropriation can be clearly gathered. The family
disposes of the female and benefits thereby; the disposal is effected
in infancy, so it appears that the majority of females are always
allotted. The individual appropriation is, so to say, a permanent
status, extending not only to the married women, but to all females
in the tribe. Only a man deeply in love, or impelled by some other
desperate reason, attempts to elope with a female or to capture one.
This always constitutes a crime, and is either punished or atoned for.
Nevertheless, elopement occurs pretty often and has its fixed forms
of legalization. This state of things obviously expresses the idea of
individual appropriation in the strongest and most certain manner.
Individual appropriation is further expressed in a whole system of ties
binding the families of the two contracting parties, and especially
binding the man to his (future or actual) parents-in-law. In this
latter case the ties consist in the first place of obligations, chiefly
gifts and the duty of supplying game. These obligations and the
widespread custom of exchange of females appear to be a rudimentary
form of marriage by purchase. Hence, again, a confirmation that
individual marital rights are well known and acknowledged. Marriage
by purchase implies a fair knowledge of individual appropriation,
and shows that it is highly valued in a given society. In Australia
the "bride money" is paid by an individual, not by a group. We find
evidence of a number of betrothal and marriage ceremonies which carry
in themselves binding powers. Such ceremonies mean that the underlying
ideas are deeply rooted in the society where the ceremonies are
found. In this case, the underlying ideas are that man and wife are
firmly bound to each other by the ceremony. All these facts appear
very important. Not only do they indicate that the ideas of the
legality or illegality of the marriage contract--those of personal
individual appropriation and of a high value attaching to marriage
rights--exist in Australia. But it is difficult to reconcile with them
the view that individual marriage is in Australia something new, a
kind of innovation; that it is considered by the natives as something
immoral, illicit, an encroachment of the individual on the rights of
the group; and as something unimportant, secondary, merely temporary.
On the contrary, as we find it existing, it bears the character of a
deeply-rooted institution. All these conclusions have also been drawn
independently from the general character and several details of the
mourning customs. So that the discussion of these customs afforded
another proof that marriage ties are considered very strong, and that
the institution of marriage is the object of definite collective ideas,
consequently is firmly established in the social organization. It has a
social sanction and appears fairly permanent.

These facts suffice formally to define the individual marriage and
individual rights of the husband to his wife. To give full context
to this definition, and to characterize it more in detail, we must,
on the one hand, investigate the general character of the behaviour
of the consorts towards each other, and the feelings to which this
behaviour points. On the other hand, an attempt must be made to
determine the collective ideas expressing this relationship in its
legal aspect. There have been, however, considerable difficulties in
determining the emotional side of the relation between husband and
wife. The results were rather negative; it appeared that we cannot
accept either the extreme view of absolute bad treatment and want of
affection, or the contrary opinion that the relations are of idyllic
character. In general--allowing for a natural variety of feelings--the
preponderance of feelings of attachment appears to be the rule. Much
clearer are the results reached concerning the husband's actual rights
over his wife. His authority is limited in some extreme cases only;
and it is difficult to say who would interfere with it and what would
be the legal form of such an interference. It may be said, therefore,
that the treatment of females in Australia is determined much more by
personal feelings than by legal norms, and that the latter only afford
protection to the woman in cases of extreme illtreatment. In accordance
with what has just been said as to personal feelings, it appears also
that the treatment of women was not so exceedingly rough as is usually
assumed.

The sexual rights of the husband must rather be understood in the sense
that the husband is a proprietor of his wife, who may and occasionally
must dispose of her; not in the sense of an inviolable exclusiveness
of sexual access. The idea of chastity is absent. And consequently
jealousy is not in existence in the sense in which we use that word in
our society. But it exists in the form of ideas and feelings affirming
the husband's definite right of control over his wife. And the natives
highly disapprove of any transgression without the husband's consent
and the sanction of custom. All sexual licence is regulated and subject
to strict rules. Consequently the ideas on what is right or wrong in
sexual matters are fairly well defined. In other words, there is a
more or less defined code of sexual morality, which has also its legal
aspect, as crimes against it are punished by society in a regulated
manner.

In reference to the problems of individual marriage and the individual
family, it may be said, however, that the individualistic character
of these institutions is not accentuated in the first place by the
exclusiveness of sexual rights. In connection with sexual problems an
excursus on the Pirrauru customs was made, in order to prove that the
relationship involved does not possess the character of marriage. For
it completely differs from marriage in nearly all the essential points
by which marriage in Australia is defined. And above all the Pirrauru
relation does not seem to involve the facts of family life in its true
sense.

In order to investigate the latter in detail on a broader basis, that
is including both the relations between parents and children and
between husband and wife, we entered into a discussion of the relation
of the family unit to the territorial distribution of the natives. It
was found that the mode of living points to a very complete isolation
of each family; some of the tribes live scattered in very small
groups--one to three families on an average. Other tribes live in much
larger groups, but these are by no means promiscuous and undivided
hordes. There are camp rules, which point to the isolation of the
family within the local group; and customary rules for the arrangement
of individuals within the family, round camp fires and at meals, etc.
These rules and the isolation of families are reported especially from
the South-Eastern tribes, where we may perhaps assume that the local
groups are more numerous. So that over the whole continent the lowest
unit of the tribal structure appears to be the individual family.

After a long digression on the concept of family kinship,[960] the
facts illustrating the relation between children and parents were
surveyed. It was found that the characteristic features of this
relationship are parental love and attachment of both father and mother
to their children. The close tie between mother and child is set up
by the fact of the first cares, suckling and carrying the child.
The father is, as a rule, also extremely fond of his children; his
relation to them is by no means characterized by any legal authority
or tyrannical power, but by his affection. The father as well as the
mother treat children of both sexes with extreme leniency, and give
them some rudiments of education. Attention was drawn to the fact
that the common attachment and extreme fondness of both parents for
their children must constitute a strong bond of union between husband
and wife. The family unit is nevertheless restricted to parents and
children under the age of puberty. For although the ties between
parents and children last throughout life, still after reaching
puberty the children enter into new relationships, which superimpose
themselves on the former ones. These new bonds result for the girl from
marriage, for the boy from his entering into the tribal secret society
(initiation and life in the bachelors' camp).

     [960] As this chapter is of a more theoretical character,
     it is omitted in this summary, where, on the whole, only
     actual facts and results are dealt with. The reader is
     referred to the conclusions and summaries of the said
     chapter (pp. 198 and 232).

The discussion of the economic facts shows that the sexual division of
labour is considerably developed; that the man's and the woman's share
in the maintenance of the household is quite well defined and diverse.
Further we find that the woman's work is of first-rate importance for
the economic unity and subsistence of the household.

The careful survey of the facts has led to some conclusions which
may be pointed out. Thus, for example, we have been driven to the
conclusion that, in considering marriage, the importance of the sexual
facts ought not to be exaggerated. In the majority of tribes sexual
facts do not seem to play any part in the formation of bonds of
kinship. Ideas of consanguinity are absent in these tribes,[961] and
herewith the sexual relations between husband and wife lose their chief
influence upon the unity of the family. On the other hand, the sexual
rights of the husband, although very well determined, are so often
crossed by other customs that _exclusive_ access to a woman must not be
made a part of the sociological definition of marriage. The importance
of the economic features of family life, and of the common affection
for children, is much more in the foreground.

     [961] Compare above, Chap. VI., esp. pp. 182, 209 _sqq._
     and 226.

Stress has been laid throughout the investigation on the importance
of bearing in mind the connection of our special problem with the
general structure of society. As said above, each conclusion has been
submitted to a kind of test as to whether it stands in agreement or
in contradiction with well-established general facts. The main points
in which the dependence of the individual family upon social facts
has been traced were the connection of the individual family with the
territorial and tribal structure, the mode in which land ownership
in some cases distinguishes the family as a unit, the influence of
economic communism upon the economics of the individual family,
etc. But the manner in which society most directly influences any
institution lies in the various norms, moral, customary or legal, by
which society regulates different aspects of the given institution.
The importance of such social rules is emphatically affirmed by Prof.
Durkheim: "Une communauté de fait entre des consanguins qui se sont
arrangés pour vivre ensemble, mais sans qu'aucun d'eux soit tenu à
des obligations déterminées envers les autres et d'où chacun peut se
retirer à volonté, ne constitue pas une famille.... Pour qu'il y ait
famille, il n'est pas nécessaire qu'il y ait cohabitation et il n'est
pas suffisant qu'il y ait consanguinité. Mais il faut de plus ...
qu'il y ait des droits et des devoirs, sanctionnés par la société, et
qui unissent les members dont la famille est composée.... La famille
n'existe qu'autant qu'elle est une institution sociale, à la fois
juridique et morale, placée sous la sauvegarde de la collectivité
ambiante."[962] Although this opinion is certainly exaggerated,[963] it
quite rightly lays stress on the importance of the social regulation of
the individual family.[964]

     [962] _A.S._, i. pp. 329, 330.

     [963] Because "_cohabitation_," community of life, is one
     of the _essential_ constituents of the family. Besides,
     there cannot exist a "communauté de fait"; a social group
     cannot exist without the sanction of the surrounding
     society, and this creates obligations between the members
     of the group.

     [964] We obviously cannot agree with Prof. Durkheim when
     he says further (_loc. cit._, p. 331), speaking of the
     Australian family: "Ce sont des associations de fait,
     non de droit. Elles dépendent du gré des particuliers,
     se forment comme elles veulent, sans être tenues de
     s'astreindre à aucune norme préalable." The Australian
     family is not a casual but a legal association, for it does
     not depend upon the whim of individuals; neither is it
     formed when and how they choose. There are norms governing
     its formation, duties and obligations while it lasts, and
     even afterwards when it has been dissolved by a natural
     cause, such as the death of the husband. All these norms,
     duties and obligations are legal (compare the definition
     of legal, p. 11), for non-compliance with them leads to
     the interference of society; and they directly show that
     society approves of this institution. The reasoning of
     Prof. Durkheim--who enumerates four domestic rights and
     obligations (vendette, law of inheritance, name and cult),
     and says that those four functions are attached to the
     _clan_--is open to very serious objections. In the first
     place it is dubious whether those four duties constitute
     the main body of primitive domestic law. The economic
     functions, the duties and rules of cohabitation, the
     various duties towards children, the mourning duties of
     religious character--all these legal functions, which are
     domestic rights and obligations even in our society, were
     shown to exist in Australia. They belong to the family
     and not to the clan. On the other hand, when revenge is
     to be taken on members of another local group, then it
     is the local group offended which carries it out. The
     cases of intergroup justice are very few, for evil
     magic is always looked for at a distance, and we have
     hardly any information about justice within the local
     group. (For all particulars compare Wheeler, chap. viii.
     pp. 116 _sqq._) It is not the clan, but the local group
     about which we know most in this respect. Inheritance,
     owing to the unimportance of private property (compare
     Wheeler, p. 36) plays a very subordinate rôle. From the six
     instances collected by Wheeler (pp. 37, 38), three point
     to inheritance according to class, three to inheritance
     according to family. Land was not a clan property, as we
     saw. There remains of Prof. Durkheim's legal customs the
     name and the cult. Cult may be obviously as well a public
     as a domestic institution; the name is not enough to show
     that the clan was the only legal form of family.

The importance of such norms, and especially of the legal ones,
clearly appeared in the foregoing investigation. In order adequately
to discuss this matter, the exact sense in which the concepts of _law_
and _legal_ may be used was defined, and the legal organization in
Australia was sketched. Furthermore, in all the questions discussed
we have tried to ascertain whether there are any norms sanctioned by
society, and what form this social enforcement assumes in any given
case. And here it appears that nearly all sides of family life, far
from being left to follow their own course, are more or less subject to
definite norms of moral, customary or legal character. It was possible
to establish beyond doubt the legal aspect of marriage by analyzing the
modes of contracting marriage, and the duties of the widow, as shown
in the mourning ceremonies. The relation between husband and wife,
although characterized by a very extensive authority of the former, has
nevertheless its legal basis. For the husband's authority is limited to
a certain extent by exterior factors (tribal government, woman's kin)
and must conform to certain norms (he has the right to punish her for
certain crimes in a definite way); and he acquires his authority in a
legal way (by a legal marriage contract). Sexual matters in general,
and the sexual rights of the husband are well defined and regulated.
Customary (or legal) rules govern the mode of living of a family, the
distribution of food within the family, the sexual division of labour.
The relation between parents and children, and especially the paternal
authority, hardly presented any legal aspect. But on the whole it
appears perfectly legitimate and necessary to define the individual
family in Australia as a legal one, inasmuch as very many aspects
of this institution are subject to legal norms. And, it would be
completely erroneous to call, with Prof. Durkheim, these units "agrégat
de fait, sans liens de droit, désapprouvé même le plus souvent par la
loi et par l'opinion."[965]

     [965] _A.S._, i. p. 330.

There is yet another point in Australian sociology most intimately
connected with the individual family. I mean the other forms of
kinship organization: the exogamy class, the totemic clan, possibly
also the other divisions reported by Mr. R. H. Mathews and Mrs. Parker
("blood" and "shed" divisions, etc.). And on this point the present
study is obviously incomplete, as it neither clearly fixes the line of
demarcation between the individual and the group kinship, nor solves
any of the difficulties and contradictions indicated at the outset. A
few words must be said here in order to avoid misunderstandings. If in
any society there exist two institutions of very close resemblance, as
in Australia, the individual family creating individual relationship
and the various kinship organizations creating group relationship, the
only way to understand their working is by describing minutely the
social functions of each of them. This has been done for the individual
family in the foregoing pages; it remains to be done for the kinship
groups.[966]

     [966] The writer hopes to return to this subject on another
     occasion. The material for the description of _social
     functions_ of the exogamous class and totemic clan is
     comparatively scanty, although so much has been written on
     this subject.

Social institutions should in the first place be defined by their
social functions; if the functions--religious, magical, legal,
economic, etc.--of the totemic class, the exogamous class, and other
divisions be known and compared with the functions of the individual
family, each of these institutions will appear as occupying a definite
place in the social organization, and playing a determinate part in the
life of the community. And such a knowledge would afford a firm basis
for further speculations.

In the foregoing investigations we have omitted this side of the
problem partly in order to avoid increasing the bulk of the monograph,
but above all, that we might develop more clearly the features of the
institution described.

The individual family was shown to be a unit playing an important
part in the social life of the natives and well defined by a number
of moral, customary and legal norms; it is further determined by
the sexual division of labour, the aboriginal mode of living, and
especially by the intimate relation between the parents and children.
The individual relation between husband and wife (marriage) is rooted
in the unity of the family. Moreover, it is expressed by a series of
facts connected with the modes in which marriage is brought about and
in the well-defined, although not always exclusive, sexual right the
husband acquires over his wife.




ADDENDA


  Several points omitted in the body of this book, as well as a few
  works and passages of special importance, which I noted whilst
  reading the proofs, may be mentioned shortly in this place. I
  read the book of Mr. Crawley (_Mystic Rose_) unfortunately after
  the foregoing pages were in type; my study would have been more
  complete had I known it before. Mr. Crawley analyzes the psychology
  underlying human relations (those of sex in particular) from their
  religious side. Primitive man is full of apprehension of the mutual
  danger inherent in social and especially in sexual contact. Hence
  the different systems of _taboo_; the sexual taboo being one of the
  most important. To establish harmless relations between people of
  different sexes requires a system of _breaking the taboo_.

  The ceremonies and rites of marriage are treated in the _Mystic
  Rose_ from this point of view (removal of taboo). In my opinion
  this book is of great sociological importance chiefly because
  it shows that the sexual act must be treated in its bearing
  upon social forms, not as a simple physiological fact, but as a
  phenomenon complex both in its sociological and psychological
  aspects. For "savages" in particular it is surrounded by a network
  of magico-religious ideas, apprehensions and emotions, resulting
  in a system of rites, customs and institutions, which never can be
  comprehended without reference to the underlying psychology. It
  follows as an important consequence that everything connected with
  matters of sex is an object of well-defined rules and laws (compare
  the passage above, p. 123, where the same has been pointed out with
  reference to the Australians).

  Another important result of Mr. Crawley's work is the establishment
  of the principle that marriage rites, being the breaking of a
  dangerous taboo, are an essential part of marriage, and therefore
  their study is essential for the understanding of this institution.
  The rites, being exclusively intended to break the taboo between
  two individuals and not between two groups, lead to individual
  marriage and family, and not to "group marriage" and "group family."

  Mr. Crawley's book is full of valuable remarks, some of which
  must be quoted in the following paragraphs. I complete also the
  information on several points by the addition of statements from
  Mr. Roth's _North Queensland Ethnography_ (_Bull._ 9 _sqq._), which
  I have only recently been able to peruse.

  Pp. 27-29. _Methodic presentation of evidence._ As in summing
  up the evidence the number of statements supporting one view
  or another has been adduced sometimes by way of illustration,
  it is necessary to say explicitly what is considered to be a
  _unit of information_ (or an _individual statement_). I consider
  as independent statements: (1) Observations of different
  ethnographers. (2) Observations of the same author made on
  different tribes, provided that the author has pointed out the
  differences and that they are substantial enough. It seems hardly
  necessary to emphasize that the numeric treatment of statements has
  no pretentions to be a "statistic method of presenting evidence."
  It is meant only as a convenient and clear way of summarizing
  evidence.

  P. 35 and Chap. VII. _passim_. _Mystic._ By this word I understand
  belonging to the category of magico-religious ideas.

  P. 42. _The marriage ceremonies of the Central and Northern tribes,
  religious and magical._ Compare Crawley (_M.R._, p. 347).

  P. 48. _Betrothal_ is prevalent all over the tribes of North
  Queensland (Roth, _Bull._ 10, pp. 3-7, §§ 6-14). Among the tribes
  of Pennefather River (§ 6) it is effected during the infancy of
  the female and it is invariably adhered to. In the hinterland of
  Princess Charlotte Bay the bridegroom has to visit his fiancée
  before marriage for several weeks (§ 7). Infant betrothal is rare
  among the natives of Cape Bedford (§ 8). On the Bloomfield River
  female children are betrothed at birth (§ 10). Infant betrothal
  obtains also among the Cape Grafton and Tully River natives (§§ 11,
  12). A betrothal ceremony (recalling that of the Euahlayi tribe,
  see above, p. 40) held when a girl is about three years old is
  described with reference to the Torilla and Pine Mountain Blacks (§
  13). There are an elaborate ceremonial, taboos and duties connected
  with betrothal in all these tribes. In the North-West tribes
  betrothal is generally known (§ 14).

  Pp. 50-52. _Marriage gifts._ In the Pennefather River tribes a man
  is bound to supply his fiancée's parents with gifts (food, arms,
  etc.) (_Bull._ 10, § 6). Presents form an important feature of
  the marriage contract among the natives of Princess Charlotte Bay
  (_ibid._, § 7). The same is reported about the tribes of Normanby
  River (§ 9), Bloomfield River (§ 10), Torilla and Pine Mountain (§
  12).

  P. 52. _Publicity of marriage and betrothal_ is mentioned by Roth
  among the natives of Pennefather River (_Bull._ 10, § 6) and
  Bloomfield River (§ 10). There is a public ceremonial sign for
  marriage ("building of a hut and lighting of a fire" by the girl)
  common to all tribes (§ 5).

  P. 52. _Marriage ceremonies more prevalent than appears from
  evidence._ To corroborate my supposition that marriage ceremonies
  are much more frequent in Australia than stated by the authorities
  I may quote Mr. Crawley's view. He says that "as to those (peoples)
  who are said to possess no marriage ceremony, it will generally be
  found that there is some act performed which is too slight or too
  practical to be marked by an observer as a 'ceremony,' but which
  when analyzed turns out to be a real marriage rite." And as an
  example the author quotes two forms of marriage ceremony among the
  tribes of Central Australia (_Mystic Rose_, p. 318).

  Pp. 52, 53. _Marriage ceremonies_ are reported by Roth with
  reference to all tribes of Northern Queensland (_Bull._ 10,
  "Marriage Ceremonies," etc., especially §§ 1-19). In § 5 a
  public ceremonial sign of marriage common to all these tribes is
  described; in §§ 9, 13 and 15, such ceremonies in different tribes
  are given with details. Ceremonial sexual intercourse with other
  men before marriage is mentioned in § 20.

  Pp. 56-58. _Legal aspect of marriage._ The different social
  conditions enumerated by Roth (_Bull._ 10, §§ 1, 2 and 3) are a
  valuable addition to our knowledge of the legal aspect of marriage.
  "Essentials of marriage before it can be publicly recognized"
  are: membership in suitable exogamous groups, absence of intimate
  consanguinity and a suitable social status. If these conditions
  are not fulfilled the community either violently break the match,
  or by ridicule, plots, etc., will take an action "usually quite
  sufficient to cause a separation" (§1, p. 2).

  P. 61. _Ideas embodied in marriage ceremonies._ In the survey of
  various marriage ceremonies Mr. Crawley first enumerates those in
  which the aspect of _breaking the taboo_, of securing immunity from
  danger, dominates (_M.R._, pp. 322-370); then come those in which
  the magical and religious elements "actually and materially uniting
  the man and woman" are prominent (_loc. cit._, pp. 370-390). This
  aspect corresponds to what I have expressed above emphasizing that
  marriage is a "sacrament" (p. 61). Very important is the analogy
  between marriage rites and love charms which Mr. Crawley points
  out; the same has been said above (p. 41), where it was pointed out
  that the Arunta love charm has its legal (=binding) aspect. Mr.
  Crawley lays emphasis on the fact that all marriage ceremonies and
  rites possess an _individualistic_ character (_loc. cit._, pp. 320
  _sqq._). They refer always to individuals and not to groups, and
  all their magical, religious (I would add _legal_) consequences
  refer to the two individuals concerned and not to two groups.

  P. 63. _Polygyny._ Although this fact had no special theoretical
  bearing in any of my arguments, still it seems advisable to
  state it here explicitly and with references for the sake of
  completeness. Polygyny seems to be restricted to the old and
  influential men, and to be rather an exception, although it seems
  to be found in all tribes. _Cf._ Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 106, 107, 110
  _sqq._; Br. Smyth, ii. p. 291; Howitt, _T.R.S.V._, p. 115; Woods,
  p. 191 (Meyer), and p. 222 (Schürmann); Angas, ii. p. 222; Curr,
  _Recollections_, p. 129; Wilson, p. 143; Macgillivray, i. p. 151.
  _Idem_, ii. p. 8; Hodgkinson, p. 230; Bennett, p. 173; Henderson,
  p. 110; Roth, _Bull._ 10, p. 12; Tom Petrie, p. 61; Brown, p. 450;
  Salvado, p. 278. Compare besides Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 440, and
  the references given there.

  Pp. 63, 64. _Levirate._ _Cf._ Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 510, for
  Australian references and for the exposition and criticism of
  different theories concerning this custom.

  Pp. 64-66. _Divorce_ is mentioned by Roth (_Bull._ 10, pp. 11, 12).
  Usually the man repudiates or gives away his wife.

  Pp. 82-84. _Marital affection._ Mutual attachment and love between
  man and wife is stated explicitly by Roth (_Bull._ 10, § 17).
  It plays an important part in marriage arrangements (marriage
  by elopement). That love must be prevalent among the Australian
  savages is shown also by the different love charms they possess.
  (Compare, for instance, above, p. 41, footnote 9).--Compare
  Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 359, where Australian references are
  given, and Chap. XVI. pp. 356 _sqq._, where the problem in general
  is discussed.

  Pp. 84-88. _Mourning and burial._ In Roth, _Bull._ 9, pp. 366,
  367, we read that only after the elaborate mourning and burial
  ceremonies have been finished and the dead man's spirit appeased
  and got rid of, is the widow allowed to remarry. On pp. 394, 396
  and 402, we read that the widow and widower have the greatest
  share in these ceremonies. P. 381 recounts the severe ordeals
  that a widow and widower have to undergo. Unfortunately it it
  impossible to enter here into the many details given by Roth which
  strongly confirm the views expressed above, in Chap. III. From the
  description of mourning and burial customs among some tribes of New
  South Wales, given by Mr. R. H. Mathews, it appears that the widow
  has long and toilsome mourning duties; she is specially adorned,
  she may not go out hunting, and has to chant customary lamentation
  for several months (_Eth. Notes_, pp. 71, 72).

  P. 93, footnote 4 and p. 107. _Incest._ Roth affirms that incest
  is absolutely never perpetrated in the North Queensland tribes
  (_Bull._ 10, pp. 2, 3).

  Pp. 108-123. _Pirrauru not a group marriage._ Mr. A. Lang gives an
  excellent criticism of the view that _Pirrauru_ is a survival of
  ancient promiscuity. Still less tenable, of course, is the view
  that it is actual group marriage. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_,
  Chap. III.--A similar view has been expounded by Mr. Crawley, _loc.
  cit._, pp. 475-483.

  Pp. 168 _sqq._ _Necessity of adapting sociological concepts to the
  social and psychological conditions of the given society._ "It is
  only in early modes of thought that we can find the explanation
  of ceremonies and systems which originated in primitive society;
  and, if ceremony and system are the concrete forms in which
  human relations are expressed, an examination, ethnological and
  psychological, of human relations is indispensable for inquiry
  into human institutions." And, speaking of some previous inquiries
  into human kinship, the same author adds: "They have interpreted
  primitive custom by ideas which are far from primitive, which, in
  fact, are relatively late and belong to the legal stage of human
  culture. The attribution of legal conceptions to primitive thought
  has had the usual effect of _a priori_ theory, and has checked
  inquiry" (Crawley, _loc. cit._, p. 1). The second phrase covers in
  particular the views expounded above, pp. 185 _sqq._

  P. 170. _Social factors of kinship._ "Habitual proximity and
  contact is the strongest and most ordinary tie, and is earlier in
  thought than the tie of blood" (Crawley, _loc. cit._, p. 452).

  P. 175. _Collective mind._ This expression does not postulate the
  existence of any metaphysical entity--any mysterious spiritual
  medium, independent of any human brains. Of course every
  psychological process takes place in an individual mind. This term
  is an abbreviation for denoting the _ensemble_ of "collective
  ideas" and "collective feelings." And by these are expressed
  such mental facts as are peculiar to a certain society, and at
  the same time embodied in and expressed by its institutions. For
  sociological purposes psychological facts must be treated from a
  special point of view, and, to emphasize _that_, the adjective
  "collective" seems appropriate. Compare p. 192, footnote 1.

  Pp. 179-182. _Absence of social consanguinity in primitive
  societies._ "The strong conception of the tie of blood, best seen
  in feudal and semi-civilized societies, is by no means so strong in
  primitive culture" (Crawley, _loc. cit._, p. 451).

  P. 183. _The meaning of "kinship" ought not to be restricted to any
  special set of ideas._ "'Kinship' in primitive thought is a vaguer
  term than in later culture ... because the tie of blood had not
  attained prominence over looser ties of contact" (Crawley, _loc.
  cit._, p. 451).

  Pp. 183, 184. _Couvade._ An extensive bibliography on this subject
  is forthcoming in _Zeitschr. f. Ethnol._ Band 43. Heft iii. and
  iv., pp. 560-63. Berlin, 1911.

  Pp. 260-262. _Young females monopolized by old men._ Besides the
  statements set forth in the text, I find three more collected by
  Prof. Webster referring to the Queenslanders (Lumholtz), to the
  West Australians (Frogatt), and to the Australians in general
  (J. Matthew) (_loc. cit._, pp. 70, 71). Among the tribes of Northern
  Queensland infant betrothal widely prevails; "the old men usually
  getting the pick" (Roth, _Bull._ 10, pp. 3-7).

  Pp. 262 _sqq._ The _bachelors' camp_ is mentioned by Roth (_Bull._
  10, p. 4).

  Pp. 272, 273. _Relations between brothers and sisters._ Mr. Crawley
  has shown that avoidance between brother and sister, rooted in
  apprehensions of mutual danger is the rule among savages. This is
  corroborated by the scanty Australian evidence we possess. (See
  _M.R._, _passim_; for references see Index under "Brother and
  Sister").

  Pp. 283-286. _Communism in food._ An interesting statement of an
  old explorer concerning the aboriginal communism in food may be
  adduced here. It refers to the North-Western blacks. "Be it little
  or much that they get, every one has his part, as well the young
  and tender as the old and feeble, who are not able to go abroad, as
  the strong and lusty" (Dampier, _loc. cit._, p. 103).




BIBLIOGRAPHY


I. _List of Books used as Ethnographical Sources, referring to the
Australian Aborigines._

  ANGAS, G. F.: _Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand_.
     2 vols. London, 1847.


  BARRINGTON, G.: _The History of New South Wales, including Botany
     Bay, Port Jackson, Parramatta, Sidney and all its Dependencies_.
     London, 1802.

  BASEDOW, HERBERT: "Anthropological Notes on the Western Coastal
     Tribes of the Northern Territory of South Australia"; in
     _Transactions of the R. Soc. of S. Australia_, vol. xxxi.
     Adelaide, 1907.

  BATES, MRS. D. M.: Article in _Victorian Geographical Journal_,
     vols. xxiii-xxiv. 1905-1906.

  BENNETT, G.: _Wanderings in New South Wales_, etc. 2 vols. London,
     1834.

  BEVERIDGE, P.: _The Aborigines of Victoria and Riverina_. 1 vol.
     Melbourne, 1889.

  BONNEY, F.: "On some Customs of the Aborigines of the River Darling";
     in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xiii. London, 1884.

  BROWNE, J.: "Die Eingeborenen Australiens"; in _Petermann's
     Mittheilungen_. Gotha, 1856.


  CAMERON, A. L. P.: "Notes on Some Tribes of New South Wales"; in
     _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xiv. London, 1885.

  CAMPBELL, MAJOR: "Geographical Memoir of Melville Island and Port
     Essington, Northern Australia"; in _Journ. of the R. Geog. Soc._,
     vol. iv. London, 1834.

  CHAUNCY: Article in R. B. Smyth's _The Aborigines of Victoria_,
     vol. ii. London, 1878.

  COLLINS, D.: _An Account of the English Colony in New South
     Wales_, 2 vols. London, 1798-1802.

  CRAWLEY, ERNEST: _The Mystic Rose_. London, 1902.

  CURR, E. M.: _Recollections of Squatting in Victoria_. 1 vol.
     Melbourne, 1883.

  ---- _The Australian Race_. 4 vols. Melbourne and London, 1886.


  DAMPIER, W.: in "Early voyages to ... Australia," by R. H. Major,
     _Hakluyt Society_. London, 1859.

  DAWSON, J.: _Australian Aborigines_. 1 vol. Melbourne, 1881.

  DAWSON, ROB.: _The Present State of Australia_. London, 1831.


  EARL, G. W.: "On the Aboriginal Tribes of the North Coast of
     Australia"; in the _Journ. of the R. Geog. Soc._, vol. xvi.
     London, 1846.

  EYRE, E. J.: _Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central
     Australia and Overland from Adelaide to King George's Sound, in
     the Years 1840-41._ 2 vols. London, 1845.


  FIELD BARRON: _Geographical Memoirs on New South Wales_, etc.
     London, 1825.

  FISON, L., and HOWITT, A. W.: "From Mother-right to Father-right";
     in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xii. London, 1883.

  ---- _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_. 1 vol. Melbourne, 1880.

  FORREST, J.: "On the Natives of Central and Western Australia"; in
     _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. v., pp. 316 _sqq._ London, 1876.

  FRASER, J.: _The Aborigines of New South Wales._ 1 vol. Sydney, 1892.

  FRAZER, J. G.: "Notes on the Aborigines of Australia; Questions of
     Prof. Frazer, and Answers of Several Correspondents"; in _Journ.
     Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxiv. London, 1894-95.


  GASON, S.: "The Manners and Customs of the Dieyerie Tribe"; in
     Woods, _The Native Tribes of South Australia_. Adelaide, 1879.

  GERSTAECKER, F.: _Narrative of a Journey round the World_. 3 vols.
     London, 1853.

  GILL, T.: "Notes on South Australian Aborigines"; in _Proc. R.
     Geogr. Soc. Australasia. (S. Austr. Branch)_, vol. x. Adelaide,
     1907-1908, pp. 220 _sqq._

  GILLEN, F.: Article in _Proc. R.G.S.A. (S. Austr. Branch)_, vol.
     iv. Adelaide, 1889.

  GREEN, J.: Article in R. B. Smyth's _The Aborigines of Victoria_,
     vol. i. London, 1878.

  GREY, SIR G.: _Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in
     North-West and Western Australia during the Years 1837, 1838,
     1839_. 2 vols. London, 1841.

  GRIBBLE, J. B.: _Black but Comely_. London, 1874.


  HENDERSON, JOHN: _Excursions and Adventures in N. S. Wales_. 2 vols.
     London, 1851.

  HODGKINSON, CL.: _Australia from Port Macquarie to Moreton Bay_.
     London, 1845.

  HODGSON, C. P.: _Reminiscences of Australia_. London, 1846.

  HOWITT, A. W.: "Australian Group Relations"; in _Smithsonian
     Report_, 1883. Washington, 1885.

  ---- On the "Organization of Australian Tribes"; in _Transactions
     of the Royal Society of Victoria_, vol. i., part ii. Melbourne,
     1889.

  ---- "The Dieri and other kindred Tribes of Central Australia"; in
     _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xx. London, 1891.

  ---- _The Native Tribes of South-East Australia_. 1 vol. London, 1904.

  ---- "The Native Tribes of South-East Australia"; in _Folk-Lore_,
     vol. xvii. London, 1906.

  ---- _See also_ FISON, L., and HOWITT, A. W.


  KRICHAUFF, F. E.: "The Customs, etc., of the Abdolinga Tribe, Central
     Australia." Read before the R. Geog. Soc. of Australasia (South
     Australian Branch), 1886. _Proceedings_, vol. ii. pp. 33 _sqq._
     and 77 _sqq._

  KÜHN: Article in Fison and Howitt's _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_. Melbourne,
     1880.


  LANG, G. S.: _The Aborigines of Australia_. Melbourne, 1865.

  LANG, J. D.: _Queensland_. London, 1861.

  LEONHARDI, M. VON. _See_ STREHLOW.

  LE SOUËF: Article in R. B. Smyth's _The Aborigines of Victoria_, 2
     vols. London, 1878.

  LUMHOLTZ, C.: _Among Cannibals_. 1 vol. London, 1889.


  MCDOUGALL, A. C.: Article in _Science of Man_. 1900.

  MACGILLIVRAY, JOHN: _Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. "Rattlesnake,"_
     etc. 2 vols. London, 1852.

  MATHEW, J.: _Two Representative Tribes of Queensland (the Kabi and
     Wakka Tribes)_. London, Leipsic, 1910.

  MATHEWS, D.: Article in _Proc. R.G.S.A. (S. Austr. Branch)_, vol. iv.

  MATHEWS, R. H.: Numerous short articles in various papers; chiefly
     _Journ. and Proc. R. Soc. N. S. Wales_, _Amer. Anthropologist_,
     _Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc._ In the present book the articles in
     the first-named paper have chiefly been used, and an explicit
     reference in each case is given. Numerous references and
     bibliographies of his own articles are to be found in Mr. Mathew's
     publications. Cf. "Ethnological Notes on the Aboriginal Tribes of
     N. S. Wales and Victoria" (Sydney, 1905); which is a reprint from
     the _Journ. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W._, vol. xxxviii. Sydney, 1904.

  MEYER, H. E. A.: "Manners and Customs of the Aborigines of the
     Encounter Bay Tribe"; in Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_.
     Adelaide, 1879.

  MITCHELL, Major T. L.: _Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern
     Australia_. 2 vols. London, 1838.

  MOORE, G. F.: _A descriptive Vocabulary of the Language of Aborigines
     of Western Australia._ London, 1884.

  MOORE-DAVIES, J.: Article in R. B. Smyth's _The Aborigines of
     Victoria_, vol. ii. London, 1878.

  MORGAN, JOHN: _Life and Adventures of William Buckley_. Hobart, 1852.


  NEWLAND, S.: "The Parkengees" (Darling Riv.); in _Proc. R.G.S.A.
     (S. Austr. Branch)_. vol. ii. 3rd session.

  NIND, SCOTT: _Description of the Natives of King George's Sound_.
     London, 1831.

  North Queensland Ethnography (chiefly by W. E. Roth), Bulletins 1-8.
     Brisbane, 1901-1906. Bulletins 9-18; in _Records of the Australian
     Museum_, vols. vi.-viii. Sydney, 1890-1910. Bull. No. 9 in vol. vi.
     No. 5.--Bull. No. 10 in vol. vii. No. 1.--Bull. No. 11  in vol.
     vii. No. 2.--Bull. No. 12 in vol. vii. No. 3.--Bull. No. 13 in vol.
     vii. No. 4.--Bulls. Nos. 14-18 in vol. viii. No. 1.


  OLDFIELD, A.: "On the Aborigines of Australia"; in the _Transactions
      of the Ethnological Society_, vol. iii. London, 1865.


  PALMER, E.: "Notes on Some Australian Tribes"; in _Journ. Anthr.
     Inst._, vol. xiii. London, 1884.

  PARKER, MRS. K. L.: _The Euahlayi Tribe_. London, 1905.

  PARKHOUSE: Article in _Reports Austr. Assoc. Adv. Science_, vol.  vi.
     Sydney, 1895.

  PETRIE, TOM: _Reminiscences_. Brisbane, 1905.

  PHILLIP, A.: _An Authentic and Interesting Narrative_, etc. London,
     1789.

  PURCELL, B. H.: "The Aborigines of Australia"; in _Transactions of
     the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia_ (Victorian Branch),
     vol. xi. Melbourne, 1894.


  ROTH, W. E.: _Ethnological Studies among the North-West Central
     Queensland Aborigines_. 1 vol. Brisbane and London, 1897.

  ---- Article in the _Proc. of the Royal Society of Queensland_,
     vol. xvii, part II. Brisbane, 1903.

  ---- _See under_ North Queensland Ethnography.

  RUSDEN, G. W.: An article in Fison and Howitt's _Kamilaroi and
     Kurnai_.


  SALVADO, RUDESINDO: _Mémoires Historiques sur l'Australie_. 1 vol.
     Paris, 1854.

  _Science of Man_ and _Australasian Anthropological Journal_ (New
     Series). Sydney, 1898, etc. Some articles from this series have
     been used and quoted with detailed references.

  SCHULTZE, L.: "The Aborigines of the Upper and Middle Fink River";
     _Transactions of the R. Soc. South Australia_, vol. xiv. Part II.
     Adelaide, 1891.

  SCHÜRMANN, C. W.: "The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln"; in
     Woods, _Native Tribes of South Australia_. Adelaide, 1879.

  SMYTH, R. BROUGH: _The Aborigines of Victoria_, 2 vols. Melbourne
     and London, 1878.

  SPENCER, B.: Notice in _Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911.

  SPENCER, BALDWIN, and GILLEN, F. J.: _The Northern Tribes of Central
     Australia_, 1 vol. London, 1904.

  ---- _The Native Tribes of Central Australia_. 1 vol. London, 1899.

  STÄHLE, REV. J. H.: Article in Fison and Howitt's _Kamilaroi and
     Kurnai_.

  STANBRIDGE, W. E.: "General Characteristics ... of the Tribes
     of the Central Part of Victoria"; in _Transactions of the
     Ethnological Society_, vol. i. London, 1861.

  STREHLOW, C.: "Die Aranda und Loritja-Stämme in Zentral-Australien,"
     Bearbeitet von Moritz Freiherrn von Leonhardi; in
     _Veröffentlichungen aus dem städtischen Museum zu Frankfurt_.
     4 parts. Frankfort on the Main, 1907, etc.

  SUTTON, T. M.: "The Adjahdurah Tribe" (Yorke's Peninsula), _Proc.
     R.G.S.A. (S. Austr. Branch)_, vol. ii. 3rd session.


  TAPLIN, G.: "The Narrinyeri"; in Wood's _Native Tribes_. Adelaide,
     1879.

  TENCH, W.: _A complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson
     in N. S. Wales_. London, 1793.

  TURNBULL, JOHN: _A Voyage round the World in the Years 1800-1804_.
     London, 1813.


  WAITZ, T., and GERLAND, G.: _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_, vol.
     vi. Leipsic, 1872.

  WILHELMI, CHARLES: "Manners and Customs of the Australian Natives"
     (Port Lincoln); in the _Transactions of the R. S. of Victoria_,
     vol. v.

  WILKES, CH.: _Narrative of the United States Exploring
     Expedition_. 2 vols. London, 1852.

  WILKES, CH.: _Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition_,
     5 vols. Philadelphia, 1844.

  WILSON, T. B.: _Narrative of a Voyage round the World_. London, 1835.

  WILLSHIRE, W. H.: _The Aborigines of Central Australia_. Adelaide,
     1891.

  WITHNELL, J. G.: _The Customs and Traditions of the Aboriginal
     Natives of N. W. Australia_. Roeburne, 1901.

  WOODS, J. D.: _The Native Tribes of South Australia_, 1 vol. Adelaide,
     1879.

  WYATT, W.: "Some Account of the Manners and Superstitions of the
     Adelaide and Encounter Bay Aboriginal Tribes"; in Wood's _Native
     Tribes of South Australia_. Adelaide, 1879.


II. _List of other Works quoted in the Text._

  AVEBURY, LORD: _The Origin of Civilization_. London, 1902.


  BÜCHER, KARL: _Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft_. Tübingen, 1904.


  CUNOW, H.: _Die Verwandtschafts-Organisationen der Australneger_.
     Stuttgart, 1894.


  DARGUN, L.: _Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht_. Leipsic, 1892.

  DARWIN, CHARLES: _The Descent of Man_. London, 1890.

  DURKHEIM, ÉMILE: _De la division du travail social_. Paris, 1893.

  ---- Reviews of books on family; in _Année sociologique_, vol. i.
     1896-97. Paris, 1898.


  FRAZER, J. G.: _Totemism and Exogamy_. 4 vols. London, 1910.


  GENNEP, ARNOLD VAN: _Mythes et Légendes d'Australie._ Paris, 1906.

  GIDDINGS, F. H.: _The Principles of Sociology_. New York, 1896.

  GOMME, SIR LAURENCE: "Folklore as an Historical Science"; in _The
     Antiquary's Books_. London, 1908.

  GRAEBNER, F.: Article in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_. 1905.
     Berlin, 1905.

  GROSSE, ERNST: _Die Formen der Familie und die Formen der
     Wirthschaft._ Freiburg i. B. and Leipsic, 1896.


  HADDON, A. C.: _Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition
     to Torres Straits_, vols. v. and vi. Cambridge, 1904.

  HARTLAND, EDWIN SIDNEY: _Primitive Paternity._ 2 vols. London, 1909.


  KOHLER, J.: "Über das Recht der Australneger"; in _Zeitschr. f.
     vergleichende Rechtswiss._, vol. vii. Stuttgart.


  LANG, ANDREW: _The Secret of the Totem._ London, 1905.

  ---- Article in the _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_.
     Oxford, 1907.

  ---- "The Origin of Terms of Human Relationship"; in _Proceedings of
     the British Academy_. London, 1909.

  LÉVY-BRUHL, L.: _Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieurs._
     Paris, 1910.


  MACLENNAN: _Studies in Ancient History._ London, 1886.

  MORGAN, L. H.: _Ancient Society._ London, 1877.

  ---- "Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family";
     in _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_, vol. xvii. Washington,
     1871.


  NIEBOER, H. J.: _Slavery as an Industrial System._ The Hague, 1900.


  POST, A. H.: _Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz._ 2 vols.
     Oldenburg and Leipsic, 1894-95.


  REITZENSTEIN, FRHR. V.: Article in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_,
     vol. xli. Berlin.

  RIVERS, W. H. R.: _The Todas._ London, 1906.

  ---- "On the Origin of the Classificatory System of Relationships"; in
     _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_. Oxford, 1907.

  ---- Several chapters in _Reports, Cambridge Expedition_, etc.
     _See under_ Haddon.

  ---- "The Genealogical Method of Anthropological Inquiry"; in
     _Sociological Review_, vol. iii. Manchester and London, 1910.


  SCHMIDT, FR. W.: "Die Stellung d. Aranda"; in _Zeitschr. f. Ethn._,
     1908.

  SELIGMANN, C. G.: _The Melanesians of British New Guinea._ Cambridge,
     1910.

  STEINMETZ, S. R.: "Das Verhältnis zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei
     den Naturvölkern"; in _Zeitschr. f. Sozialwissensch._, vol. i.
     Berlin, 1898.

  ---- "Die neueren Forschungen zur Geschichte der menschlichen
     Familie"; in _Zeitschr. f. Sozialwissensch._, vol. ii. Berlin,
     1899.

  ---- _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwickelung der Strafe._ 2
     vols. Leiden and Leipsic, 1894.


  THOMAS, N. W.: _Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in
     Australia._ Cambridge, 1906.


  WEBSTER, HUTTON: _Primitive Secret Societies._ New York, 1908.

  WESTERMARCK, EDWARD A.: _The History of Human Marriage._ London, 1901.

  ---- _The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas._ 2 vols.
     London, 1908.

  WHEELER, G. C.: _The Tribe, and Intertribal Relations in Australia._
     With a prefatory note by E. A. Westermarck. London, 1910.




INDEX


  Abduction, considered as a crime, 38, 39, 41, 55
  Adoption, alternative for infanticide, 247
  Adultery, punishment of, 92-97, 99, 103, 124
  Affection:
    Between husband and wife, 68, 70-74, 82-84, 307
    Parental, 191-197, 238-257, 269-272, 299
  Aggregation, social, its influences, 132-134
  Alatunja:
    Head of local group, 143
    Position hereditary among the Arunta, 225-226
  Alcheringa ancestors, reincarnation belief, 214, 215, 218, 221
  Allotment of females, its consequences, 60.
    _See also_ Infant Betrothal
  Altjira, term explained, 215
  Ancestors, reincarnation beliefs discussed, 212-233
  Angas, G. F., on--marriage customs, 261;
      maternal love, 239;
      mode of living, 138;
      relations between husband and wife, 70;
      women's work, 276
  Animism, fatherhood as determined by animistic ideas, 227-229
  Anjea, supernatural being, 228
  Annihilation, aboriginal belief in, asserted, 215-216
  Anula, tribe:
    Marriage customs, 42, 51
    Reincarnation and kinship ideas, 220
  Aralkililima ceremony, 85
  Arunta nation:
    Camping rules, 265
    Ceremonial licence, 106
    Division of labour, 278
    Hereditary position of Alatunja, 225-226
    Infanticide and motive for, 236
    Marriage customs, 41-42
    Mourning ceremonies, 85-86
    Procreation and reincarnation beliefs, 209, 212, 216, 220-221
    Relations of husband and wife,72
    Treatment of children, 244-245
    Tribal government, 13
  Atninga, avenging party, 13
  Authority:
    Marital, 67, 68-74, 76, 77-79, 302
    Parental, 254-256
    _See also_ Law
  Avebury, Lord, on primitive law, 10

  Bachelors' camp, 164, 262-269
  Bahumul, form of betrothal, 40
  Bangerang tribe:
    Camping rules, 263
    Marriage customs, 37, 258, 260
    Mode of living, 137, 154, 155, 156, 159
    Relations between husband and wife, 69
    Treatment of children, 238-239, 248-249
  Banks Islanders, determination of paternity, 180
  Barrington, George, on marriage customs, 40;
      on mode of living, 162
  Bates, Mrs. D. M., on--infanticide, 236;
      procreation beliefs, 227;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 99;
      tribal divisions and ownership of land, 147-148
  Bennett, G., on--infanticide, 235;
      treatment of children, 241
  Betrothal:
    Evidence in favour of a ceremony, 52-53, 61-62
    Individual appropriation affirmed by, 296
    Legal aspect, 57, 60
    Prevalence of custom, 48, 66, 306
    Statements of authorities, 36-48
  Beveridge, P., on--mode of living, 161;
      sexual relations, 93
  Bidwelli tribe, no initiation ceremonies, 262
  Binbinga tribe:
    Marriage customs, 42, 43, 50, 51
    Reincarnation and kinship ideas, 220
  Birth. _See_ Procreation
  Blood relationship. _See_ Consanguinity
  Bonney, T., on--parental affection, 270;
      relations between husband and wife, 70
  Boundaries, tribal, 136-157
  Brother and sister, relations between, 272-273, 309
  Browne, J., on sexual division of labour, 281
  Buckley, William, treatment by the natives, 222, 271
  Bulmer, J., on marriage customs, 36
  Burial ceremonies:
    Description of and deductions from, 84-88
    Duties and behaviour of relatives, 271-272, 308

  Cameron, H. L. P., on sexual aspect of marriage, 95
  Campbell, Major, on tribal divisions, 146
  Camps:
    Bachelor, statements and remarks, 164, 262-269
    Customs regulating, 158-167, 298
    Unmarried females, 104, 266
  Capture, marriage by, 40, 41, 53-55, 58
  Celibacy, female, 104, 266
  Ceremonies:
    Betrothal, individual appropriation affirmed by, 296;
      legal aspect of, 57, 60;
      statements of authorities and deductions from, 37, 38, 42, 43-44,
          48-50, 52-53, 61-62, 66, 306
    Initiation, age of commencement and duration, 259, 262-269;
      education of boys begun at, 256-257;
      sexual promiscuity in connection with, 97-99, 104, 105-106, 129
    Licence practised at, 105-107, 123
    Marriage, a breaking of the taboo, 305;
      ideas embodied in, 61, 307;
      individual appropriation affirmed by, 296;
      statements of authors and deductions from, 42-44, 52-53, 61-62,
          306-307
    Mourning and burial, description of, and their meaning, 84-88,
          271-272, 308;
      proof of strength of marriage tie, 296;
      scars self-inflicted by women, 72
  Chastity, how regarded, 104-105, 125, 178
  Chauncy, Ph., on treatment of children, 246
  Chepara tribe:
    Communism in food, 284
    Mourning customs, 271
  Children. _See_ Parent and child
  Choi, term explained, 145
  Class taboo, theory of origin, 288-289
  Collective feelings, 191-192, 197-198
  Collective ideas, 192-198
  Collective mind, explanation of term, 175, 308-309
  Collins, D., on--authority of husbands, 71;
      infanticide, 236;
      land ownership, 141;
      mode of living, 161-162
  Communism:
    Food, 283-286, 289-290, 300, 309
    In mode of living, instances, 160
    Suckling and rearing children, remarks on, 234, 236-237
  Consanguinity:
    Absence (in the sociological sense) of tie in primitive societies,
          179-182, 209, 217, 232, 309
    Analysis of concepts of, 176-185, 204-207
    Claim to kinship on basis of, in certain tribes, 231
    Definition, 182
  Coombangree tribe, tribal divisions, 142-143
  Corroborees, licence at, 106-107
  Cotertie, marriage custom, 46
  Councils, tribal, authority exercised by, 12-13
  Couvade custom, 183-184, 309;
      similar customs in Australia, 225, 226
  Crawley, on religious side of human relations, 305-309
  Curr, E. M., on--camping rules, 263;
      economics of family life, 275-276;
      kinship, 3, 5;
      marriage customs, 4, 258, 259;
      mode of living, 137-138, 159-160;
      parental affection, 269;
      relations between husband and wife, 69, 82;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 92-93;
      treatment of children, 238-239

  Dargun, Prof. L., on kinship, 188-189
  Dawson, J., on--camping rules, 264;
      communism in food, 284;
      economics of family life, 275;
      relations between husband and wife, 69-70, 78;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 93
  Dawson, R., on--mode of living, 160, 163;
      parental affection, 195, 269;
      relations between husband and wife, 72;
      treatment of children, 242
  Defloration of girls at initiation ceremonies, 42-43, 98, 104,
          105-106, 129
  Dieri tribe:
    Chiefs, 12
    Ignorance of physiological fatherhood inferred, 128
    Infanticide and motive for, 236
    Marriage customs, 41, 261
    Mode of living, 154, 156
    Mourning ceremonies, 88
    Parental affection, 195-196
    Pinya party of, 13
    Pirrauru custom, 108-109, 117-118
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 96, 105
    Treatment of children, 238
    Tribal divisions, 143
  Division of labour. _See under_ Labour
  Divorce, mention of, 62, 64-66, 69, 78, 307
  Durkheim, Émile, on--importance of social regulations, 300-301;
      kinship, 204;
      primitive law, 10;
      sexual division of labour, 289
  Dwellings, statements and deductions from, 158-167

  Economics of family life, 274-291, 299-300
  Education:
    At bachelor camps, 263-264, 267
    Initiation the beginning of, 256-257
    Parental, discussed, 241, 242-243, 245, 246, 256-257
  Elopement:
    Individual appropriation affirmed by, 295
    Punishment for, 36-46, 55-58, 66, 92, 103, 295
    Sexual love denoted by, 83
    Statements of authors and deductions from, 36, 41-47, 55-58, 66
  Emotional side of kinship. _See_ Affection
  Euahlayi tribe:
    Authority of grandparents, 270
    Camping rules, 265
    Communism in food, 285
    Marriage customs, 40, 61, 261
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 95-96, 102, 103
    Treatment of wives, 72
  Exchange, mode of obtaining wives:
    Effect on treatment of wives, 81-82
    Form of marriage by purchase, 50-52, 58-59
    Individual appropriation affirmed by, 296
    Prevalence of custom, 48-49
    Statements of authors, 36-38, 41-44, 47
  Eyre, E. J., on--marriage customs, 261;
      mode of living, 139, 160-161;
      relations between husband and wife, 70

  Family:
    Analysis of family life a necessity, 6-9, 206
    Customs regulating social life, 158-167
    Economic facts connected with, 274-291
    Evidence, method of dealing with, 17-33
    Husband and wife, 67-88
    Importance in marriage contracts, 49-50, 57
    Individual appropriation proved, 295-304
    Kinship, discussion of, 168-233
    Legal aspect, 300-302
    Mode of living, 132-167
    Mode of obtaining wives, 33-66
    Parents and children, 234-273
    Scope of work and difficulties, 1-17, 292-294
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 89-131
    Social units discussed, 132-135, 136-167
  Fatherhood. _See_ Paternity
  Fire-sticks, carrying of, by women, 275, 276, 278, 279
  Fison, L., on--kinship, 203;
      marriage, 3
  Folk-lore, kinship ideas suggested by, 207-233
  Food:
    Acceptance by a woman from a man belief, 229-230
    Bachelor camp rules, 263, 267
    Communism in, 283-286, 289-290, 309
    Customs regulating the taking of meals, 159, 163-164, 166
    Distribution among the family, 288-289
    Division of labour in providing, 275-290
    Taboos, 15, 279
  Forrest, John, on--marriage customs, 44-45;
      sexual division of labour, 280
  Fraser, Dr. John, on--mode of living, 142;
      parental affection, 270;
      relations between brothers, 272;
      relations between husband and wife, 72;
      sexual division of labour, 277-278;
      treatment of children, 242-243
  Frazer, Prof. J. G., on--kinship, 189-190;
      procreation beliefs, 226;
      social life of the aborigines, 156;
      totemic conception, 211
  Frodsham, Dr., on procreation beliefs, 226

  Game, statements on division of, 285-286
  Gason, S., on--infanticide, 236;
      Pirrauru custom, 117-118;
      relation between brother and sister, 272;
      treatment of children, 243
  Geawe Gal tribe:
    Marriage customs, 39, 261
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 95
  Gennep, A. van, on folk-lore, 208;
      on kinship, 204
  Giddings, F. H., on mode of living, 132-133
  Gifts at marriage, 50-52
  Gillen, F. _See_ Spencer, Baldwin, and Gillen
  Gnanji tribe:
    Marriage customs, 43
    Reincarnation beliefs, 218-219
  Gomme, Sir Laurence, on kinship, 182, 202, 205-206
  Gournditch Mara tribe:
    Chiefs, 12
    Communism in food, 284
    Marriage customs, 36
    Mode of living, 159
  Government, tribal:
    Existence of, 11-17
    Intervention between husband and wife, 79
    Marriage contracts supervised by, 57-58
    Pirrauru relation authorised by, 110
  Grey, Sir G., on--camping rules, 266;
      marriage customs, 64, 65;
      mode of living, 164;
      relation between brother and sister, 273;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 99;
      treatment of children, 249;
      tribal divisions and ownership of land, 146-147
  Gribble, Rev. J. B., on communism in food,285
  Grosse, E., criticism of Howitt's statements, 4
  Group marriage:
    Existence in Australia discussed, 30, 89, 113-115
    Relation of the Pirrauru custom to, 108-123, 308

  Hartland, E. S., on kinship, 201-202;
      on paternity, 181, 208
  Headmen, authority exercised by, 12-13
  Henderson, John, on mode of living, 162
  Hereditary positions, 225-226
  Hodgkinson, Cl., on relations between husband and wife, 72;
      on tribal divisions, 142
  Hodgson, C. P., on relations between husband and wife, 71
  Howitt, A. W., on--economic side of family life, 275;
      group marriage, 4-5, 30, 109, 113-114, 121;
      kinship, 1-2, 203;
      marriage customs, 261, 262-263;
      mode of living, 136-137;
      parental affection, 195;
      Pirrauru custom, 108-112, 117, 120;
      relations between husband and wife, 68, 81;
      sexual relations, 92, 101;
      treatment of children, 238, 241
  Husband and wife:
    Affection between, existence of, 82-84
    Authority of husband, 76, 77-79, 302
    Bond created by affection for children, 253-254, 299
    Division of labour, 274-291
    Individual relationship between, proved, 295-298
    Mourning and burial ceremonies and their meaning, 84-88
    Obligations of husband, 62-65
    Parental aspect. _See_ Parent and Child
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 89-131
    Statements of authors on relations between, 67-76
    Treatment of wife, 76, 79-84
    _See also_ Wives and Women
  Huts. _See_ Dwellings

  Iliaura tribes, ceremonial licence, 106
  Illapurinja party, 13
  Infant betrothal:
    Legal aspect, 57, 60
    Prevalence of custom, 48, 66
    Statements of authorities, 37-40, 44-47
  Infanticide:
    Adoption of child an exceptional alternative, 247
    Reasons assigned for, 216, 235-236
  Inheritance, instances of, and discussion on, 136, 137, 290-291, 301
  Initiation ceremonies:
    Age of commencement and duration, 259, 262-269
    Beginning of education of boys, 256-257
    Girls, of. _See_ Defloration of Girls
    Sexual promiscuity at, 97-99, 104, 105-106, 129

  Jajaurung tribe, marriage customs, 38
  Jealousy, sexual:
    Existence discussed, 92-100, 102, 124-131, 297-298
    Isolation of the family caused by, 159, 163, 164

  Kabi tribe:
    Infanticide and motive for, 236
    Marriage customs, 262
    Relations of husband and wife, 73
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 98
    Treatment of children, 245
    Tribal divisions and mode of living, 144, 154, 155, 163
  <DW5>s, ideas on procreation, 180
  Kaitish tribe:
    Ceremonial licence, 106
    Mourning ceremonies, 86
    Reincarnation belief, 216
  Kamilaroi tribe, sexual aspect of marriage, 95, 103
  Karamundi tribes, communism in food, 284
  Kinship:
    Aboriginal collective ideas, 171, 183, 207-233, 309
    Affection of parents, 191-197
    Contradictions in authorities, 1-7
    Definition aimed at, 8
    Legal aspect, 185-191
    Meaning generally attached to term, 170-178
    Organisations creating group relationship, not dealt with, 303
    Protection of wives by their relatives, 78, 79
    Relatives' part in mourning ceremonies, 88
    Social factors, 170, 308
    Sociologists' application of concept, 200-206
    Theoretical analysis, 168-207
  Kohler, J., on primitive law, 10
  Kühn, Rev. J., on customs of Turra tribe, 264
  Kuinmurbura tribe, marriage customs, 43, 52
  Kulin tribe:
    Chiefs, 12
    Procreation ideas, 231
  Kurdaitcha party, 13
  Kurnai tribe:
    Authority of grandparents, 270
    Camping rules, 262-263
    Communism in food, 283-284
    Economics of family life, 275
    Magic and its effect on sexual relations, 129
    Marriage customs, 36, 47, 51, 55, 56, 258
    Mode of living, 136, 154, 155, 158-159, 162
    Relations between husband and wife, 68
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 92, 101, 103, 105
    Treatment of children by their parents, 238

  Labour, sexual division of, 274-290, 299
  Land ownership:
    Conclusions from, 300
    Form of, 150-157
    Inheritance discussed, 290-291
    Statements of authorities, 135, 136-149
    Use of term defined, 135
  Lang, Andrew, on kinship, 3, 7
  Lang, G. S., on treatment of children, 242
  Lang, J. D., on sexual aspect of marriage, 98
  Larrekiya tribe, procreation ideas, 230
  Law, primitive:
    Authority of husband over his wife, 76-79, 297, 302
    Definition of concept, 9-17
    Family governed by social rules, 300-301
    Marriage and its social sanction, 35-36, 56-66, 307
    Paternal authority discussed, 185-191, 254-256
  Leonhardi, Frhr. von, on folk-lore, 208, 212-213
  Levirate, prevalence of, and conclusions drawn from, 38, 46, 49,
          63-64, 104, 307
  Lévy-Bruhl, M., on folk-lore, 214
  Licence, sexual. _See under_ Sexual Life
  Local group:
    Description as a tribal division, 143-144
    Land ownership, 136-157
    Mode of living, 158-167
    Social unit, 136-157
    Use of term defined, 135
  Lumholtz, C., on--marriage customs, 64-65;
      relations of husband and wife, 73;
      sexual division of labour, 279

  MacLennan, J. F., on kinship, 200-201
  Magic:
    Mode of obtaining wives, 14, 41, 55, 58, 62, 97
    Punishment by means of, 10, 13
    Sexual intercourse influenced by belief in, 129-130
  Mara tribe:
    Marriage customs, 42, 43, 51
    Reincarnation and kinship ideas, 220
  Marriage:
    Affection in, 82-84
    Age of girls, 257-259
    Breaking the taboo necessary, 305
    Contradictions of authorities, 2-3, 3-5
    Definition, 34-35
    Defloration ceremony, 42-43, 98, 104, 105-106, 129
    Disparity of age, 259-262
    Duration, length of, 64-66
    Ideas embodied in ceremonies, 61-62, 307
    Individual appropriation proved by evidence, 59, 295-298
    Legal aspect, 8, 35, 56-66, 307
    Modes of obtaining wives, 35-66
    Mourning rites of widows, 84-88
    Pirrauru relation distinguished from, 109-123
    Prevalence of ceremonies, statements, 52-53, 61-62, 306-307
    Sexual aspect, 89-131
    _See also_ Husband and wife, Parent and child, Purchase marriages
  Maternity:
    Definition of individual motherhood, 173
    Relative unimportance of physiological motherhood, 230-232
    _See also_ Parent and Child
  Mathew, Rev. J., on--marriage, 4;
      mode of living, 163;
      sexual division of labour, 278-279
  Mathews, R. H., on--Communism in food, 285;
      hereditary offices, 225;
      reincarnation beliefs, 212;
      tribal divisions, 144
  Meyer, H. E. A., on sexual division of labour, 277
  Mitchell, Major T. L., on--relations between husband and wife, 70;
      treatment of children, 240;
      women's work, 276-277
  Moore, G. F., on--marriage customs, 46;
      on sexual division of labour, 280
  Moore-Davies, J., on mode of living, 161;
      on sexual licence, 94
  Morgan, John, on--kinship, 200;
      use of terms kinship and consanguinity, 171
  Mourning ceremonies:
    Description of, and deductions from, 84-88, 308
    Duties of relatives, 271-272
    Proof of strength of marriage ties, 296
    Scars self-inflicted by women, 72
  Mukjarawaint tribe:
    Authority of grandparents, 254-255, 270
    Communism in food, 284
  Murring tribe:
    Communism in food, 284
    Mode of living, 136, 154, 159, 162
    Sexual life, 92
    Treatment of children, 241
  Murrumbidgee tribes, treatment of children, 241

  Nanarree, form of betrothal, 40
  Narran-ga tribe, communism in food, 284
  Narrinyeri tribe:
    Communism in food, 285
    Marriage customs, 38, 52
    Mode of living, 139-140, 155
    Relation between husband and wife, 70-71
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 94, 105
  Naudowessies, ideas on procreation, 180
  Ngarigo tribe, camping rules, 263
  Ngura-mundu custom, 96
  Nieboer, H. J., on relation between husband and wife, 75-76
  Nind, Scott, on sexual aspect of marriage, 100;
      on tribal divisions, 148-149

  Oldfield, A., on--relation between brother and sister, 272-273;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 99;
      treatment of children, 246
  Orphans, adoption of, 242

  Palmer, E., on--relation of husband and wife, 73;
      treatment of children, 245-246;
      tribal boundaries, 145
  Parent and child:
    Aboriginal ideas of procreation and their influence, 128-129,
          176-183, 206, 208-233
    Affection and its effect on their relations, 191-197, 269-272, 299
    Authority of father, 254-256
    Characteristic features of relationship, 299
    Early separation from parental control, 257-269, 299
    Jealousy on question of paternity discussed, 127-129
    Kinship, discussion, 171-233
    Mode of living impresses relation to actual parent, 167
    Pirrauru relationship, 117-118
    Suckling and rearing children, bond created by, 234-237
    Treatment of children, 238-257
  Parkengee tribe, marriage customs, 38
  Parker, Mrs., on--marriage customs, 261;
      procreation beliefs, 227
  Paternity:
    Aboriginal ideas on procreation and kinship discussed, 128, 179-183,
          208-233
    Bond established by rearing of children, 237
    Definition of term, 173
    _See also_ Parent and Child
  Patria potestas:
    Definition, 254
    Not applicable to conditions of Australian aborigines, 186,187-191
  Pinnaru, Council of, 13
  Pinya party, 13
  Piraungaru custom, 96, 115
  Pirrauru custom:
    Account of, and its relation to individual marriage, 96, 108-123,
          298
    Not a group marriage, 108-123, 308
  Pointing the bone, form of punishment, 10
  Polygyny, prevalence of, 63, 307
  Post, A. H., on primitive law, 10
  Potestas. _See_ Patria potestas
  Procreation, aboriginal ideas discussed, 175, 176-183, 206, 208-233
  Property in land. _See_ Land ownership
  Puberty:
    Boys' initiation at. _See_ Initiation Ceremonies
    Marriage of girls at, 257-259
    Rites undergone by girls at, 105-106
  Punishment:
    Abduction, 38, 39, 41, 55
    Adultery, 92-97, 99, 103, 124
    Elopement, 36, 38, 39, 41-46, 55-58, 66, 92, 103, 295
    Magic as a means of, 10, 13
    Marriage of men under thirty, 259, 262
    Various modes of punishment, 14-15
  Purchase marriages:
    Marriage by exchange, a form of, 50-52
    Proof of individual marriage, 59

  Reincarnation of ancestors, aboriginal ideas and beliefs discussed,
          212-233
  Relationship. _See_ Kinship
  Repudiation of wives. _See_ Divorce
  Rivers, W. H. R., on kinship, 6-7, 202-203
  Roth, W. E., on--camping rules, 266;
      folk-lore, 227;
      food taboos, 279;
      kinship, 225;
      marriage customs, 306-309;
      mode of living, 163;
      mourning ceremonies, 88;
      origin of class taboo, 288-289;
      relation between husband and wife, 73-74;
      tribal divisions, 145
  Rusden, G. W., on relations between husband and wife, 72

  Salvado, R., on--affection for parents, 271;
      camping rules, 266;
      marriage customs, 45, 64, 65, 259;
      mode of living, 164;
      relation between husband and wife, 74;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 99-100;
      treatment of children, 246-247;
      tribal divisions and ownership of land, 147
  Schultze, L., on marriage customs, 41
  Schürmann, C. W., on--mode of living, 162;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 94
  Scott Nind. _See_ Nind
  Separation of husband and wife, 69.
    _See also_ Divorce
  Sexual life:
    Aboriginal ideas on procreation discussed, 175, 176-183, 206,
          208-233
    Ceremonial licence, 105-107, 123
    Chastity, how regarded, 104-105, 125, 178
    Elopement a proof of sexual love, 83-84
    Jealousy, existence discussed, 124-131
    Pirrauru custom, 108-123
    Relative unimportance for unity of family, 299-300
    Rights and restrictions of the husband, 101-103, 112, 126-127,
          297-298, 300
    Statements of authorities, 89-101
    Subject to rules, 123, 305
    Young females monopolized by old men, 260-262, 309
  Sister and brother. _See_ Brother and Sister
  Smyth, R. Brough, on mode of living, 161;
      on treatment of children, 239-240
  Society, primitive:
    Collective mind, explanation of term, 175, 308-309
    Early modes of thought the only manner of explanation, 168-169, 308
    Kinship as affected by social conditions, 175-207
    Manner of influencing an institution, 300-301
    Unit of aboriginal society, problem discussed, 1-17
  Spencer, Baldwin, and Gillen, F., on--folk-lore, 208, 211, 212, 216,
          220, 225, 226;
      food customs, 285;
      kinship, 2, 3, 5;
      marriage customs, 41-43;
      mode of living, 163;
      mourning ceremonies, 85-88, 272;
      Pirrauru custom, 108, 115, 117, 120;
      relation between brother and sister, 273;
      treatment of children, 243-244;
      tribal divisions, 143
  Stanbridge, W. E., on marriage customs, 38
  Strehlow, Herr C., on folk-lore, 208, 210-215
  Suckling of children, bond established by, 234-237

  Taboo:
    Breaking of, necessary for marriage, 305
    Class, theory of origin, 288-289
    Food, 15, 279
    Paternal, during pregnancy of wife, 225
  Taplin, G., on relation between husband and wife, 70
  Tench, W., on--marriage customs, 40;
      relation between husband and wife, 71;
      sexual division of labour, 277;
      sexual licence, 95
  Theddora tribe, chiefs, 12
  Thomas, N. W., on--kinship, 7, 187;
      marriage, 91;
      Pirrauru custom, 119
  Tippa Malku marriage, 41, 96, 110
  Tjinjilli tribe, marriage customs, 43
  Todas, determination of paternity, 180
  Tongaranka tribe:
    Chief, 12
    Mourning customs, 271
  Torres Straits Islanders, kinship of, 203
  Totems:
    Ideas on conception and birth connected with, 208-233
    Totemic centres, statements on, 146, 153
  Tribal government. _See_ Government, Tribal
  Tribe:
    Local group as subdivision of. _See_ Local Group
    Social divisions of, 136-157, 298
    Use of term defined, 134
  Tualcha Mura marriage custom, 41, 42, 50, 261
  Turnbull, John, on--marriage customs, 39;
      mode of living, 141;
      relation between husband and wife, 71;
      sexual aspect of marriage, 95;
      treatment of children, 242
  Turra tribe:
    Marriage customs, 264
    Mode of living, 162
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 94, 101, 103, 105
  Turrubul tribe, customs, 285-286

  Umbaia tribe, reincarnation beliefs, 218-219
  Unmatjera tribe:
    Mourning ceremonies, 86
    Reincarnation belief, 216
  Urabunna tribe:
    Ignorance of physiological fatherhood, 128
    Pirrauru custom, 108, 115, 118
    Reincarnation belief, 212, 216
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 96
    Treatment of children, 243-244

  Wakelbura tribe, marriage customs, 44, 56
  Wakka tribe:
    Infanticide and motive for, 236
    Marriage customs, 262
    Relations between husband and wife, 73
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 98
    Treatment of children, 245
    Tribal divisions and mode of living, 144, 154, 155, 163
  Warramunga tribe:
    Ceremonial licence, 106-107
    Marriage customs, 42, 43
    Mourning ceremonies, 85, 86
    Reincarnation belief, 212, 217
  Watchandee tribe:
    Communism in food, 286
    Marriage customs, 45
  Westermarck, Prof. E. A., on--chastity among uncivilized people, 178;
      kinship, 205;
      marriage, 3-4, 34-35;
      sexual jealousy, 125;
      study of family life, 134
  Wheeler, G. C., on sociology of aborigines, 133
  White men, believed to be ghosts of relatives, 222-224
  Wife. _See_ Wives, _below_
  Wiimbaio tribe:
    Chiefs, 12
    Mourning customs, 271
  Wilhelmi, C., on sexual aspect of marriage, 94
  Wilkes, Charles, on sexual aspect of marriage, 95
  Willshire, W. H., on sexual aspect of marriage, 97
  Wiradjuri tribe:
    Chiefs, 12
    Communism in food, 284
    Marriage customs, 41
    Procreation ideas, 230
    Women's work, 277
  Withnell, J. G., on tribal divisions, 146
  Wives:
    Economic functions, 67
    Exchange of, statements, 92-95, 98, 101, 102-103
    Modes of obtaining, 35-66, 295
    Obligations of the husbands, 62-65
    _See also_ Husband and Wife and Women
  Woeworung tribe, marriage customs, 37, 52
  Wogait tribe, procreation ideas, 230
  Wolgal tribe:
    Camping rules, 263
    Communism in food, 284
    Marriage customs, 261
    Procreation ideas, 231
  Women:
    Condition of drudgery and servitude, 274-290
    Licence among the unmarried, 266-267
    Scars self-inflicted at mourning ceremonies, 72, 86
    _See also_ Husband and Wife and Wives
  Wotjobaluk tribe:
    Communism in food, 284
    Marriage customs, 37-38, 50
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 93, 101, 103, 105
  Wurrunjeri tribe:
    Communism in food, 284
    Mode of living, 137, 159
  Wuurn, term explained, 160
  Wyatt, W., on treatment of children, 241

  Yantruwunta tribe, Pirrauru custom, 108
  Yerkla-Mining tribe:
    Communism in food, 285
    Sexual aspect of marriage, 94-95, 102
  Yuin tribe:
    Chiefs, 12
    Marriage customs, 36, 50, 52, 56
    Procreation ideas, 231


     Printed for the UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, Ltd., by
     RICHARD CLAY & SONS, Ltd., London and Bungay.




CORRECTIONS


  page         original text                 correction
  38           primitive orm of betrothal    primitive form of betrothal
  38           footnote missing in original  infancy.[58]
  45           et si jamais un pére          et si jamais un père
  156, n. 458  Tot. and Exeg., chap. v.      Tot. and Exog., chap. v.
  197, n. 564  Zeitschr. f. Sociologie,      Zeitschr. f. Soziologie,
  202          first and foremost judical    first and foremost juridical
  208, n. 585  Am. Antr.,                    Am. Anthr.,
  208, n. 585  Bull. Soc. of Antr.,          Bull. Soc. of Anthr.,
  210          Ubrigens wissen die alten     Übrigens wissen die alten
  214          a given Abheringa:            a given Alcheringa:
  221          comes to ife again by and by  comes to life again by and by
  233, n. 651  same individua family.        same individual family.
  252, n. 748  für Socialwissenschaft,       für Sozialwissenschaft,
  268, n. 823  Zeitschrift f. Socialw.       Zeitschrift f. Sozialw.
  309          This is corrobated by         This is corroborated by
  314          Zeitschift für Ethnologie.    Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.
  315 2x       f. Socialwissensch.,          f. Sozialwissensch.,
  321          relalations between, 67-76    relations between, 67-76
  322          Leonhardi, Fehr. von,         Leonhardi, Frhr. von,





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Family among the Australian
Aborigines, by Bronislaw Malinowski

*** 