The Family Among the Australian Aborigines

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.

Footnotes

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.

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.

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.

13 E. Grosse, p. 6.

14 Trans. R.S.V., p. 135.

15 Trans. R.S.V., p. 113.

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.

17 Anthrop. Essays, pp. 309 sqq.

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

19 Defining that term only broadly at the outset.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

34 See below, the statements, pp. 92 sqq.

35 Compare also above, pp. 2-5.

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.

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.

38 Curr, A.R., i. pp. 53 sqq.

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.

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.

43 In Brough Smyth, i. p. 77. Compare also Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 350.

44 Nat. Tr., p. 249.

45 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 263 264. Compare also Trans. R.S.V., p. 117.

46 Howitt in Trans. R.S.V., p. 116.

47 Curr, Recollections, p. 248

48 Beveridge, p. 22.

49 J. Dawson, p. 28.

50 Ibid., p. 28.

51 Ibid., p. 29.

52 Ibid., p. 34.

53 Loc. cit., p. 31.

54 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 241. Also Trans. R.S.V., p. 116.

55 Loc. cit., p. 288. (Mount Gambier tribes.)

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.

57 Eyre, ii. p. 319.

58 F. Bonney, J.A.I., xiii. p. 129.

59 S. Newland, loc. cit., p. 21.

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.

63 Sutton, p. 17.

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.

66 G. S. Lang, p. 11.

67 Loc. cit., p. 110.

68 Turnbull, pp. 98, 99.

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

70 Ibid.

71 Hodgkinson, loc. cit., pp. 229, 230.

72 Loc. cit., p. 199.

73 Loc. cit., p. 168.

74 C. P. Hodgson, p. 220.

75 Ibid., p. 243.

76 R. H. Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W., xxxiv. pp. 263, 264.

77 Mrs. Parker, loc. cit., p. 55.

78 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 211.

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.

82 Loc. cit., p. 236.

83 W. H. Willshire, loc. cit., p. 27.

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.

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.

107 Tom Petrie, loc. cit., pp. 59, 60.

108 Howitt, Trans. R.S.V., p. 118.

109 J. D. Lang, loc. cit., p. 337.

110 Lumholtz, loc. cit., p. 154.

111 Ibid., loc. cit., p. 165.

112 Loc. cit., i. p. 89.

113 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 222, and Trans. R.S.V., p. 117.

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.

121 Loc. cit., i. p. 151.

122 Wilson, p. 144.

123 Macgillivray, loc. cit., ii. p. 8.

124 Loc. cit., p. 317.

125 Oldfield, p. 249.

126 Ibid., pp. 249, 250.

127 Salvado, loc. cit., p. 278.

128 Ibid., pp. 278, 279.

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

130 Loc. cit., p. 5.

131 Loc. cit., p. 41.

132 Loc. cit., p. 38.

133 Ibid.

134 p. 38.

135 Ibid.

136 p. 39.

137 Loc. cit., p. 450.

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.

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.

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.

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.

143 Curr, A.R., i. p. 107, says also that in some tribes there are some insignificant marriage ceremonies.

144 Howitt in Smiths. Rep., p. 798.

145 Ibid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

156 Howitt, Kam. and Kurn., p. 206.

157 See below on economic side of family life.

158 Nat. Tr., p. 766.

159 Curr, Recollections, p. 259.

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.

161 Dawson, p. 37.

162 Ibid., p. 36.

163 Ibid., pp. 35, 36.

164 Ibid., p. 36.

165 Loc. cit., p. 130.

166 Loc. cit., i. pp. 82, 83.

167 Loc. cit., ii. pp. 321, 322.

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

169 Loc. cit., p. 12.

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

171 Bennett, pp. 248, 249.

172 Loc. cit., pp. 199, 200.

173 Loc. cit., p. 181.

174 Compare their statement below.

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

176 Loc. cit., p. 217; compare p. 208.

177 Collins, i. p. 544.

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.

180 Loc. cit., p. 283. The tribes in question are the Geawe Gal, New South Wales, Hunter River.

181 Loc. cit., pp. 66, 67.

182 Loc. cit., p. 229.

183 Loc. cit., p. 58.

184 L. Schultze, p. 237.

185 Spencer & Gillen, Nat. Tr., p. 50.

186 Ibid.

187 Nor. Tr., pp. 32, 33.

188 Nor. Tr., p. 33.

189 Loc. cit., p. 66.

190 J. D. Lang, p. 337.

191 J. Mathew, p. 153.

192 Lumholtz, p. 100.

193 Ibid., p. 161.

194 Ibid., p. 163.

195 Ibid., p. 213.

196 Palmer, p. 28.

197 Bull. 8, p. 6.

198 Macgillivray, ii. pp. 8, 9.

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.

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

203 Ibid.

204 Ibid., p. 278.

205 Browne, p. 450.

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.

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

208 Curr, A.R., i. p. 53 sqq.

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

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

211 Nat. Tr., p. 777.

212 Loc. cit., p. 20.

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.

214 Compare Levy Bruhl, p. 389.

215 Spencer and Gillen, on the Central and North Central tribes (more especially the Kaitish and Unmatjera), Nor. Tr., p. 506.

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.

223 Nat. Tr., p. 502.

224 Nor. Tr., p. 522.

225 Levirate; see above, p. 63.

226 Nat. Tr., p. 507.

227 Ibid.

228 Roth, p. 164.

229 Howitt, p. 724.

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.

231 Howitt, Kam. and Kurn., p. 205.

232 Ibid., p. 202, Latin footnote; p. 205.

233 Smith. Rep., 1883, p. 810.

234 Ibid.

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

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.

239 Loc. cit., p. 28.

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

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.

243 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 245.

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

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.

246 Taplin, loc. cit., p. 18.

247 Yorke Peninsula, Kühn, loc. cit., p. 286.

248 Loc. cit., pp. 222, 223.

249 Ch. Wilhelmi, p. 180.

250 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 258.

251 Ibid.

252 Loc. cit., p. 353.

253 Loc. cit. (smaller edition), i., p. 226.

254 Loc. cit., p. 199.

255 Phillip, pp. 34, 35.

256 Loc. cit., pp. 90, 99. Tribes of New South Wales, probably from the neighbourhood of Sydney.

257 Rusden, loc. cit., p. 281.

258 C. E. Doyle in Howitt’s Nat. Tr., pp. 207, 208.

259 Ibid.

260 Mrs. Parker, p. 58.

261 Ibid., p. 59.

262 Ibid., p. 60.

263 Ibid.

264 J.A.I., xxiv. p. 170. Gason in answer to Prof. Frazer’s “Questions.”

265 Nat. Tr., p. 187.

266 Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., p. 109.

267 Idem, Nor. Tr., pp. 72, 73.

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.

271 Loc. cit., p. 30.

272 Loc. cit., p. 36.

273 Spencer and Gillen, Nor. Tr., chap. iv. pp. 133 sqq.

274 Idem, Nor. Tr., p. 474.

275 Ibid., p. 33.

276 J.A.I., xxiv. p. 178.

277 Loc. cit., p. 237.

278 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 232.

279 Ibid., p. 233.

280 Ibid.

281 J. Mathew, pp. 161, 162.

282 Roth, Bull. 8, p. 7, § 3.

283 Idem, Ethnol. Stud., p. 182, § 327.

284 Ethnol. Stud., pp. 174 sqq.

285 Macgillivray, ii. p. 8.

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.

291 Loc. cit., p. 251. The tribes in question are those of the Murchison district.

292 Loc. cit., p. 51.

293 Loc. cit., p. 279.

294 Loc. cit., p. 280.

295 Loc. cit., p. 39.

296 See Smith. Rep. for 1883, pp. 804 sqq. Chap. iv. on “Marital groups,” p. 810, and Trans. R.S.V., pp. 115 sqq.

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.

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

300 Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., chap. iii., and Nor. Tr., chap. iv. Roth, Ethnol. Stud., p. 174, § 305.

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.

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.

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).

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.”

313 Howitt, J.A.I., xx. p. 56. Smith. Rep., p. 807.

314 See above, p. 41.

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.

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.

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.

324 J.A.I., xx. p. 56; Nat. Tr., p. 184; Smith. Rep., p. 807, under 5.

325 J.A.I., xx. p. 56.

326 Howitt, Nat. Tr., pp. 173, 174, beginning of chap. v.

327 Compare above, p. 108, note 2.

328 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 182.

329 Idem, J.A.I., xx. p. 57.

330 Ibid., p. 58.

331 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 183.

332 See below, p. 243.

333 J.A.I., xx. p. 58.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

345 Nat. Tr., pp. 99, 100.

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.

347 Compare above, p. 83.

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.

349 See below, pp. 209 sqq. and 226.

350 Spencer and Gillen, Nor. Tr., pp. 146 sqq.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

367 Nat. Tr., p. 82.

368 Nat. Tr., p. 83.

369 Howitt, Smith. Rep. 83, p. 816.

370 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 311.

371 Ibid.

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.

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.

383 Loc. cit., i. p. 74.

384 Loc. cit., i. p. 81.

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.

391 Mitchell, loc. cit., ii. p. 92.

392 H. E. A. Meyer, loc. cit., p. 198.

393 H. E. A. Meyer, loc. cit., pp. 191, 192.

394 Taplin, loc. cit., p. 35.

395 Ibid., p. 36.

396 T. M. Sutton, loc. cit., p. 17.

397 Schürmann, loc. cit., p. 221.

398 Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 178.

399 Ibid., p. 165.

400 Compare T. Gill, loc. cit., p. 223, on the authority of Dr. Moorhouse.

401 G. S. Lang, loc. cit., p. 5.

402 G. S. Lang, loc. cit., p. 14.

403 Refers probably to the Murrumbidgee tribes. Op. cit., iii. p. 9.

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

405 Loc. cit., p. 89.

406 Loc. cit., i. p. 599.

407 Henderson, loc. cit., p. 108.

408 Loc. cit., p. 36.

409 Loc. cit., p. 37.

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

411 Ibid., compare also p. 63.

412 Hodgkinson, loc. cit., p. 222.

413 Science of Man, 1900, p. 116, article by A. C. McDougall.

414 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 46.

415 Gason, loc. cit., p. 258.

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.).

422 J. and Pr. R.S.N.S.W., xl. p. 108.

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

424 J. Mathew, i. p. 128.

425 J. Mathew, i. p. 129.

426 E. Palmer, J.A.I., xiii. pp. 278, 279.

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.

432 Loc. cit., pp. 241, 242.

433 Loc. cit., pp. 156, 157.

434 J. G. Withnell, loc. cit., p. 8.

435 Ibid.

436 Idem, p. 31.

437 Loc. cit., pp. 5, 6.

438 Loc. cit., i. p. 252.

439 Loc. cit., p. 265.

440 Loc. cit., p. 266.

441 Loc. cit., p. 267.

442 Loc. cit., p. 53.

443 Loc. cit., p. 52.

444 Loc. cit., p. 53.

445 Browne, loc. cit., pp. 476, 478.

446 Loc. cit., p. 28.

447 Ibid.

448 Ibid.; compare also p. 44.

449 Loc. cit., p. 36.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

460 Compare G. C. Wheeler, loc. cit., p. 161, and chap. ix. on War, pp. 148 sqq.

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.

469 Rev. Stähle in Kam. and Kurn., pp. 277, 278.

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.

473 Recollections, p. 133.

474 Loc. cit., pp. 10, 11.

475 Loc. cit., pp. 17, 20.

476 Ibid.

477 Eyre, ii. p. 302.

478 Compare Curr, A.R., i. p. 97, and Prof. Frazer, Tot. and Exog., i. pp. 321, 322.

479 Loc. cit., p. 124.

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

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.

484 Loc. cit., i. p. 555.

485 Loc. cit., i. p. 560 and passim.

486 Loc. cit., p. 555.

487 Rev. W. J. Kühn in Kam. and Kurn., p. 287.

488 Woods, p. 222.

489 Loc. cit., p. 109.

490 Loc. cit., p. 82.

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

492 Loc. cit., p. 249.

493 Nat. Tr., p. 18.

494 J.A.I., xxiv. p. 183 (W. H. Willshire in Prof. Frazer’s Questions).

495 J. D. Lang, loc. cit., p. 337.

496 Loc. cit., p. 153.

497 Loc. cit., p. 84.

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.

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.

508 Loc. cit., p. 279.

509 Loc. cit., p. 280.

510 Salvado, loc. cit., p. 317.

511 Loc. cit., p. 448.

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.

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.

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.

515 Of course by result is meant a general formula for kinship.

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.

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.

519 Legal adoption being set apart as a case which only partly establishes the kinship relations.

520 It seems hardly necessary to emphasize that for physiological consanguinity as such, pure and simple, there is no room in sociological science.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

533 The terms child, father and mother being defined first broadly as explained above, pp. 172 sqq.

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.

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.

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.

538 See above, p. 11.

539 Comparing what we have said above on consanguinity.

540 pp. 238 sqq.; and pp. 254-256.

541 The italics are mine.

542 Loc. cit., p. 5.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

558 Compare below, p. 250.

559 Conys. Statements, pp. 238 sqq.

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.

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.

565 Compare the footnote above, p. 174.

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.

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.

572 Primitive Paternity, i. pp. 257-258.

573 Sidney Hartland, ii. p. 99.

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.

577 Kam. and Kurn.

578 A.S., i. p. 316.

579 Ibid., p. 318.

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.)

582 H.H.M., p. 89.

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.

584 pp. 198 sqq.

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.

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.

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.

592 Nat. Tr., p. 265.

593 Loc. cit., ii. p. 52, footnote 7.

594 Loc. cit., iii. p. xi.

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.

596 Bn. Leonhardi in Strehlow, i. Introduction (third page; there is no pagination).

597 Strehlow, ii. p. 57, end of the long footnote.

598 Compare p. 216.

599 Loc. cit., ii. p. 56.

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.

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.

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.

616 Including the tribes recently investigated by Prof. B. Spencer.

617 Compare above, pp. 176 sqq., for discussion of this term.

618 See Spencer and Gillen, Nor. Tr., pp. 169 sqq.

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.

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.

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.

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.

639 Roth, Bull. V. p. 22, § 81.

640 Roth, Bull. V. p. 18, § 68. This refers to the Pennefather River tribes.

641 Ibid.

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.

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.

650 It has been already remarked above on page 179, that there can be no question of physiological consanguinity for other reasons.

651 Defined at first only as members of the same individual family.

652 Compare above, p. 6.

653 Bonney, J.A.I., xiii. p. 125.

654 Meyer in Woods, pp. 186, 187.

655 Wyatt in Woods, p. 162.

656 Chas. Wilhelmi, quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 51. (Port Lincoln Tribes.)

657 Schürmann in Woods, p. 224.

658 Loc. cit., i. pp. 123, 124.

659 Collins, i. pp. 607, 608.

660 In Woods, p. 258.

661 Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., p. 264.

662 Ibid., p. 51.

663 Mathew, p. 166.

664 Loc. cit., p. 50.

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.

666 Howitt, Kam. and Kurn., p. 189.

667 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 766.

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.

672 A.R., i. p. 71.

673 Loc. cit., p. 75.

674 Kam. and Kurn., p. 244.

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.

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.

682 Br. Smyth, ii. p. 290. Note on Australians, by A. Le Souëf. It refers, probably, to the Victorian blacks.

683 Bonney, J.A.I., xiii. p. 126.

684 Ibid.

685 Ibid.

686 Vol. i. pp. 332, 333.

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.

690 Loc. cit., p. 162.

691 Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 181.

692 Nat. Tr., p. 748; informant: H. Williams.

693 Ibid., pp. 748-750.

694 Bennett, i. p. 123.

695 Ibid., pp. 125, 126.

696 p. 33. The author knew personally some tribes of New South Wales and Queensland.

697 Chas. Wilkes (smaller ed.), i. p. 225.

698 p. 100.

699 p. 244 (N. S. Wales).

700 Henderson, p. 121.

701 pp. 239, 268. Port Stephens blacks.

702 pp. 4, 5, 60.

703 Loc. cit., p. 258.

704 Ibid.

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.

708 L. Schultze, loc. cit., p. 238 (Finke River natives).

709 Ibid., p. 240.

710 Ibid., p. 237.

711 Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., pp. 50, 51.

712 Nat. Tr., p. 511.

713 Ibid., pp. 227, 250.

714 Mathew, loc. cit., p. 153.

715 Ibid., p. 153.

716 Lumholtz, on the Herbert River Natives, loc. cit., pp. 192, 193.

717 Ibid., p. 160.

718 Ibid., p. 193.

719 Purcell in R.G.S., Victorian Branch, xi. pp. 19, 20.

720 Loc. cit., p. 280.

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.

726 Withnell, pp. 8, 9.

727 Br. Smyth, ii. p. 275.

728 Loc. cit., p. 32.

729 Loc. cit., pp. 224, 225.

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.

737 Browne, loc. cit., p. 450.

738 Scott Nind, loc. cit., p. 37.

739 Told by Curr, Recollections, ch. xxviii. “Old Davie.”

740 Curr, Recollections, pp. 141-145.

741 Loc. cit., ii. pp. 350-361 (refers to natives of King George’s Sound).

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.

746 Compare also the examples referred to in foregoing footnote.

747 Howitt, Nat. Tr., pp. 748-750.

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.

749 See pp. 191 sqq.

750 Compare also the discussions above, pp. 185 sqq.

751 As mentioned above it is impossible to say how far such rules are legal, i. e. laid down and enforced by society.

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.

753 Curr, Recollections, p. 129.

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.

755 Grey, ii. pp. 229, 231, and Parkhouse, A.A.A.S., vi. p. 641.

756 Compare the description of initiation ceremonies in the works of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Roth, and Mathew.

757 Curr, A.R., i. p. 107. This is said about the Australians in general.

758 Ibid., p. 110.

759 Ibid.

760 Recollections, p. 129.

761 Recollections, p. 171.

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.

767 Trans. R.S.V., p. 116.

768 Loc. cit., ii. p. 322.

769 Ibid., p. 319.

770 Loc. cit., i. p. 82 (Murray River tribes).

771 Meyer in Woods, p. 190.

772 Loc. cit., p. 55.

773 Ibid., p. 56.

774 See above, p. 41.

775 Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., p. 558.

776 Nat. Tr., p. 558.

777 Northern Territory, South Australia, J.A.I., xxiv. p. 181. In the answers to the Questions of Prof. Frazer.

778 Mathew, p. 162. Compare also Lumholtz, loc. cit., p. 192.

779 Salvado, p. 277; natives of South West Australia.

780 Scott Nind, loc. cit., pp. 38, 39.

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.

785 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 776.

786 Ibid., pp. 759, 760.

787 Ibid., p. 764.

788 Ibid. Compare Roth, Eth. Stud., p. 183.

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.

795 Loc. cit., p. 10; this refers to the West Victorian tribes.

796 Eyre, ii. p. 302 (Murray River tribes).

797 Ibid., p. 304.

798 Encounter Bay tribes, Meyer, loc. cit., p. 187.

799 Kam. and Kurn., p. 286.

800 Schürmann, loc. cit., p. 222.

801 In Waitz Gerland, p. 778. That refers probably to South Australian aborigines in general.

802 Chas. Wilkes, smaller ed., i. p. 225; larger ed., ii. p. 205.

803 Mrs. Parker, loc. cit., p. 61.

804 Krichauff, loc. cit., p. 78.

805 Schultze, loc. cit., p. 230.

806 Ibid., p. 234.

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.

810 Part iii. p. 7 and passim.

811 T. A. Parkhouse, loc. cit., p. 641.

812 Compare N. W. Thomas, loc. cit., p. 16.

813 Ibid., p. 643.

814 Eth. Stud., p. 183.

815 Proc. R.S.Q., p. 48.

816 Ibid., p. 51.

817 Grey, ii. p. 252.

818 p. 280.

819 Howitt, Nat. Tr., pp. 232, 233.

820 N. Q. Eth. Bull. 8, p. 6.

821 We have collected here twenty-two statements in which there are many more tribes included.

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.

823 On these connections in general compare the interesting article of Steinmetz, Zeitschrift f. Sozialw., II, pp. 613, 614.

824 Recollections, p. 248.

825 R. Dawson, loc. cit., p. 312. Pt. Stephens tribes.

826 Bonney, J.A.I., xiii. p. 135. Riv. Darling tribe.

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.

831 J. Fraser, loc. cit., p. 44.

832 Ibid.

833 J. Fraser, loc. cit., p. 44.

834 Ibid.

835 Salvado, loc. cit., p. 277.

836 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 451.

837 Ibid.

838 Ibid., p. 452.

839 Ibid., p. 469.

840 Ibid., p. 465.

841 Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., p. 508.

842 Ibid., p. 509.

843 Ibid., p. 508.

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.

851 Kam. and Kurn., pp. 206, 207.

852 Ibid., p. 263.

853 Nat. Tr., p. 761.

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.

857 Recollections, p. 251.

858 Recollections, p. 256.

859 Ibid.

860 Curr, A.R., i. p. 99.

861 Ibid., p. 110.

862 Stanbridge, loc. cit., p. 290.

863 Ibid., p. 291.

864 Ibid.

865 Ibid., p. 293.

866 Ibid., p. 295.

867 Loc. cit., pp. 82, 84, 87.

868 Loc. cit., ii. p. 302.

869 Loc. cit., p. 85. This is a quotation on the authority of an observer (Jardine).

870 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 767.

871 Quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 85.

872 Loc. cit., p. 191.

873 This may be the influence of culture, as Europeans are mentioned in connection therewith.

874 pp. 191, 192.

875 Schürmann, loc. cit., p. 221.

876 Chas. Wilhelmi, pp. 174, 175, 177.

877 Ibid., p. 176.

878 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 776.

879 Loc. cit., pp. 193-196.

880 Phillip, p. 31.

881 Loc. cit., p. 122.

882 Loc. cit., p. 117.

883 Collins, i. p. 556.

884 Loc. cit., p. 2.

885 Loc. cit., p. 60.

886 Port Stephens tribes. R. Dawson, p. 67.

887 Spencer and Gillen, Nat. Tr., p. 50.

888 Ibid., p. 19.

889 Macgillivray, i. p. 148.

890 Earl, p. 251.

891 Petrie, p. 61.

892 B. Field, p. 75.

893 Loc. cit., p. 83.

894 Ibid., p. 82.

895 Ibid., p. 86.

896 Loc. cit., p. 100.

897 Loc. cit., p. 160, 161.

898 Ibid., p. 193.

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.

904 Macgillivray, loc. cit., ii. p. 9.

905 Loc. cit., p. 80.

906 Ibid., p. 74.

907 Ibid., p. 80.

908 Loc. cit., p. 319.

909 Murchison District, Oldfield, p. 249.

910 Ibid., p. 250.

911 Swan District, Salvado, p. 295.

912 Ibid., see ch. viii. passim.

913 p. 317.

914 Ibid., p. 315.

915 Ibid., p. 321.

916 Loc. cit., p. 450.

917 Loc. cit., pp. 36, 37. Refers to the tribes of King George’s Sound.

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.

922 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 765.

923 Ibid., p. 767.

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.

929 Dawson, p. 22.

930 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 768.

931 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 763.

932 Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 192.

933 Howitt, Nat. Tr., p. 762.

934 Loc. cit., p. 117.

935 R. Dawson, p. 327.

936 Mrs. Parker, loc. cit., p. 117.

937 Ibid.

938 Ibid., p. 118.

939 J.R.S.N.S.W. (1904), p. 258.

940 Nat. Tr., p. 469.

941 Nor. Tr., pp. 610, 611.

942 Compare above, ch. ii.

943 Petrie, Howitt’s Nat. Tr., p. 768.

944 Palmer, J.A.I., xiii. p. 285.

945 Oldfield, p. 271.

946 Ibid., p. 226.

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.

948 Hutton Webster, loc. cit., pp. 99, 100 (ch. vi.).

949 Compare Niboer, loc. cit., p. 23.

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.

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.

952 It will be remembered that individual family means throughout this book: husband, wife and their young children living with them.

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.

958 See p. 290, note 1.

959 In the more restricted sense used throughout this book. Extended family, Grossfamilie, involves more remote relationship.

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).

961 Compare above, Chap. VI., esp. pp. 182, 209 sqq. and 226.

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.

965 A.S., i. p. 330.

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.

---

page	original text	correction
38	orm	form
38	footnote missing in original	[58]
45	pére	père
156, n. 458	Exeg.	Exog.
197, n. 564	Sociologie	Soziologie
202	judical	juridical
208, n. 585 2x	Antr.	Anthr.
210	Ubrigens	Übrigens
214	Abheringa	Alcheringa
221	ife	life
233, n. 651	individua	individual
252, n. 748	Socialwissenschaft	Sozialwissenschaft
268, n. 823	Socialw.	Sozialw.
309	corrobated	corroborated
314	Zeitschift	Zeitschrift
315 2x	Socialwissensch.	Sozialwissensch.
321	relalations	relations
322	Fehr.	Frhr.