[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.