summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat
-rw-r--r--.gitattributes3
-rw-r--r--17404-0.txt8815
-rw-r--r--17404-0.zipbin0 -> 134485 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-8.txt8828
-rw-r--r--17404-8.zipbin0 -> 134555 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h.zipbin0 -> 635999 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/17404-h.htm11292
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image01.jpgbin0 -> 6107 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image02-full.jpgbin0 -> 66526 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image02.jpgbin0 -> 21901 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image03-full.jpgbin0 -> 82886 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image03.jpgbin0 -> 30198 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image04-full.jpgbin0 -> 101580 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image04.jpgbin0 -> 26355 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image05.jpgbin0 -> 105888 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404-h/images/image06.jpgbin0 -> 62602 bytes
-rw-r--r--17404.txt8828
-rw-r--r--17404.zipbin0 -> 134485 bytes
-rw-r--r--LICENSE.txt11
-rw-r--r--README.md2
20 files changed, 37779 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/17404-0.txt b/17404-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b6ecc04
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,8815 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in
+Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia
+
+Author: Northcote W. Thomas
+
+Release Date: December 28, 2005 [EBook #17404]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Transcriber's Note:
+
+This text has many tables, which are best viewed using a fixed-width
+font.
+
+Table I a and the _Arunta: Eight-class_ Table were printed on fold-out
+pages. These have been split into sections (3 and 2 sections,
+respectively) to fit within the display boundaries.
+
+The original book had a number of words with inconsistant hyphenation or
+spelling, as well as a small number of typographical errors. These have
+been maintained in this version. The inconsistencies and errors are
+detailed at the end of the present text.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+
+
+_The Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series is supervised by
+an Editorial Committee consisting of WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, M.A., F.B.A.,
+Disney Professor of Archaeology, A.C. HADDON, Sc.D., F.R.S., University
+Lecturer in Ethnology, M.R. JAMES, Litt. D., F.B.A., Provost of King's
+College and C. WALDSTEIN, Litt. D., Slade Professor of Fine Art._
+
+
+
+
+ KINSHIP ORGANISATIONS
+
+ AND
+
+ GROUP MARRIAGE
+
+ IN
+
+ AUSTRALIA
+
+
+
+ BY
+
+ NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS, M.A.
+ Diplomé de l'École des Hautes-Études,
+Corresponding Member of the Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, etc.
+
+
+ CAMBRIDGE:
+ at the University Press
+ 1906
+
+
+
+
+ CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
+ C.F. CLAY, MANAGER,
+
+ London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
+ Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ Leipzig: F.A. BROCKHAUS.
+ New York: G.P. PUTNAM'S SONS.
+ Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
+
+
+
+ [_All Rights reserved._]
+
+
+
+
+ DEDICATED
+ TO
+ MISS C.S. BURNE,
+ WHO FIRST GUIDED MY STEPS
+ INTO THE PATHS OF
+ ANTHROPOLOGY
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+It is becoming an axiom in anthropology that what is needed is not
+discursive treatment of large subjects but the minute discussion of
+special themes, not a ranging at large over the peoples of the earth
+past and present, but a detailed examination of limited areas. This work
+I am undertaking for Australia, and in the present volume I deal briefly
+with some of the aspects of Australian kinship organisations, in the
+hope that a survey of our present knowledge may stimulate further
+research on the spot and help to throw more light on many difficult
+problems of primitive sociology.
+
+We have still much to learn of the relations of the central tribes and
+their organisations to the less elaborately studied Anula and Mara. I
+have therefore passed over the questions discussed by Dr Durkheim. We
+have still more to learn as to the descent of the totem, the relation of
+totem-kin, class and phratry, and the like; totemism is therefore
+treated only incidentally in the present work, and lack of knowledge
+compels me to pass over many other interesting questions.
+
+The present volume owes much to Mr Andrew Lang. He has read twice over
+both my typescript MS, and my proofs; in the detection of ambiguities
+and the removal of obscurities he has rendered my readers a greater
+service than any bald statement will convey; for his aid in the matter
+of terminology, for his criticisms of ideas already put forward and for
+his many pregnant suggestions, but inadequately worked out in the
+present volume. I am under the deepest obligations to him; and no mere
+formal expression of thanks will meet the case. I have been more than
+fortunate in securing aid from Mr Lang in a subject which he has made
+his own.
+
+I do not for a moment suppose that the information here collected is
+exhaustive. If any one should be in a position to supplement or correct
+my facts or to enlighten me in any way as to the ideas and customs of
+the blacks I shall be obliged if he will tell me all he knows about them
+and their ways. Letters may be addressed to me c/o the Anthropological
+Institute, 3 Hanover Sq., W.
+
+NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS.
+
+BUNTINGFORD,
+ _Sept. 11th, 1906._
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+
+ PAGE
+PREFACE vii
+
+CONTENTS ix
+
+BIBLIOGRAPHY xii
+
+INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS xiv
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+INTRODUCTORY.
+
+Social Organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups: totem kins;
+phratries Pages =1-11=
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+DESCENT.
+
+Descent of Kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
+Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of descent;
+relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation =12-28=
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.
+
+Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
+"Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in Australia.
+General sketch =29-40=
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.
+
+TABLES I, I a. Class Names =42, 47=
+
+TABLE II. Phratry Names =48=
+
+TABLE III. Comparison of "blood" and phratry names =50=
+
+TABLE IV. Relations of Class and phratry organisations =51=
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+PHRATRY NAMES.
+
+The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
+Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts. Intercommunication.
+Tribal Migrations =52-62=
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.
+
+Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split
+groups. The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory
+of phratriac origin =63-70=
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CLASS NAMES.
+
+Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the Names:
+Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names =71-85=
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.
+
+Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
+totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory of
+classes =86-92=
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+KINSHIP TERMS.
+
+Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
+Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
+Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger =93-101=
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.
+
+Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types.
+Hypothetical and existing forms =102-109=
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.
+
+Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts
+ =110-118=
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.
+
+Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. _Noa._ Group Mothers.
+Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms express
+status. The savage view natural =119-126=
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+PIRRAURU.
+
+Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
+marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
+_pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
+Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
+_Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
+scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_; obscure
+points =127-141=
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+TEMPORARY UNIONS.
+
+Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for
+adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven
+ =142-149=
+
+
+APPENDIX.
+
+ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
+
+Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
+and "Castes" =150-152=
+
+INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES =153-157=
+INDEX OF SUBJECTS =158-163=
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+MAPS.
+
+ PAGE
+ I. Rule of Descent =40=
+ II. Class Organisations to follow =40=
+III. Phratry Organisations " =40=
+
+
+TABLE.
+
+Class Names of Eight-Class Tribes =between pp. 46= and =47=
+
+
+
+
+BIBLIOGRAPHY.
+
+
+ 1. _Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift._ Gutersloh, 1874 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 2. _American Anthropologist._ Washington, 1888 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 3. _Année Sociologique._ Paris, 1898 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 4. _Archaeologia Americana._ Philadelphia, 1820 etc., 4^o.
+
+ 5. _Das Ausland._ Munich, 1828-1893, 4^o.
+
+ 6. _Bulletins of North Queensland Ethnography._ Brisbane, 1901 etc., fol.
+
+ 7. BUNCE, D., _Australasiatic Reminiscences of Twenty-three Years
+ Wanderings._ Melbourne, 1857, 8^o.
+
+ 8. _Colonial Magazine._ London, 1840-1842, 8^o.
+
+ 9. CUNOW, H., _Die Verwandtschaftsorganisationen der Australneger._
+ Leipzig, 1894, 8^o.
+
+10. CURR, E.M., _The Australian Race._ 4 vols., London, 1886, 8^o and fol.
+
+11. DAWSON, J., _Australian Aborigines._ Melbourne, 1881, 4^o.
+
+12. FISON, L. and HOWITT, A.W., _Kamilaroi and Kurnai._ Melbourne, 1880,
+ 8^o.
+
+13. _Folklore._ London, 1892 etc., 8^o.
+
+14. _Fortnightly Review._ London, 1865-1889, 8^o.
+
+15. FRAZER, J.G., _Totemism._ Edinburgh, 1887, 8^o.
+
+16. GERSTAECKER, F., _Reisen von F. Gerstaecker._ 5 vols., Stuttgart,
+ 1853-4, 8^o.
+
+17. _Globus._ Hildburghausen etc., 1863 etc., 4^o.
+
+18. GREY, Sir G., _Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in
+ North-West and West Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1841, 8^o.
+
+19. GRIBBLE, J.B., _Black but Comely._ London, 1874, 8^o.
+
+20. HODGSON, C.P., _Reminiscences of Australia._ London, 1846, 12^o.
+
+21. HOWITT, A.W., _Native Tribes of South-East Australia._ London, 1904,
+ 8^o.
+
+22. _Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie._ Leyden, 1888 etc., 4^o.
+
+23. _Journal of the Anthropological Institute._ London, 1871 sq., 8^o.
+
+24. _Journal of the Royal Geographical Society._ London, 1832-1880, 8^o.
+
+25. _Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales._ Sydney, 1877
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+26. _Journals of Several Expeditions in West Australia._ London, 1833,
+ 12^o.
+
+27. LAHONTAN, H. DE, _Voyages._ Amsterdam, 1705, 12^o.
+
+28. LANG, A. and ATKINSON, J., _Social Origins_; _Primal Law._ London,
+ 1903, 8^o.
+
+29. LANG, A., _Secret of the Totem._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+30. LEICHARDT, F.W.L., _Journal of an Overland Expedition in Australia._
+ London, 1848, 8^o.
+
+31. LUMHOLTZ, C., _Among Cannibals._ London, 1889, 8^o.
+
+32. MACLENNAN, J.F., _Studies in Ancient History._ 2nd Series, London,
+ 1886, 8^o.
+
+33. _Man._ London, 1901 sq., 8^o.
+
+34. MATHEW, J., _Eaglehawk and Crow._ London, 1898, 8^o.
+
+35. MATHEWS, R.H., _Ethnological Notes._ Sydney, 1905, 8^o.
+
+36. _Mitteilungen des Seminars fur orientalische Sprachen._ Berlin, 1898
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+37. _Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Erdkunde._ Halle, 1877-1892, 8^o.
+
+38. MOORE, G.F., _Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language in Common Use
+ among the Aborigines of Western Australia._ London, 1842, 8^o.
+
+39. MORGAN, Lewis H., _Ancient Society._ New York, 1877, 8^o.
+
+40. NEW, C., _Travels._ London, 1854, 8^o.
+
+41. OWEN, Mary A., _The Musquakie Indians._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+42. PARKER, K.L., _The Euahlayi Tribe._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+43. PETRIE, Tom, _Reminiscences._ Brisbane, 1905, 8^o.
+
+44. _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society._ Philadelphia,
+ 1840 etc., 8^o.
+
+45. _Proceedings of the Australian Association for the Advancement of
+ Science._ 1889 etc., 8^o.
+
+46. _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia,
+ Queensland Branch._ Brisbane, 1886 etc., 8^o.
+
+47. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland._ Brisbane, 1884
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+48. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria._ Melbourne, 1889
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+49. _Reports of the Cambridge University Expedition to Torres Straits._
+ Cambridge, 1903 etc., 4^o.
+
+50. ROTH, W.E., _Ethnological Studies._ Brisbane, 1898, 8^o.
+
+51. SCHÜRMANN, C.W., _Vocabulary of the Parnkalla Language._ Adelaide,
+ 1844, 8^o.
+
+52. _Science of Man._ Sydney, 1898 etc., 4^o.
+
+53. _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge._ Washington, 1848 etc. 4^o.
+
+54. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Native Tribes of Central
+ Australasia._ London, 1898, 8^o.
+
+55. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Northern Tribes of Central
+ Australia._ London, 1904, 8^o.
+
+56. STOKES, J.L., _Discoveries in Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1846, 8^o.
+
+57. TAPLIN, G., _Folklore, Manners, Customs and Language of the South
+ Australian Aborigines._ Adelaide, 1878, 8^o.
+
+58. _Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South
+ Australia._ Adelaide, 1878 etc., 8^o.
+
+59. VAN GENNEP, A., _Mythes et Légendes._ Paris, 1906, 8^o.
+
+60. _West Australian._ Perth, 1886 etc., fol.
+
+61. WESTERMARCK, E., _History of Human Marriage._ 3rd Edition, London,
+ 1901, 8^o.
+
+62. _Wiener Medicinische Wochenschrift._ Vienna, 1851 etc., 4^o.
+
+63. WILSON, T.B., _Narrative of a Voyage round the World._ London, 1835,
+ 8^o.
+
+64. _Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft._ Stuttgart, 1878
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS.
+
+
+_Allg. Miss. Zts._, 1
+_Am. Anth._, 2
+_Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
+_Ann. Soc._, 3
+_Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._, 45
+_Col. Mag._, 8
+_C.T._, 54
+_Ethn. Notes_, 35
+_Fort. Rev._, 14
+_J.A.I._, 23
+_J.R.G.S._, 24
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._, 25
+_J.R.S. Vict._, 48
+_Nat. Tr._, 54
+_Nor. Tr._, 55
+_N.Q. Ethn. Bull._, 6
+_N.T._, 21
+_Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
+_Proc. R.G.S. Qn._, 46
+_Proc. R.S. Vict._, 48
+_R.G.S. Qn._, 47
+_Sci. Man_, 52
+_T.R.S.S.A._, 58
+_West. Aust._, 60
+_Zts. vgl. Rechtsw._, 64
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+INTRODUCTORY.
+
+Social organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+ Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups; totem kins;
+ phratries.
+
+
+The passage from what is commonly termed savagery through barbarism to
+civilisation is marked by a change in the character of the associations
+which are almost everywhere a feature of human society. In the lower
+stages of culture, save among peoples whose organisation has perished
+under the pressure of foreign invasion or other external influences, man
+is found grouped into totem kins, intermarrying classes and similar
+organised bodies, and one of their most important characteristics is
+that membership of them depends on birth, not on the choice of the
+individual. In modern society, on the other hand, associations of this
+sort have entirely disappeared and man is grouped in voluntary
+societies, membership of which depends on his own choice.
+
+It is true that the family, which exists in the lower stages of culture,
+though it is overshadowed by the other social phenomena, has persisted
+through all the manifold revolutions of society; especially in the stage
+of barbarism, its importance in some directions, such as the regulation
+of marriage, often forbidden within limits of consanguinity much wider
+than among ourselves, approaches the influence of the forms of natal
+association which it had supplanted. In the present day, however, if we
+set aside its economic and steadily diminishing ethical sides, it
+cannot be compared in importance with the territorial groupings on which
+state and municipal activities depend.
+
+If the family is a persistent type the tribe may also be compared to the
+modern state; it is, in most parts of the world, no less territorial in
+its nature; membership of it does not depend among the Australians on
+any supposed descent from a common ancestor; and though residence plus
+possession of a common speech is mentioned by Howitt as the test of
+tribe, it is possible in Australia, under certain conditions[1], to pass
+from one tribe to another in such a way that we seem reduced to
+residence as the test of membership. This change of tribe takes place
+almost exclusively where tribes are friendly, so far as is known; and we
+may doubt whether it would be possible for a stranger to settle, without
+any rite of adoption, in the midst of a hostile or even of an unknown
+tribe; but this is clearly a matter of minor importance, if adoption is
+not, as in North America, an invariable element of the change of tribe.
+Although membership of a tribe is thus loosely determined, tribesmen
+feel themselves bound by ties of some kind to their fellow-tribesmen, as
+we shall see below, but in this they do not differ from the members of
+any modern state.
+
+But in Australia the importance of the tribe, save from an economic
+point of view, as joint owner of the tribal land, is small compared with
+the part played in the lives of its members by the intratribal
+associations, whose influence is recognised without, as within the
+tribe. These associations are of two kinds in the lowest strata of human
+society; in each case membership is determined by birth and they may
+therefore be distinguished as _natal associations_. In the one case, the
+_kinship groups_ such as totem kins, phratries, etc., an individual
+remains permanently in the association into which he is born, special
+cases apart, in which by adoption he passes out of it and joins another
+by means of a legal fiction[2]. The other kind of association, to which
+the name _age-grades_ is applied, is composed of a series of grades,
+through which, concomitantly with the performance of the rites of
+initiation obligatory on every male member of the community, each man
+passes in succession, until he attains the highest. In the rare cases
+where an individual fails to qualify for the grade into which his
+coevals pass, and remains in the grade of "youth" or even lower grades,
+he is by birth a member of one class and does not remain outside the
+age-grades altogether.
+
+In the element of voluntary action lies the distinction between
+age-grades and _secret societies_, which are organised on identical or
+similar lines but depend for membership on ceremonies of initiation,
+alike in the lowest as in the highest grade. Such societies may be
+termed voluntary. The differentia between the natal and the voluntary
+association lies in the fact that in the former all are members of one
+or other grade, in the latter only such as have taken steps to gain
+admission, all others being simply non-members.
+
+Although _primâ facie_ all these forms of association are equally
+entitled to be classed as social organisations, the use of this term is
+limited in practice, at any rate as regards Australia, and is the
+accepted designation of the kinship form of natal associations only; for
+this limitation there is so far justification, that though they perhaps
+play a smaller part in the daily life of the people than the secret
+societies of some areas, with their club-houses and other features which
+determine the whole form of life, the kinship associations are normally
+regulative of marriage and thus exercise an influence in a field of
+their own.
+
+Marriage prohibitions in the various races of mankind show an almost
+endless diversity of form; but all are based on considerations either of
+consanguinity or kinship or on a combination of the two. The distinction
+between _consanguinity_ and _kinship_ first demands attention; the
+former depends on birth, the latter on the law or custom of the
+community, and this distinction is all-important, especially in dealing
+with primitive peoples. With ourselves the two usually coincide, though
+even in civilised communities there are variations in this respect.
+Thus, according to the law of England, the father of an illegitimate
+child is not akin to it, though _ex hypothesi_ there is a tie of blood
+between them. In England nothing short of an Act of Parliament can make
+them akin; but in Scotland the subsequent marriage of the father with
+the mother of the child changes the legal status of the latter and makes
+it of kin with its father. These two examples make it abundantly evident
+that kinship is with us a matter of law.
+
+Among primitive peoples kinship occupies a similar position but with
+important differences. As with us, it is a sociological fact; custom,
+which has among them far more power than law among us, determines
+whether a man is of kin to his mother and her relatives alone, or to his
+father and father's relatives, or whether both sets of relatives are
+alike of kin to him. In the latter case, where parental kinship
+prevails, the limits of the kin are often determined by the facts of
+consanguinity. In the two former cases, where kinship is reckoned
+through males alone or through females alone, consanguinity has little
+or nothing to do with kinship, as will be shown more in detail below.
+
+Kinship is sociological, consanguinity physiological; in thus stating
+the case we are concerned only with broad principles. In practice the
+idea of consanguinity is modified in two ways and a sociological element
+is introduced, which has gone far to obscure the difference between
+these two systems of laying the foundations of human society. In the
+first place, custom determines the limits within which consanguinity is
+supposed to exist; or, in other words, at what point the descendants of
+a given ancestor cease to be blood relations. In the second place
+erroneous physiological ideas modify the ideas held as to actually
+existing consanguine relations, as we conceive them. The latter
+peculiarity does not affect the enquiry to any extent; it merely limits
+the sphere within which consanguinity plays a part, side by side with
+kinship, in moulding social institutions. If an Australian tribe, for
+example, distinguishes the actual mother of a child from the other women
+who go by the same kinship name, they may or may not develop on parallel
+lines their ideas as to the relation of the child and his real father.
+Some relation will almost certainly be found to exist between them; but
+it by no means follows that it arises from any idea of consanguinity. In
+other communities potestas and not consanguinity is held to determine
+the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring; and it is a
+matter for careful enquiry how far the same holds good in Australia,
+where the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be
+unrecognised by the natives. In speaking of consanguinity therefore, it
+must be made quite clear whether consanguinity according to native ideas
+or according to our own ideas is meant.
+
+The customary limitations and extensions of consanguinity, on the other
+hand, cause more inconvenience. They are of course sometimes combined
+with the other kind, which we may term quasi-physiological, but with
+this combination we need not deal, as we are concerned to analyse only
+on broad lines the nature of these elements. Just as, with us, kinship
+and consanguinity largely coincide, so with primitive peoples are the
+kinship organisations immense, if one-sided, extensions of blood
+relationship, at all events in theory. In many parts of the world a
+totem kin traces its descent to a single male or female ancestor; and
+even where, as in Australia, this is not the case, blood brotherhood is
+expressly asserted of the totem kin[3].
+
+Entry into the totem kin may often be gained by adoption, though not
+apparently in Australia, and the blood relationship thus becomes an
+artificial one and partakes, even if the initial assumption be accepted
+as true, far more of the nature of kinship than of consanguinity. In
+Australia, and possibly in other parts of the world, there is a further
+extension of natal kinship. Although the tribe is not regarded as
+descended from a single pair, its members are certainly reckoned as of
+kin to each other in some way; the situation may be summarised by saying
+that under one of the systems of kinship organisation (the two-phratry),
+half of the members of the tribe in a given generation are related to a
+given man, A, and the other half to his wife. More than one observer
+assures us that there is a solidarity about the tribe, which regards
+some, if not all other tribes as "wild blacks," though it may be on
+terms of friendship and alliance with certain neighbours, and feel
+itself united to them by a bond analogous to, though weaker than, that
+which holds its own members together.
+
+If however a homonymous totem kin exists even in a hostile or absolutely
+unknown tribe, a member of it will be regarded, as we learn from Dr
+Howitt, as a brother. How this view is reconciled with the belief that
+the tribe in question is alien and in no way akin to that in which the
+other totem kin is found, is a question of some interest for which there
+appears to be no answer in the literature concerning the Australian
+aborigines.
+
+Even if, therefore, we had reason to believe that all totem kins in a
+given tribe or group of tribes could make out a good case for their
+descent from single male or female ancestors, which is far from being
+the case, we should still have to recognise that kinship and not
+consanguinity is the proper term to apply to the relationship between
+members of the same group. For, as we have seen, it may be recruited
+from without in some cases, while in others, persons who are
+demonstrably not of the same blood, are regarded as totem-brethren by
+virtue of the common name.
+
+Enough has now been said to make clear the difference between
+consanguinity and kinship and to exemplify the nature of some of the
+transitional forms. As we have seen, it is on considerations of either
+consanguinity or kinship that many marriage prohibitions are based.
+
+Marriage prohibitions depend broadly on three kinds of considerations:
+(1) Kinship, intermarriage being forbidden to members of the same
+kinship group; a brief introductory sketch of the nature and
+distribution of kinship groups will be found below. (2) Locality. In New
+Guinea, parts of Australia, Melanesia, Africa, and possibly elsewhere,
+_local exogamy_ is found. By this is meant that the resident in one
+place is bound to go outside his own group for a mate, and may perhaps
+be bound to seek a spouse in a specified locality. This kind of
+organisation is in Australia almost certainly an offshoot of kinship
+organisation (see p. 10), and is _primâ facie_ due to the same cause in
+other areas. (3) (_a_) consanguinity, and (_b_) affinity. The first of
+these considerations is regulative of marriage even in Australia, where
+the influence of kinship organisations is in the main supreme in these
+matters. We learn from Roth and other authorities that blood cousins,
+children of own brother and sister, may not marry in North-West Central
+Queensland, although the kinship regulations designate them as the
+proper spouses one for the other. (_b_) Considerations of affinity, the
+relations set up by marriage, do not affect the status of the parties,
+so far as the legality of marriage is concerned, till a somewhat higher
+stage is reached.
+
+In the present work we are concerned with kinship groups and the
+marriage regulations based on them. A kinship group, whether it be a
+totem kin, phratry, class, or other form of association, is a fraction
+of a tribe; and before we proceed to deal with kinship organisations, it
+will be necessary to say a few words on the nature of the tribe and the
+family. In Australia the tribe is a local aggregate, composed of
+friendly groups speaking the same language and owning corporately or
+individually the land to which the tribe lays claim. A change of tribe
+is effected by marriage plus removal, and possibly by simple residence;
+children belong to the tribe among which their parents reside. In the
+ordinary tribe each member seems to apply to every other member one or
+other of the kinship terms; and this no doubt accounts for the feeling
+of tribal solidarity already mentioned. There are however certain tribes
+in which the marriage regulations, as with the Urabunna, so split the
+intermarrying fractions, that the tribe is, as it were, divided into
+water-tight compartments; how far kinship terms are applied under these
+circumstances our information does not say.
+
+The tribe is defined by American anthropologists as a union of hordes or
+clans for common defence under a chief. The American tribe differs in
+two respects, at least, from the Australian tribe; in the first place,
+marriage outside the tribe is exceptional in America and common in
+Australia; in the second place, the stranger gains entrance to the
+American tribe only by adoption; and we may probably add, thirdly, that
+the American tribe does not invariably lay claim to landed property or
+hunting rights.
+
+The tribe is subdivided in various ways. In addition to the various
+forms of natal and other associations, there is, at any rate in
+Australia, a local organisation; the local group is often the owner of a
+portion of the tribal area. This local group again falls into a number
+of families (in the European sense), and the land is parcelled out among
+them in some cases, in others it may be the property of individuals. But
+there is a great lack of clearness with regard to the bodies or persons
+in whom landed property is vested. The composition of the local group
+varies according to the customs of residence after marriage, and the
+rules by which membership of the kinship organisation is determined.
+These two forces acting together may produce two types of local group:
+(1) the mixed group, in which persons of various kinship organisations
+are scattered at random; (2) the kin group, in which either all the
+males or all the females together with the children are members of one
+kinship organisation.
+
+Save in the rare instances of non-exogamous kinship groups, the family
+necessarily contains one member, at least, whose kin is not the same as
+that of the remainder; this is either the husband or the wife, according
+as descent is reckoned in the female or the male line; where polygyny is
+practised, this unity may go no further than the phratry or the class,
+each wife being of a different totem kin.
+
+Although it frequently happens that the children belong to the kin which
+through one of the parents or otherwise exercises the supreme authority
+in the family, it is far from being the case that there is invariable
+agreement between the principles on which kinship and authority are
+determined. Three main types of family may be distinguished: (1)
+patripotestal, (2) matripotestal, (_a_) direct, and (_b_) indirect, in
+which the authority is wielded by the father, mother, and mother's
+relatives, in particular her brothers, respectively. Innumerable
+transitional forms are found, some of which will be mentioned in the
+next chapter, which deals with the rule of descent by which membership
+of natal groups is determined.
+
+Turning now to kinship organisations, we find that the most widely
+distributed type is the totem kin, in fact, if we except the Hottentots
+and a few other peoples among whom no trace of it is found, it is
+difficult to say where totemism has not at one time or another
+prevailed. It is found as a living cult to-day among the greater part of
+the aborigines of North and South America, in Australia, and among some
+of the Bantu populations of the southern half of Africa. In more or less
+recognisable forms it is found in other parts of Africa, New Guinea,
+India, and other parts of the world. In the ancient world its existence
+has been maintained for Rome (clan Valeria etc.), Greece, and Egypt, but
+the absence of information as to details of the social structure renders
+these theories uncertain.
+
+Aberrant cases apart, totemism is understood to involve (1) the
+existence of a body of persons claiming kinship, who (2) stand in a
+certain relation to some object, usually an animal, and (3) do not marry
+within the kin.
+
+Passing over the classes, which are peculiar to Australia and will be
+fully dealt with below, we come to a more comprehensive form of kinship
+organisation in the phratries. These are a grouping of the community in
+two or more exogamous divisions, between which the totem kins, where
+they exist, are distributed. The essential feature of a phratry is that
+it is exogamous; its members cannot ordinarily marry within it, and,
+where there are more than two phratries, there may exist rules limiting
+their choice to certain phratries.[4]
+
+This dual or other grouping of the kins is widely found in North
+America, the number of phratries ranging from two among the Tlinkits,
+Cayugas, Choctaws, and others, to ten among the Moquis of Arizona. As in
+Australia, the totem kins bearing the same eponymous animal as the
+phratry are usually, e.g. among the Tlinkits, found in the phratry in
+question. Exceptions to this rule are found among the Haida, where both
+eagle and raven are in the eagle phratry.
+
+The Mohegan and Kutchin phratries call for special notice. The kins of
+the former are arranged in three groups: wolf, turtle, and turkey; and
+the first phratry includes quadrupeds, the second turtles of various
+kinds and the yellow eel, and the third birds. We find a parallel to
+these phratries in the groups of the Kutchin, but in the latter case
+our lack of knowledge of the tribe precludes us from saying whether
+totem kins exist among them, and, if so, how far the grouping is
+systematic; the Kutchin groups, according to one authority, are known by
+the generic names of birds, beasts, and fish. As a rule, however, no
+classification of kins is found, nor are the phratry names specially
+significant.
+
+Dual grouping of the kins is also found in New Guinea, the Torres
+Straits Islands, and possibly among the ancient Arabs[5]; but evidence
+in the latter case has not been systematically dealt with.
+
+Other peoples have a similar dichotomous organisation; but it is either
+not based on the totem kins or they have fallen into the background.
+
+In various parts of Melanesia we find the people divided into two
+groups, each associated with a single totem or mythological personage,
+and sexual intercourse, whether marital or otherwise, is strictly
+forbidden between those of the same phratry[6]. In India the Todas have
+a similar organisation[7], and the Wanika in East Africa[8].
+
+Customs of residence and descent affect the distribution of the
+phratries within the tribe, no less than the composition of the local
+group. With patrilineal descent they tend to occupy the tribal territory
+in such a way that each phratry becomes a local group. With the
+disappearance of phratry names this would be transformed into a local
+exogamous group, which is, however, indistinguishable from the local
+group of the same nature which is the result of the development of a
+totem kin under similar conditions.
+
+As a rule kinship organisations descend in a given tribe either in the
+male line or in the female. Among the Ova-Herero, however, and other
+Bantu tribes, there are two kinds of organisation, one--the
+_eanda_--descending in female line and regulative of marriage, is
+clearly the totem kin; property remains in the _eanda_, and
+consequently descends to the sister's son. The other--the
+_oruzo_--descends in the male line; it is concerned with chieftainship
+and priesthood, which remain in the same _oruzo_, and the heir is the
+brother's son.[9]
+
+This dual rule of descent brings us face to face with the question of
+how membership of kinship groups is determined.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] Howitt, _N.T._, p. 225.
+
+[2] Cf. Owen, _Musquakie Indians_, p. 122; Lahontan, _Voyages_, II,
+203-4; Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 81.
+
+[3] Two kinds of kinship are recognised in Australian tribes--(_a_)
+totem and (_b_) phratry or class--but the precise relationship of one to
+the other is far from clear. Nor is there much information as to what
+terms of kinship are used within the totem kin. It is certain that
+neither set of terms includes the other, for the totem kin extends
+beyond the tribe or may do so, and there is more than one in each
+phratry.
+
+[4] For the facts see Frazer, _Totemism_, and cf. p. 31 _infra_.
+
+[5] MS. note from Dr Seligmann's unpublished _Report of Cook-Daniels
+Expedition; Camb. Univ. Torres Sts Exped._, V, 172; _Man_, 1904, no. 18.
+
+[6] _J.A.I._ XVIII, 282.
+
+[7] _Man_, 1903, no. 97.
+
+[8] New, _Travels_, p. 274.
+
+[9] _Ausland_, 1856, p. 45, 1882, p. 834; _Allg. Miss. Zts._ V, 354;
+_Zts. Vgl. Rechtswiss._ XIV, 295; _Mitt. Orient. Seminar_, III, 73, V,
+109. The recent work of Irle is inaccurate and confused.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+DESCENT.
+
+Descent of kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
+ Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of
+ descent; relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation.
+
+
+In discussions of the origin and evolution of kinship organisations, we
+are necessarily concerned not only with their forms but also with the
+rules of descent which regulate membership of them. Until recently the
+main questions at issue were twofold: (1) the priority or otherwise of
+female descent; (2) the causes of the transition from one form of
+descent to another. Of late the question has been raised whether in the
+beginning hereditary kinship groups existed at all, or whether
+membership was not rather determined by considerations of an entirely
+different order. Dr Frazer, who has enunciated this view, maintains that
+totemism rests on a primitive theory of conception, due to savage
+ignorance of the facts of procreation.[10] But his theory is based
+exclusively on the foundation of the beliefs of the Central Australians
+and seems to neglect more than one important point which goes to show
+that the Arunta have evolved their totemic system from the more ordinary
+hereditary form. Whether this be so or not, it is difficult to see how
+any idea of kinship could arise from such a condition of nescience. If
+we take the analogous case of the nagual or "individual totem" there
+seems to be no trace of any belief in the kinship of those who have the
+same animal as their nagual, but are otherwise bound by no tie of
+relationship. Yet if Dr Frazer's theory were correct, this is precisely
+what we ought to find.
+
+This is, however, no reason for rejecting the general proposition that
+kinship, at its origin, was not hereditary; or, more exactly, that the
+beginnings of the kinship groups found at the present day may be traced
+back to a point at which the hereditary principle virtually disappears,
+although the bond of union and perhaps the totem name already existed.
+If, as suggested by Mr Lang, man was originally distributed in small
+communities, known by names which ultimately came to be those of the
+totem kins, we may suppose that daily association would not fail to
+bring about that sense of solidarity in its members which it is found to
+produce in more advanced communities. In the case of the tribe an even
+feebler bond, the possession of a common language, seems to give the
+tribesmen a sense of the unity of the tribe, though perhaps other
+explanations may be suggested, such as the possession in common of the
+tribal land, or the origin of the tribe from a single blood-related
+group. However this may be, it seems reasonable to look for one factor
+of the first bond of union in the influence of the daily and hourly
+association of group-mates. On the other hand, if, as Mr Lang supposes,
+the original group was a consanguine one, the claims of the factor of
+consanguinity and perhaps of foster brotherhood and motherhood cannot be
+neglected. It may be true, as Dr Frazer argues, that man was originally
+and still is in some cases ignorant of physiological facts. But all
+races of man and a great part of the rest of the animal kingdom show us
+the phenomena of parental affection, of care for offspring and sometimes
+of union for their defence. This does not, it may be noted, imply any
+predominance of the mother.[11]
+
+We may suppose that the idea of kinship or the recognition of
+consanguinity, whichever be the more correct term to apply to these
+far-off developments of the factors of human society, extended only by
+degrees beyond the limits of the group. First, perhaps, came the naming
+of the group, already, it may be, exogamous; then came the recognition
+of the fact that those members of it, viz. the women, who passed to
+community B after being born and having resided for years in community
+A, were in reality, in spite of their change of residence, still in fact
+the kin of community A; finally came the step of assigning to their
+children the group names which were retained by their mothers from the
+original natal groups. This brings us face to face with the first of the
+fundamental questions of descent, to which allusion has been made.
+
+It is commonly assumed by students of primitive social organisation that
+matrilineal descent is the earlier and that it has everywhere preceded
+patrilineal descent; but the questions involved are highly complicated
+and it can hardly be said that the subject has been fully discussed.
+
+Much of what has been said on the point has been vitiated by the
+introduction of foreign factors. Thus, the child belongs to the tribe of
+the father where the wife removes to the husband's local group or tribe.
+But though it may be taken as a mark of matrilineal institutions, often
+associated with matria potestas or its analogue the rule of the mother's
+brother, that the husband should remove and live with the wife, we are
+by no means entitled to say that the removal of the wife to the husband
+implies a different state of things. Customs of residence are no guide
+to the principles on which descent is regulated. Consequently it is
+entirely erroneous to import into the discussion with which we are
+concerned, viz. the rules by which _kinship_ is determined, any
+considerations based on the rules by which membership of a _tribe_ is
+settled.
+
+Similarly, no proof of the existence of paternal authority in the family
+throws any light on the question of whether the children belong to the
+kin of the father rather than of the mother. Where the mother or
+mother's brother is the guardian, we are usually safe in assuming that
+descent is or has been until recently matrilineal. But from the
+undisputed existence of patria potestas no similar inference can be
+drawn.
+
+Again, as will be shown below, not even the tie of blood between parent
+and child, confined though it may be in the opinion of the people whose
+institutions are in question, to a single parent, is an index to the way
+in which is determined the kinship organisation to which the child
+belongs.
+
+It is therefore clear that the utmost discrimination is necessary in
+dealing with these questions; rules of descent must be kept apart from
+matters which indeed influence the evolution of the rules but are in no
+way decisive as to their form at any given moment.
+
+Returning now to the alleged priority of matrilineal descent in
+determining the kinship organisation into which a child passes, it may
+be said that whereas evidences of the passage from female to male
+reckoning may be observed,[12] there is virtually none of a change in
+the opposite direction. In other words, where kinship is reckoned in the
+female line, there is no ground for supposing that it was ever
+hereditary in any other way. On the other hand, where kinship is
+reckoned in the male line, it is frequently not only legitimate but
+necessary to conclude that it has succeeded a system of female kinship.
+But this clearly does not mean that female descent has in _all_ cases
+preceded the reckoning of kinship through males. Patrilineal descent may
+have been directly evolved without the intermediate stage of reckoning
+through females.
+
+The problem is probably insoluble. No decisive data are available, for
+the mere absence of traces of matrilineal descent does not necessarily
+prove more than that it had long been superseded by reckoning of kinship
+through males. All that can be said is that in the kinship organisations
+known to us female descent seems to have prevailed in the vast majority
+of cases and probably existed in the residual class of indeterminable
+examples.
+
+With patria potestas it is, of course, different. There can be little
+doubt that it might and probably did develop in the absence of kinship
+organisations and in a state of society where consanguinity is no real
+bond after the children have reached puberty. If therefore under such
+circumstances a kinship organisation were to come into existence, either
+independently or by transmission, it might well be that patrilineal
+principles prevailed from the first. But of such a case we have no
+knowledge. It may perhaps be questioned whether the actually existing
+peoples who appear to have no kinship organisations, such as the
+Hottentots, the Bushmen, the Veddahs and perhaps the Fuegians, are not
+in this state rather as a result of the break-up of their former
+organisation than because they have never evolved kinship groups. But
+our knowledge in these matters is lamentably small and the problem is
+not one which calls for discussion here.
+
+The second fundamental problem relating to rules of descent is that of
+the cause of the transition from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. The
+subject needs to be discussed in detail for each particular area before
+general conclusions can be formulated; it is quite possible that the
+causes will be found to differ widely; for no general rule can be laid
+down as to the relations between matrilineal descent and other cultural
+conditions.
+
+All that can be attempted here is an examination of the various elements
+in the problem so far as it affects Australia. To this may be prefixed a
+further discussion of the origin of matrilineal descent with especial
+reference to Australian conditions.
+
+It is commonly assumed that in a pure matrilineal community, the husband
+removes to the wife's local group (matrilocal marriage), or if not that,
+that at any rate the authority in the family rests in the hands of the
+mother's brothers, who are also the heirs to the exclusion of the
+children. But of any such custom of removal there is but the very
+slenderest evidence in Australia. According to Howitt it occurs
+occasionally in Victoria and among the Dieri; among the Wakelbura it is
+done only if a man elopes with a betrothed woman and the man to whom she
+was betrothed dies; among the Kuinmurbura it seems to have been a
+recognised thing for a man who married a woman of another tribe to
+remove, but in this case he took no part in intertribal warfare[13]. In
+all these cases, the Kurnai excepted, descent is reckoned in the female
+line.
+
+If however Dr Howitt's informant, who does not seem to have been
+particularly accurate in many cases, is to be relied on, the removal of
+the husband to the wife's group is also found among the patrilineal
+Maryborough tribes, though only if the woman belonged to a distant
+tribelet, whatever that may be[14]. To this information is added the
+statement that in such cases the husband joined his wife's tribe for
+purposes of hostilities also and that it has happened that a son has
+come into conflict with his father under these circumstances and
+endangered his life with full knowledge of what he was doing. There is,
+it is true, no definite statement to the effect that children in these
+tribes take their totems from the father, but we may assume that it is
+the case. If therefore the statement in question is accurate, it is a
+pretty clear proof of the break-up of the social system; for under no
+circumstances does the totem-kinsman, as a rule, violate the
+sacro-sanctity of his own flesh. It cannot therefore be argued that the
+fact of removal in the Maryborough tribes is any very strong evidence of
+the primitive nature of the custom. In the other tribes, on the other
+hand, it is distinctly stated that the practice prevails only when
+marriage takes place between members of two different tribes, and among
+the Wakelbura only exceptionally even when the wife is of an alien folk.
+Whatever else the custom proves in these cases, it certainly evidences
+the existence of friendly relations between the tribes in question; for
+if it were otherwise the man would hardly be disposed to give up the
+security of his own people for the perils of a strange community; on the
+other hand it is hardly likely that the man's tribe would allow him to
+pass over to the ranks of the strangers, nor would they view with
+equanimity the loss of effective fighting strength which would result
+from the fact that his children too would be numbered against them, not
+for them, if it came to hostilities. The custom is therefore clear
+evidence of fairly permanent friendly relations in the district in
+question; and it is plain that we cannot assume these to have existed in
+more primitive times. It is therefore difficult to see in what way the
+present day practices lend support to the theory that the original usage
+was for the husband to remove to his wife's group. For, be it noted,
+there is not a single case, unless we include the anomalous Kurnai, in
+which the husband removes to his wife's group within his own tribe; but
+clearly this is the custom to which the removal theory applies. So far,
+therefore, as Australia is concerned, the removal theory falls to the
+ground; it cannot of course be disproved, but we are not justified in
+assuming that matrilineal descent and matria potestas are due to a
+custom of removal.
+
+Inasmuch as patrilocal[15] marriage involves descent of group and tribal
+property rights in the male line, it might appear that in rejecting the
+hypothesis of a prior stage of matrilocal marriage, we are involving
+ourselves in difficulties; for it is clearly not easy to see how descent
+could come to be reckoned through the mother, while property descended
+through the father. But it is obviously unnecessary in the first place
+to regard the individual rights of property as originating
+simultaneously or under the same conditions as the rules as to kinship
+or even communal property; there is nothing to show how long the present
+system of land tenure in Australia has held good, and it is clearly one
+which points to a certain growth of population; for if the local group
+were remote from their neighbours, there would be little need to
+encroach; moreover, the exact delimitation of territory now in practice
+is a thing of long growth.
+
+Further consideration however shows that it is only by a confusion of
+thought that we can speak of land descending in the male line (that is,
+of course, in respect of group rights, not private property, to which we
+return later); strictly speaking the descent of landed property is
+neither in the male nor the female line but local. A man who removes to
+his wife's tribe is, so far as we can see, as truly part owner of the
+tribal land as if he were himself a member of the tribe by birth within
+its limits. The suggested difficulty, therefore, does not exist, and the
+conclusion as to removal customs holds good.
+
+We may now examine the relation of matriliny to the seat of authority in
+the family. Questions of potestas naturally range themselves under more
+than one head. We have (1) the relation of the husband (_a_) to the wife
+and (_b_) to the children; (2) the relation of the mother to the
+children, and closely connected with this the influence of the mother's
+brother; finally (3) we have the position of the widow, a matter indeed
+more intimately connected with inheritance from a legal point of view
+but in Australia more closely connected with potestas than in countries
+where slavery is a recognised institution.
+
+Small as is our information on Australian jurisprudence, it is certain
+that the husband enjoys practically unrestricted rights over the person
+of his wife, _pirrauru_ and similar customs apart. He may at will lend
+her or hire her out to strangers; he may punish her infidelity,
+disobedience or awkwardness by chastisement, not stopping short of the
+infliction of spear or club wounds; he may even, according to Roth[16],
+go so far as to kill her and yet get off scot free, his only duty in
+such a case being to provide a sister for the brothers of his dead wife
+to kill in retaliation.
+
+This custom suggests that the kin to which the woman belongs claim a
+certain property in her even after she is married, and this partial
+proprietorship naturally implies a slight protecting influence; for it
+would clearly not be in every case easy for the homicidal male to find a
+sister ready to go out and be killed as a set-off to his murdered wife.
+We should not, it is true, overlook the fact that the customs of the
+Pitta-Pitta differ from those of many of the Australian tribes, in that
+exchange of sisters is not practised. Otherwise it would be tempting to
+argue that this proprietorship in the women of their kin may go back to
+the time of Mr Lang's connubial groups and help to explain the reckoning
+of descent through females. For clearly, if a woman still belongs in a
+sense to the group she has left, so may her children belong to the same
+group, inasmuch as their relationship to her is, to us at any rate,
+unmistakeable. If any evidence could be produced for the widespread
+existence of the custom (found in various parts of the globe, though
+not, up to the present, in Australia), according to which the widow and
+her children remove to her own district, some probability would be
+imparted to this hypothesis.
+
+The ordinary rule as regards punishment inflicted by the husband on the
+wife seems to be that he may go any length short of doing her a mortal
+injury, without being liable to be called to account. The punishment of
+death however may only be inflicted for adultery and certain specified
+offences without incurring a blood-feud with the woman's relatives.
+
+It is by no means improbable that under the influence of the custom of
+exchanging sisters there may be a tendency for the control of the kin in
+this respect to diminish; in fact the Boulia example is only explicable
+on this hypothesis. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that
+elopement, or real marriage by capture, as distinguished from formal
+abduction, would, so far as we can see, have a similar effect, and the
+rise of the custom of exchange of sisters would in that case tend to
+re-establish rather than weaken the power of the woman's kin, at any
+rate in the first instance.
+
+However this may be, the woman's kin exercises, _primâ facie_, some kind
+of protectorship. At the present day the kinship may be matrilineal or
+patrilineal without affecting their right. But if, before kinship was
+reckoned at all, this protectorship were exercised for the benefit of
+the children, we clearly have a possible cause of matriliny.
+
+For a discussion of the question of the inheritance of the deceased's
+wife by his brother we have more facts at our disposal. As a matter of
+fact it is a not infrequent custom in Australia for the widow to pass to
+the deceased husband's brother[17]; or if she does not become his wife,
+he decides to whom she shall be allotted[18]. In no case do the woman's
+kin seem to have a voice in the selection of her new husband. On the
+whole therefore the proprietary rights found in the Boulia district seem
+to be the product of exceptional local conditions. If this is so, it is
+clear that in the matter of potestas the rights of the woman's kin are
+now absolutely restricted to protecting her from a death which she has
+not according to native law deserved and to avenging such a death when
+it is inflicted by the husband.
+
+The so-called levirate, or right of succession to the widow, is clearly
+of much importance, so far as questions of dominion are concerned; but
+as regards the problems of descent the evidence is less easily
+interpreted. It has sometimes been assumed that the succession of the
+brother and not the son is a mark of matriliny; but it is clear that
+where the right of appropriating the widow is concerned, this is very
+far from being the case, for the simple reason that the real matria
+potestas would put her at the disposal of the kin from whom she
+originally came; on the other hand, inasmuch as the son is naturally
+debarred from marrying his own mother or his tribal mother, who commonly
+belongs to a class into which he does not marry, there might easily
+arise in a purely patripotestal and patrilineal tribe a custom of
+handing over the widow to the father's brother.
+
+On the whole however it seems simplest to regard the matter as one in
+which the rights are determined by no considerations of inheritance or
+descent but simply by the rule that the property in the woman remains
+vested in the body of purchasers. For it must be remembered that not
+only an own but also a tribal sister may be given in exchange for a
+wife. From this it follows that, theoretically at any rate, the
+contracting parties are corporations rather than individuals, and in
+this case the death of the individual on whose behalf the transaction
+has been effected does not extinguish the proprietary rights acquired by
+handing over a woman, standing in the relation of sister to the one
+corporation, in exchange for another woman standing in the relation of
+sister to the other corporation.
+
+If this solution is correct, it is unnecessary to go into the
+complicated question of the relation of brother-inheritance to matriliny
+and patriliny. For it is by no means clear that it is an exemplification
+of the former rather than the latter principle. It may, of course, be
+argued that brothers succeed as children of the same mother; but against
+this must be set the fact that they are also children of the same
+father; for uncertain paternity can only be a _vera causa_ where
+_pirrauru_ and similar customs are found; and even here the pre-eminence
+of the primary husband might well be held to determine the legal
+paternity of the children, which is, of course, especially in Africa, a
+matter of potestas rather than procreation. However this may be, the
+position of the widow does not appear to invalidate the guardianship
+origin of matriliny.
+
+We now turn to the question of why male tends to take the place of
+female descent. The possible factors are (1) authority in the family,
+(2) the rise of chieftainship and inheritance generally, and (3) the
+organisation of the family group. Of the authority of father or mother
+over the children, there is not much trace in Australia except in the
+most youthful period of the pre-adult life. It is for example
+exceptional for a parent to correct a child. As to who decides in cases
+of infanticide we have unfortunately too little information to be able
+to generalise. Only in one important step--that of betrothal--have we
+anything like adequate information, and the interrelations between rule
+of descent and potestas are found to be in this case sufficiently clear,
+though it is not clear on what principle it is decided _who_ shall
+exercise the right.
+
+Taking first tribes with matrilineal descent, we find that the Barkinji,
+the Wakelbura, the Dieri, and in some cases the Wollaroi, assign the
+right of betrothal to the mother or mother's brother[19]. In other
+cases, transitional forms, the father, his elder brother, or the girl's
+brothers decide, or else the parents or two of these persons
+jointly[20]. Among the Mukjarawaint the betrothal rested in part with
+the paternal grandparents[21]; it may be noted that the grandfather had
+to decide also whether a child should be brought up or killed. Among the
+Kuinmurbura it falls to the mother's brother's son or the father's
+sister's son, who is, apparently, entitled to marry the girl
+himself[22].
+
+Turning now to tribes with male descent, we find that the father, his
+brother, or the parents, almost invariably make the decision[23]. Among
+the eight-class tribes, Spencer and Gillen assert in one place[24] that
+the mother's brother betroths a girl; but this is contradicted in two
+other passages[25], and cannot be regarded as reliable.
+
+On the whole therefore it appears that while there are some survivals of
+matria potestas into patrilineal descent, and in the matrilineal stage
+transitional forms are found, the right of betrothal tends to pass from
+the mother's to the father's side, when the rule of descent changes; but
+there is little to show how far a change in the right of betrothal tends
+to cause a change in the rule of descent.
+
+A curious fact may be noted here, which goes far to demonstrate the
+absolutely heterogeneous nature of kinship and consanguinity, and
+suggests that descent is not reckoned in the female line on account of
+any supposed specially close connection between the mother and her
+offspring. Of the four tribes among which, according to Howitt, the
+child is regarded as the offspring of the father alone[26], the mother
+being only its nurse, two, the Yuin and Kulin, have male descent; two,
+however, the Wolgal and Tatathi, have female descent, and among the
+latter, in addition, the right of betrothal lies with the mother or
+mother's brother.
+
+On the whole, therefore, it may be said that no questions of potestas
+seem to have exercised any influence in bringing about the transition
+from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. It does not appear necessary,
+therefore, to do more than allude in passing to a fact which may well
+have had something to do with the decay of matria potestas, at any rate,
+so far as the mother's brother is concerned, even if it did not actively
+hasten the coming of patria potestas. This fact is the considerable size
+of the area over which, with the rise of the so-called nations, it is
+possible to select a wife. The more remote geographically the mother's
+relatives, the less their influence. Allowance must of course be made
+for the opportunities of discussion afforded by the great gatherings of
+the tribes; but the wider area of bride-choice must have shaken the
+authority of the brother.
+
+It has been remarked above that there is no well-established case of the
+right of betrothal being assigned on patrilineal principles in a
+matrilineal tribe. The influence of the father's brother is not
+necessarily a mark of patrilineal tendencies, except in so far as all
+patria potestas is such. That the elder brother has authority in this
+case is no more decisive than that the elder brother has authority in
+cases of betrothal; it is no more an exemplification of the simple
+patria potestas, which has already been shown to be universal and under
+but slight limitations so far as the wife is concerned. From the point
+of view of potestas, it is a great advance that the father should be
+able to dispose of his own daughter in marriage; but if we may judge by
+the survival of matria potestas into patriliny, the cases of patria
+potestas under matriliny cannot have exercised an important influence in
+bringing about a change in the rule of descent.
+
+The case of the power of the girl's own brother is somewhat different.
+_Primâ facie_ it appears to owe its origin to the fact that it is the
+brothers who are mainly interested in the transaction, inasmuch as it is
+to them that wives come in exchange for the sisters given in marriage.
+Consequently we cannot, as has already been the case with the so-called
+levirate, assign the practice definitely either to matripotestal or
+patripotestal customs, for father's and mother's authority are alike
+overruled.
+
+It has already been stated that we have but few data for estimating the
+influence of the right of betrothal on the rule of descent. Clearly the
+father has little to gain from the fact that his daughter follows him
+rather than the mother, when the inevitable effect of the marriage
+regulations is to make her children of the phratry and totem of her
+husband, and consequently to make them of a different phratry and totem
+from her father. Under matriliny on the other hand there is nothing to
+prevent the grandchildren from being of the same totem as the
+grandfather, and they are necessarily of the same class in a four-class
+tribe. If considerations with regard to the phratry and totem of the
+grandchildren played any part in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent, this must have been based on a review of the changes that would
+be brought about in the position of the son's and not the daughter's
+offspring. But this is unlikely.
+
+But on the other hand the father's disposal of the daughter's hand is
+indirectly a means of increasing his influence both with his son and in
+general. If the son gains his wife by an exchange of sisters, the
+father's authority is obviously increased. But we do not know how far
+this factor of the right of betrothal has operated.
+
+Turning now to questions of inheritance, we find that properly speaking
+the hereditary chief is unknown in Australia. There is a tendency for
+the son of the tribal headman to succeed his father, but it is subject
+to exceptions. Moreover, it is by no means a universal rule for the
+tribe to have an over-headman; it may be ruled by the council of
+district headmen. In any case the influence of the quasi-hereditary
+character of the over-headmanship upon the rule of descent cannot but
+have been comparatively slight.
+
+It is, on the other hand, usual for the local group and the totem kin to
+have headmen. In the case of the latter, age is often the qualification,
+as among the Dieri[27]; in such cases there is no possible effect on the
+rule of succession. But among some of the Victorian tribes with
+matrilineal descent the rule is for the son to follow the father in the
+headmanship[28]; and the same is the case, as we should expect, among
+the patrilineal eight-class tribes[29]. The most important tribe in
+which hereditary headmanship is combined with female descent is the
+Wiradjeri[30]; their neighbours, the Kamilaroi, showed marked respect to
+the son of a headman, if he possessed ability, though they did not,
+apparently, make him his father's successor[31].
+
+On the whole, then, we cannot assign much weight to this element in the
+list of possible causes of the transition.
+
+Of inheritance of chattels or land and fixtures we know little. From
+Spencer and Gillen we learn that among the Warramunga the mother's
+brother, or daughter's husband, succeeds to the boomerangs, and other
+moveable property[32]. Among the Kulin and the Kurnai inheritance in the
+male line seems to have been the rule. In the Adelaide district, as we
+learn from Gerstaecker[33], individual property in land was known; it
+descended in the male line. Among the Turribul there was individual
+property in _bunya-bunya_ trees; these too devolved from father to
+son[34].
+
+On the other hand on the Bloomfield property in zamia nut grounds has
+vested in women and descends from mother to daughter[35]; but in this
+remarkable variant we see, of course, not the influence of the mother's
+kin, but female influence or rather the right of females to the produce
+of their labour. In respect of other property, inheritance in North
+Queensland is in the male line, for it descends to blood brothers and
+remains in the same exogamous group from generation to generation.
+
+This brings us to the question of the part played by the local group in
+causing the change from female to male descent. Under ordinary
+circumstances, with female descent, the local group is made up of
+persons of different phratries and totems; in any case, just as the
+phratry and totem of the members of the individual family change from
+generation to generation, the complexion of the local group is liable to
+be completely changed; though in practice the changes in one direction
+are no doubt counterbalanced by changes in the other, so that the net
+result may be nil, when the original differences were small. But we
+cannot suppose that the group was often evenly balanced; and a change in
+the rule of descent would in that case have important results for the
+local group and in any case for the individual family.
+
+The importance of the difference in the constitution of the local group
+under descent in the male line is seen when we reflect that in the
+normal tribe the totem kin is practically the unit for many purposes.
+If, for example, an emu man has killed, let us say, an iguana man, it is
+the duty of the iguana men to avenge the death of their kinsman. Their
+vengeance need not, however, fall on the original perpetrator of the
+deed; according to the rules of savage justice all the emu men are
+equally responsible with the culprit; consequently it suffices to kill
+the first emu person whom they can find. Conversely, those to whom an
+emu man looks for defence, when he is attacked, or assistance, when he
+wishes to abduct a wife or anything of that sort, are his fellow emu
+men. It is therefore clear that the rule of male descent gives far
+greater security to the members of a local group; for they are
+surrounded by kinsmen. Under the rule of female descent, on the other
+hand, they probably have some kinsmen in the same group but equally a
+considerable number of members of other totem kins.
+
+Self-interest therefore, no less than the natural sympathy between
+fathers and children, as well as between members of the same group
+(quite apart from forays and fighting), must have tended to bring about
+a change in the laws of descent.
+
+The late Major J.W. Powell has already described the transition from
+matria potestas to patria potestas among the Pueblo peoples. He put it
+down to economic conditions, which lead the groups to scatter, each
+under the headship of a male, who is also the husband; this naturally
+resulted in a weakening of the influence of the mother's brother. It is,
+however, less clear that it would bring about the decay of the power of
+the mother herself, which in Australian tribes, at any rate, seems to be
+independent of the support she obtains from her male relatives.
+
+In Australia, as we have seen, the change from matria to patria potestas
+had but little influence in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent. Here, too, the change in the rule of descent may be put down in
+the main to economic causes also in a broad sense. Dumping was not in
+those days a question of practical politics; the problem was to prevent
+the neighbours from pursuing the policy of the free and open port. The
+necessity of protecting tribal and group property in land and game would
+naturally tend to bind men closer and closer, in proportion as the
+pressure from without became greater. It is perhaps hardly accidental
+that the main area of male descent is that which has also developed the
+Intichiuma ceremonies.
+
+If Prof. Gregory's view[36] that the occupation of Victoria by the
+natives dates back no more than 300 years is correct, we may perhaps see
+in the migration one cause of the rise of patriliny. Anything which
+tended to shake the influence of the mother's kin would increase the
+father's power; and the need of protecting newly established groups
+from the incursions of their neighbours would be more urgent than in
+older districts. As we have seen, the first mentioned cause has
+elsewhere had little direct effect; but it may well have played a larger
+part under the novel conditions of migration and occupation of fresh
+territory.
+
+In South Queensland the fractionation of tribes seems to have gone
+further than elsewhere, unless we suppose that we have here an area,
+where, as in California, pressure from without has crowded together the
+remnants of many tribes. Although it is not obvious how the
+multiplication of distinct tribes has favoured patrilineal descent, we
+may, at any rate, say that the conditions in the area are exceptional;
+possibly it was more fruitful than the greater part of the continent; if
+so personal property in the shape of trees, etc., which we have already
+seen in existence in this area, would play a more important _rôle_ here,
+and may well have determined the transition to patrilineal descent.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[10] _Fortn. Rev._ Sept. 1905, cf. van Gennep, _Mythes et Légendes_.
+
+[11] It cannot be said that the ordinary theory of the development of
+kinship in the female line is satisfactory. The consanguine relation of
+mother and child does not appear to be a complete answer to the question
+why kinship--an entirely different thing--was reckoned through the
+mother; the alleged uncertainty of fatherhood is in the first place
+closely connected with an unproven stage of promiscuity and consequently
+hardly a _vera causa_, until further evidence of such a stage has been
+produced; and again among the Arunta, it is rather potestas than
+physical fatherhood which, on their theory, determines the kinship of
+the child so far as the class is concerned. For the primitive group
+therefore we cannot assert any predominant interest of the mother in the
+children nor yet admit that it would necessarily be important if it were
+shown to exist.
+
+[12] _Année Sociologique_ V, 104 sq.; VIII, 132 sq.; Tylor in _J.A.I._
+XVIII, 245-272.
+
+[13] Howitt, pp. 220, 225, 234, 248; cf. 159, 269.
+
+[14] _ib._ p. 234.
+
+[15] P. 30 _infra_.
+
+[16] _Ethnological Studies_, p. 141.
+
+[17] Howitt, pp. 193, 224, 227, 236.
+
+[18] _ib._ p. 248, cf. 227.
+
+[19] Howitt, pp. 195, 221, 177, 217.
+
+[20] _ib._ pp. 210, 227, 252, 216, 177, 260.
+
+[21] _ib._ p. 243.
+
+[22] _ib._ p. 219.
+
+[23] _ib._ pp. 232, 257, 236.
+
+[24] _Nor. Tr._ p. 603.
+
+[25] _ib._ pp. 77 n., 114.
+
+[26] Howitt, pp. 263, 255, 198, 195.
+
+[27] Howitt, p. 298.
+
+[28] _ib._ pp. 306, 308 sq.
+
+[29] _Nor. Tr._ p. 23.
+
+[30] Howitt, p. 303.
+
+[31] _ib._ p. 302.
+
+[32] _Nor. Tr._ p. 524.
+
+[33] _Reisen._ IV, 347.
+
+[34] _Petrie's Reminiscences_, p. 117.
+
+[35] _N.Q. Ethn. Bull._ VIII.
+
+[36] _Proc. R.S. Vict._ XVII, 120.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.
+
+Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
+ "Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in
+ Australia. General sketch.
+
+
+Before proceeding to deal with the Australian facts it will be well to
+define the terminology to be employed, and give a brief survey of a
+typical organisation. Looking at the population from the territorial
+point of view in the first place, we find aggregates of tribes; these
+may be termed _nations_. The component tribes are friendly, one with
+another; they may and often do hold initiation ceremonies and other
+ceremonials in common; although the language is usually syntactically
+the same, and though they contain many words in common, the vocabularies
+differ to such an extent that members of different tribes are not
+mutually intelligible. How far the occurrence of identical kinship
+organisation and nomenclature should be taken as indicating a still
+larger unity than the nation is a difficult question. _Primâ facie_ the
+nation is a relatively late phenomenon; but the distribution of the
+names of kinship organisations, as will be shown later, indicates that
+communication, if not alliance, existed over a wide area at some
+periods, which it is difficult to suppose were anything but remote.
+
+The idea of the _tribe_ has already been defined. It is a community
+which occupies a definite area, recognises its solidarity and possesses
+a common speech or dialects of the same.
+
+Between the tribe and the family occur various subdivisions, known as
+sub-tribes, hordes, local groups, etc., but without any very clear
+definition of their nature. It appears, however, that the tribal area is
+sometimes so parcelled out that property in it is vested, not in the
+tribe as a whole, but in the _local group_, which welcomes
+fellow-tribesmen in times of plenty, but has the right of punishing
+intruders of the same tribe who seek for food without permission; for a
+non-tribesman the penalty is death. In some cases the local group is
+little more than an undivided family including three generations; it may
+then occupy and own an area of some ten miles radius. In other cases the
+term is applied to a larger aggregate, the nature and rights of which
+are not strictly defined; it may number some hundreds of persons and
+form one-third of the whole tribe; it seems best to denominate such an
+aggregate by the name of _sub-tribe_.
+
+The term _family_ may be retained in its ordinary sense.
+
+Superposed on the tribal organisation are the kinship organisations,
+which, in the case of most Australian tribes, are independent of
+locality. Leaving out of account certain anomalous tribes, it may be
+said broadly that an Australian tribe is divided into two sets, called
+phratries, primary classes, moieties, etc. by various authors; the term
+used in the present work for these divisions is _phratry_. Membership of
+a phratry depends on birth and is taken _directly_ from the mother
+(_matrilineal descent_) or father (_patrilineal descent_).
+
+In Queensland and part of N.S. Wales the phratry is again subdivided,
+and four _intermarrying classes_ (sometimes called sub-phratries) are
+formed, two of which make up each phratry. In North Australia and
+Queensland a further subdivision of each of these classes is found,
+making eight in all. Descent in the classes is _indirect_ matrilineal or
+indirect[37] patrilineal, the child belonging to the mother's or
+father's phratry as before, but being assigned to the class of that
+phratry to which the mother or father does not belong. The classes of
+father and son together are called a _couple_. The parent from whom the
+phratry and class name are thus derived is said to be the _determinant
+spouse_.
+
+These phratries and classes regulate marriage. It is forbidden to marry
+within one's own phratry. This custom is termed _exogamy_. When the
+husband removes and lives in his wife's group the marriage is
+_matrilocal_; if the wife removes it is _patrilocal_.
+
+In addition to the division into classes each phratry is further divided
+into a number of _totem kins_. A _totem_ is usually a species of animals
+or plants; a body of human beings stands in a certain peculiar relation
+to the totem species and is termed the totem kin; each member of a totem
+kin is termed a _kinsman_. Membership of the totem kin usually descends
+directly from parent to child.
+
+The existence of these kinship organisations is universally recognised.
+Mr R.H. Mathews has recently asserted the existence of yet another form
+and at the same time controverted the accepted views as to the operation
+and meaning of those described above. He distinguishes in certain tribes
+of New South Wales kinship organisations running across the phratries;
+these are of two kinds, according to the author, but they do not seem to
+differ in function. They are termed by Mr Mathews "_blood_" and
+"_shade_" divisions, and are held by him to be the names of the really
+exogamous groups. The subject is discussed in detail below.
+
+In order to make the working of these regulations plain, let us take as
+an example the Kamilaroi tribe of N.S. Wales, with two phratries, four
+classes and various totem kins. The phratries are named Dilbi and
+Kupathin; Dilbi is divided into two classes, Muri and Kubi; Kupathin
+into Kumbo and Ipai. The Dilbi totems, which may belong to either of the
+classes, are kangaroo, opossum and iguana; those of Kupathin are emu,
+bandicoot and black snake. Every member of the tribe has his own
+phratry, class and totem; these all come to him by descent.
+
+We have little or no information as to the local grouping of the
+Kamilaroi tribes, but it was possibly not unlike that of some of the
+tribes to the north-west. In the case of the latter the tribal area was
+some 3000 sq. miles in extent, it was split up into smaller areas,
+thirty or more in number, which were the property of the local groups; a
+local group consisted frequently of three generations of relatives. When
+we come to deal below with marriage regulations it will be shown that
+husband, wife and child under the four-class system all belong to
+different classes; there were therefore in each group at least three
+classes, if not four, and consequently members of two phratries. If we
+assume that the same conditions prevailed among the Kamilaroi, the local
+groups would then be made up of members of both the Dilbi and Kupathin
+phratries; and probably all four classes, Muri, Kubi, Ipai and Kumbo,
+would be found in each group, which in Australia varied in size
+according to local conditions from 20 or 30 to 200; under special
+conditions, such as prevailed in the neighbourhood of Lake Alexandrina,
+the number might run up to 600 or more, but this was exceptional.
+
+From the fact that the totems are divided between the phratries it is
+clear that the local group may also have members of all the six totem
+kins mentioned above, among its members.
+
+The rules by which marriage and descent are regulated are apparently
+very complicated but practically very simple. Taking the Kamilaroi tribe
+again, the rule is that Muri marries Butha (a female Kumbo) and their
+children are Ipai and Ipatha: Kubi marries Ipatha and their children are
+Kumbo and Butha; in each case the children belong to the same phratry as
+the mother but to the other class in that phratry. This is termed
+indirect matrilineal descent.
+
+The rule of descent for the totem among the Kamilaroi was simpler;
+membership of a totem kin descends directly from a mother to her child.
+The combined effect of these rules is that if, for example, a male Dilbi
+of the Muri class and iguana totem wants to marry, he must choose a wife
+of the Kupathin phratry, the Kumbo class, and either the emu, bandicoot,
+or black snake totems; suppose he marries an emu woman; then his
+children are of the Kupathin phratry, the Ipai (or Ipatha) class, and
+the emu totem. These regulations are naturally more complicated among
+the eight-class tribes; on the other hand, where only phratries and
+totems are found, but no classes, descent is much simpler; for in each
+case the child takes the phratry and totem of its mother, where
+matrilineal descent prevails, or of its father, where patrilineal
+descent is found.
+
+The general rule in Australia is that the wife goes to live with her
+husband; in other words, she leaves the local group in which she was
+born and becomes a member of her husband's local group. The effect of
+this is very different according as descent is reckoned through the
+mother or through the father. Taking the Kamilaroi again, the
+Muri-iguana man brings into his group a Butha-emu woman; their children
+are Ipatha-emu. If, therefore, a local group is made up of the
+descendants of a single family, the phratry, class, and totem names vary
+from generation to generation; for the girls go to other groups, and the
+men bring in wives of a phratry, class, and totem different, as a rule,
+from their own; the children of the next generation take their kinship
+names directly or indirectly from the mother.
+
+If, on the other hand, descent is reckoned through the father, the
+phratry and totem names are always the same from generation to
+generation; from this it follows that the phratry of the wife, who comes
+from without, is also the same from generation to generation, though her
+totem name does not of necessity remain the same. The class name
+alternates both in the case of the family and of the wives in successive
+generations. It has already been pointed out that reckoning of descent
+in the male line tends to bring about local grouping of the kinship
+organisations. In the eight-class tribes, and in parts of Victoria, the
+phratries, elsewhere the totem kins, tend to be or are actually limited
+to certain portions of the tribal area.
+
+Our knowledge of these matters has not, of course, been gained at a
+bound. Before indicating the present extent of our information, it may
+be well to give an historical sketch of early discoveries in this field.
+
+Some seventy years ago the attention of students of primitive social
+institutions was drawn to the marriage regulations of the Indian tribes
+of North America by an article in _Archaeologia Americana_[38]; in which
+the author, drawing his conclusions partly from earlier writers, partly
+from his own investigations, showed that the totem kin was an exogamous
+group, while in some cases the kin bearing the name of a given totem
+were not only exogamous, but not even permitted to choose their wives
+from any of the other kins at will, being restricted in their choice to
+certain groups or, in many cases, to a single group of totem kins,
+according as the tribe was arranged in two or more phratries.
+
+At least two observers had detected the existence of Australian
+organisations of the same nature as the American phratries, so far as
+our scanty information from West Australia goes, even before the
+publication of _Archaeologia Americana_. The honour of being the first
+to publish information on the subject belongs to Nind, who had spent
+some time in the neighbourhood of King George's Sound in 1829, and
+published his observations on native customs in the _Journal of the
+Royal Geographical Society_[39] for 1832. Close on his heels came the
+authors of _Journals of Explorations in West Australia_, which appeared
+in 1833, and described journeys undertaken between 1829 and 1832.
+
+The phratries were discovered in South Australia by the Rev. C.W.
+Schürmann, whose Vocabulary[40], published in 1844, contains a mention
+of the Parnkalla phratries, without, however, any indication of their
+connection with marriage customs and exogamy. Five years earlier,
+however, Lieutenant, afterwards Sir George Grey, had observed
+institutions of the nature of totem kins, phratries, or intermarrying
+classes in West Australia, and had detected their connection with the
+marriage laws of the natives[41].
+
+In 1841 and 1842, G.F. Moore[42] called attention to the grouping of the
+native divisions or kins, and anticipated Schürmann, as will be shown
+later. Grey, before the publication of his _Journal_, had read the
+_Archaeologia_; but though he mentions the naming of "families" after
+animals, he makes no mention of any grouping, but merely distinguishes
+between "families" and "local names." Some of the names which he gives
+seem to be those of phratries, and if he had been led by his study of
+_Archaeologia Americana_ to the discovery of exogamic regulations
+dealing with the relations of individual totem kins to one another, it
+seems on the whole probable that he would not have overlooked the
+grouping of the kins which is, with certain exceptions, of a more or
+less local character, common to the whole of Australia, so far as our
+information goes. Singularly enough this information, very full,
+relatively, for the eastern and central tribes, has, so far as
+South-West Australia is concerned, only just been completed, although
+more than sixty years have elapsed since Grey wrote, the last twenty of
+which have seen much additional light thrown on the organisation of the
+tribes of the remainder of the continent.
+
+The American tribes, where simple totemic exogamy is not the rule, are
+organised in two and sometimes three or more, up to ten, phratries. It
+is possible that Grey, in spite of his attention having been drawn to
+the bi- or trichotomous organisation of American totem kins, failed to
+understand the Australian system owing to the presence of an element,
+discovered a few years later at a point remote from the scene of Grey's
+researches, to which no American analogue exists. In addition to the
+grouping of the kins into phratries, the Australian tribes over a large
+part of the continent subdivide each phratry into two or four classes or
+"castes," as they were frequently termed by the early investigators. The
+effect of the class system is to further limit the choice of a given
+individual, restricted to one-half of the women of the tribe under the
+simple phratry system, to one-fourth of them or one-eighth, as the case
+may be. Probably the first person to publish the fact of the existence
+of these classes, which he regarded as differing in rank, was C.P.
+Hodgson[43], who found them in 1846 among the blacks of Wide Bay. From a
+letter of Leichardt's however it appears that the discovery must have
+been made nearly simultaneously by several observers. Writing in
+1847[44], he says that the castes are the most interesting and most
+obscure feature among the tribes to the northward, and mentions F.N.
+Isaacs as having noticed the existence of the classes among the natives
+of Darling Downs, adding that Capt. Macarthur had also found them among
+the Monobar tribes of the Coburg Peninsula. "These castes," he adds,
+"are probably intimately connected with the laws of intermarriage."
+
+If Leichardt's words mean, as apparently they do, that the Monobar
+classes are regulative of marriage, and if his information was correct,
+the first mention of classes in Australia is found, not in Hodgson's
+work, but in Wilson's account[45]. Neither he, however, nor Stokes[46],
+who mentions them as existing among the Limba Karadjee, makes any
+mention of their connection with marriage regulations. And Earl, at a
+later period, omits in like manner to say what constituted membership of
+a caste, though he states that they differed in rank. The
+names--Manjarojally (fire people), Manjarwuli (land people), and
+Mambulgit (makers of nets, perhaps, therefore, water people), as well as
+the anomalous number of the classes, seem to indicate that they are of a
+somewhat different nature to the real intermarrying classes found
+elsewhere[47]. It is of course well known that the initiation ceremonies
+and totemic system of the northern tribes on both sides of the Gulf of
+Carpentaria differ somewhat widely from the normal Australian form.
+
+None of the observers hitherto mentioned can be said however to have
+applied himself to the scientific study of the questions raised by the
+facts which they recorded. Anthropology was in those days in its
+infancy. The first to make a really serious effort to clear up the many
+difficult questions, some of them still matters of controversy, which a
+closer study of the native marriage customs brought to the surface, was
+a missionary anthropologist, a class of which England has produced all
+too few. In 1853 the Rev. William Ridley published the first of many
+studies of the Kamilaroi speaking tribes, and, thanks to the impetus
+given to the investigation of systems of relationship and allied
+questions by Lewis Morgan, was the pioneer of a series of efforts which
+have rescued for us at the nick of time a record of the social
+organisation of many tribes which under European influence are now
+rapidly losing or have already lost all traces of their primitive
+customs, if indeed they have not, like the tribes formerly resident at
+Adelaide and other centres of population, been absolutely exterminated
+by contact with the white man with his vices and his civilisation, or by
+the less gentle method euphemistically termed "dispersion," which, if
+other nations were the offenders, we should term massacre.
+
+After Mr Ridley, Messrs Fison and Howitt turned their attention to the
+Kamilaroi group of tribes. The progress of these investigations is
+traced, historically and controversially, in the second series of
+Maclennan's _Studies in Ancient History_, and it is unnecessary to deal
+with it in detail. More and more light was thrown on totemism, marriage
+regulations, and intermarrying classes by the persistent efforts of Mr
+Howitt, by Dr Frazer's little work on Totemism, and by other students,
+until it seemed that the main features of Australian social organisation
+had been clearly established, when in 1898 the researches of Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen seemed to do much to overthrow all recognised
+principles, so far as the totemic regulation of marriage was concerned.
+How far this is actually the case it is unnecessary to consider here. It
+may be said however that the work of these two investigators and the
+enquiries of Dr Roth in North Queensland make it more than ever a matter
+for regret that the British Empire, the greatest colonial power that the
+world has ever seen, will not afford the few thousand pounds needed to
+put such researches on a firm basis.
+
+Having defined the various terms, and shown the actual working of the
+system by the aid of the best known example, we may now pass, after this
+brief historical sketch of the development of our knowledge, to the task
+of giving the broad outlines of the phratry and class organisations.
+
+If our knowledge of Australian phratries and classes is far from
+exhaustive, we have at any rate a fair knowledge of the distribution of
+the various types whose existence is generally recognised; that is to
+say, we can delimit the greater part of the continent according to
+whether the tribes show two phratries only, or two phratries, which may
+be anonymous, with the further subdivision into four classes, or into
+eight classes. We also know approximately the limits of the matrilineal
+and patrilineal systems. New South Wales, Victoria, the southern portion
+of Queensland and Northern Territory, the eastern part of South
+Australia, and the coastal regions of West Australia, are now known
+with more or less accuracy from the point of view of kinship
+organisations. On the other hand, from the Cape York Peninsula, and the
+part of Northern Territory north of Lat. 15°, we have little if any
+information. The south coast and its hinterland from 135° westwards, as
+far as King George's Sound, is virtually a terra incognita; in fact
+beyond the south-western corner and the fringe which lies along the
+coast we know little of the West Australian blacks, and the frontiers
+between the various systems must in these areas be regarded as purely
+provisional.
+
+Broadly speaking, the tribes of the whole of the known area of
+Australia, certain coast regions of comparatively small extent excepted,
+have a dichotomous kinship organisation. The accompanying map (Map II)
+shows how the various forms are distributed. Along most of the south
+coast, and up a belt broken perhaps in the northern portion, running
+through the centre of the continent in Lat. 137°, are found two
+phratries without intermarrying classes; for the area west of Lat. 130°
+we have, it is true, only one datum, which gives no information as to
+the area to which it applies; this portion of the field therefore is
+assigned only provisionally to the two-phratry system. On the Bloomfield
+River, which runs into Weary Bay, associated with the name of Captain
+Cook, is an isolated two-phratry organisation, unless indeed we may
+assume that the class names have either been overlooked or have passed
+out of use.
+
+The four-class system extends over the greater part of New South Wales,
+and Queensland; a narrow belt runs through the north of South Australia
+and broadens till it embraces the whole coastline of West Australia, the
+north-eastern area excluded. An isolated four-class system, which does
+not regulate marriage, is found in the Yorke Peninsula of South
+Australia.
+
+The eight-class system forms a compact mass, between the Gulf of
+Carpentaria and Roebuck Bay, extending south as far as Lat. 25° in the
+centre of Australia.
+
+In reality the rule of the eight-class system extends considerably
+further south, but the classes are nameless or altogether non-existent.
+Thus, the southern Arunta have nominally four classes, but each of these
+has two sections, so that the final result is as though they were an
+eight-class tribe. In the same way the marriage regulations of the
+two-phratry Dieri are such that choice is limited among them precisely
+as it would be if they had eight classes. The same may be true of the
+remainder of the western branch of the four-class system, which is
+closely allied in name to the Arunta type; the boundary between the
+related sets of names is unknown.
+
+Among the Narrinyeri and the Yuin the kinship organisation, which is
+confined to totemic groups, takes a local form; here the regulation of
+marriage depends on considerations of the residence of the pair. Local
+exogamy also prevails among the unorganised Kurnai. The Chepara appear
+to have had no organisation, and among the Narrangga ties of
+consanguinity constituted the sole bar to marriage. We are not however
+concerned with the problems presented by these aberrant types of
+organisation, to which no further reference is made in the present work.
+
+The area covered by the dichotomous organisations is divided almost
+equally between matrilineal and patrilineal tribes. The latter occupy
+the region north of Lat. 30° and west of an irregular line running from
+Long. 137° to 140° or thereabouts. In addition a portion of Victoria and
+the region west of Brisbane form isolated patrilineal groups. The
+problem presented by these anomalous areas has already been discussed in
+the chapter on the Rule of Descent. Where local exogamy is the rule,
+kinship is also virtually patrilineal.
+
+In the remainder of Australia, non-organised tribes of course excepted,
+the rule of descent is matrilineal, save that in North Queensland a
+small tribe on the Annan River prefers paternal descent. The
+accompanying map shows the distribution of the two forms.
+
+[Illustration: MAP I. RULE OF DESCENT.]
+
+[Illustration: MAP II. CLASS ORGANISATIONS.]
+
+[Illustration: MAP III. PHRATRY ORGANISATIONS.]
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[37] Save in the Anula and Mara tribes.
+
+[38] Vol. II.
+
+[39] Vol. I, p. 38.
+
+[40] _Vocabulary_, _s.v._ Kararu.
+
+[41] Grey, _Journals_, II, 228.
+
+[42] _Descriptive Vocabulary_, p. 3 etc.; _Colonial Mag._ V, 222.
+
+[43] _Australian Reminiscences_, p. 212.
+
+[44] Bunce, _23 Years Wanderings_, p. 116.
+
+[45] _J.R.G.S._ IV, 171, p. 88, _Narrative of a Voyage round the World_
+p. 88.
+
+[46] _Discoveries_ (1846), I, 393; cf. _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 64.
+
+[47] Cf. the local groups of the Yuin, the Wiradjeri and other tribes,
+Howitt, _passim_.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.
+
+
+In order to facilitate reference and to diminish the necessity for
+footnotes a survey of classes and phratries is here given. It will be
+well to explain how they are arranged.
+
+In the two-phratry system the rule of intermarriage is clear; a man of
+phratry _A_ marries a woman of phratry _B_ and _vice versa_. The direct
+descent of the kinship name is obviously the rule.
+
+The four classes are arranged according to the phratries; the normal
+rule is that a man _A1_ marries _B1_, _A2_ marries _B2_; their children
+are in matrilineal tribes _A2_ and _B2_, in patrilineal _B2_ and _A2_.
+In the patrilineal Mara and Anula, by exception, the rule of descent is
+direct; it will be remembered that a dichotomy of the classes prevails,
+so that they really belong to the eight-class system.
+
+In the eight-class system and among the nominally four-class southern
+Arunta the intermarriage and descent is as follows, according to Spencer
+and Gillen;
+
+ _A1_ _B1_
+ ------ = _A4_, ------ = _B3_,
+ _B1_ _A1_
+
+ _A_2 _B2_
+ ------ = _A3_, ------ = _B4_,
+ _B2_ _A2_
+
+ _A3_ _B3_
+ ------ = _A2_, ------ = _B1_,
+ _B3_ _A3_
+
+ _A4_ _B4_
+ ------ = _B4_, ------ = _B2_.
+ _B4_ _A4_
+
+In each case the male is the numerator, the woman the denominator, and
+the = shows the child.
+
+Tribes with conterminous territories usually know what phratries and
+classes are equivalent in their systems. In the tables which follow the
+phratries and the classes of matrilineal tribes are arranged to show
+this correspondence so far as it is known. A * shows that no information
+on the point is to hand. A rearrangement of patrilineal classes is
+necessary to make them equivalent to the organisations of matrilineal
+tribes; this cannot be shown in the tables; but full details will be
+found in the works of Spencer and Gillen. A † indicates patrilineal
+descent.
+
+Where the names of phratries and classes are translated, the meanings
+are shown in the tables; where the authorities do not give the
+translation but a word of the same form is in use in the tribe or group
+of tribes the meanings are given in round brackets; words in use in
+neighbouring tribes are put in square brackets.
+
+
+TABLE I.
+
+_The Class Names._
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_ _Meaning_
+ I. Muri (Bya)[48] Matha (Red kangaroo)
+ Kubi Kubitha (Opossum)
+ Kumbo (Wōmbee)[49] Butha
+ Ipai Ipatha (Eaglehawk)
+
+These class names are found in the following tribes:
+
+Kamilaroi (Howitt, p. 107); Wiradjeri (_ib._ 107); Wonghi (_ib._ 108);
+Euahlayi (Mrs L. Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 13); Ngeumba (Mathews in
+_Eth. Notes_, p. 5); Murawari (_id._ in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, 1906, 55);
+Moree (_R.G.S. Qu._ X, 20); Turribul (_R.S. Vict._ I, 102); Wollaroi
+(Howitt, 109); on Narran R. (Curr, I, 117); Pikumbul (_ib._); Unghi
+(Howitt, 217); Peechera (Curr, III, 271); Wailwun (_ib._ I, 116);
+Wonnaruah (_Sci. Man_, I, 180); Geawegal (Howitt, 266).
+
+Associated with these class names are the following phratry names:
+
+(_a_) Kamilaroi, etc. Dilbi Kupathin
+(_b_) Wiradjeri to N. of Budthurung Mukula
+ Lachlan
+(_c_) Wonghibon Ngielbumurra Mukumurra (Howitt)
+(_d_) " & Ngeumba {Ngumbun Ngurrawan (Mathews)
+ {Numbun
+(_e_) Euahlayi Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen
+(_f_) Murawari Girrana Merugulli
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_
+ II. Kurbo Kooran
+ Marro Kurgan
+ Wombo Wirrikin
+ Wirro Wongan
+
+The proper arrangement of these names is unknown.
+
+_Tribe_: Kombinegherry (_J.A.I._ XIII, 304; Howitt, 105).
+
+_Science of Man_ (IV, 8) gives:
+
+ Carribo Gooroona
+ Maroongah Carrigan
+ Womboongah Werrican
+ Weiro Warganbah
+
+For the Anaywan, Thangatty, etc., R.H. Mathews gives (_J.R.S.N.S.W._
+XXXI, 169):
+
+ Irpoong Matyang
+ Marroong Arrakan
+ Imboong Irrakadena
+ Irroong Palyang
+
+ _Class name (Fem. termination, -an or -gan)_ _Meaning_
+III†[50]. Parang (Moroon) (Black wallaby. Emu)
+ Bunda [Kangaroo]
+ Balgoin (Banjoor, (Red wallaby. Native
+ Pandur) bear)
+ Theirwain (Kangaroo)
+
+_Tribes_: Maryborough tribes (Howitt, 117); Kabi (Curr, III, 163):
+Kiabara (_J.A.I._ XIII, 305); ? (Hodgson, 212; Mathew, _Eaglehawk_,
+100); Wide Bay (Curr, I, 117).
+
+For the Emon, Howitt (p. 109) gives:
+
+ Barah
+ Bondan
+ Bondurr
+ Taran
+
+With these classes are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) The Maryborough tribes Dilbi Kupathin.
+ and the Kiabara
+(_b_) Dippil Deeajee Karpeun
+
+are the forms given by Mathews (_Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXVIII, 329).
+
+ _Class names (Fem. termination, -an)_ _Meaning_
+ IV. Karilbura Barrimundi
+ Munal Hawk
+ Kurpal Good water
+ Kuialla (Koodala) Iguana
+
+_Tribes_: Kuinmurbura (_J.A.I._ XIII, 341; Howitt, 111). The Taroombul
+have the form Koodala (_Proc. R.S. Qu._ XIII, 41).
+
+For the Kangulu, Mathews (_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 111) gives:
+
+ Banniar[51]
+ Banjoor
+ Koorpal
+ Kearra
+
+With these may be compared Howitt's (p. 111):
+
+ Kairawa
+ Bunjur
+ Bunya
+ Jarbain (? Tarbain)
+
+The phratries associated with these are:
+
+ _Tribe_
+(_a_) Kuinmurbura Witteru Yungaru
+(_b_) Kangulu Wutthuru Yungnuru
+
+ _Class names_ _Fem. termination_ _Meaning_
+ V. Wongo
+ Kubaru (Ubur, Obu) -an (Gidea tree)
+ Bunburi (Anbeir, Unburri,
+ Bunbai)
+ Koorgilla (Urgilla)
+
+_Tribes_: Ungorri (Howitt, 109); Kogai (Curr, I, 117; _J.A.I._ XIII,
+337); Yuipera etc. (Curr, III, 45, 64; _J.A.I._ XIII, 302); Akulbura,
+Bathalibura (Howitt, 113, 141); Wakelbura (Howitt, 112); on Belyando
+(Curr, III, 26); Dalebura (Howitt, 113), Buntamurra (Howitt, 113, 226);
+Purgoma (Roth, 66); Jouon (_ib._ 67); Pitta-Pitta, Goa, Miorli (Roth,
+56-7); Ringa-Ringa (_J.A.I._ XIII, 337); Mittakoodi (Roth, 56-7);
+Woonamurra (_ib._); Yerunthully (Mathews in _R.G.S. Qu._ X, 30); Badieri
+(_id. ib._ 1905, 55).
+
+With these class names are associated the phratries
+
+(_a_) Kogai, Wakelbura etc. Wuthera Mallera
+(_b_) Yuipera, Bathalibura Wootaroo Yungaroo
+(_c_) Purgoma Naka Tunna
+(_d_) Jouon Chepa Junna
+(_e_) Pitta-Pitta etc., Ootaroo Pakoota
+ Mittakoodi, Woonamura
+(_f_) Badieri Wootaroo Yungo
+
+Aberrant forms, probably inaccurate, are given by Curr (II, 424) for
+Halifax Bay: Korkoro, Korkeen, Wongo, Wotero; by Lumholtz (p. 199) for
+the Herbert R.: Gorilla, Gorgero, Gorgorilla, Otero, by Curr (II, 468)
+for the Yukkaburra: Utheroo, Multheroo, Yungaroo, Goorgilla.
+
+On the Tully R. Roth (_Ethn. Bull._ V, 20) found the following:
+
+ _Class names_
+ VI. Karavangi
+ Chikun
+ Kurongon
+ Kurkilla
+
+With these may be compared the names given by Mathews for the Warkeman
+(_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXII, 109, 251):
+
+ Karpungie
+ Cheekungie
+ Kellungie
+ Koopungie
+
+On the Annan R. we find (Howitt, 118) with male descent:
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ VII. Wandi Eaglehawk
+ Walar Bee
+ Jorro Bee
+ Kutchal Saltwater Eaglehawk
+
+With these are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Walar Murla
+
+VIII. Ranya (Arenia)
+ Rara (Arara)
+ Loora
+ Awunga (Arawongo)
+
+_Tribes_: Wollongurma (Roth, 68); Goothanto (Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._
+XXXIII, 109).
+
+Connected with these forms are:
+
+ _Class names_
+ Barry (Ahjereena)
+ Ararey (Arrenynung)
+ Jury [? Loory] (Perrynung)
+ Mungilly (Mahngal) [diamond snake][52]
+
+_Tribes_: Koogobathy (_J.A.I._ XIII, 303); Koonjan etc. (Mathews in
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 110, XXXIV, 135). Probably Perrynung and
+Ahjereenya should be transposed.
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_
+ IX. Jimmilingo Carburungo
+ Badingo Ngarrangungo
+ Maringo[53] Munjungo
+ Youingo (Kapoodungo) Goothamungo
+
+_Tribes_: Miappe (Roth, 56-7); Mycoolon (_J.A.I._ XIII, 302);
+Workoboongo (Roth, _ib._).
+
+For the Kalkadoon, Roth (_ib._) gives:
+
+ Kunggilungo
+ Patingo
+ Toonbeungo
+ Marinungo[53]
+
+With these are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Kalkadoon Ootaroo Mullara
+(_b_) Miappe Woodaroo Pakutta
+
+ _Class names_
+ X. Murungun
+ Mumbali
+ Purdal
+ Kuial
+
+_Tribe_: Mara (_Northern Tribes_, 119).
+
+With these the phratry names:
+
+(_a_) Urku Ua
+
+In this tribe is male descent, and, as in the S. Arunta, the classes are
+themselves divided; for equivalence the numbers of the eight-class
+system are arranged (_Nor. Tr._ 123), 1, 4; 3, 2; 5, 7; 6, 8.
+
+Leichardt (_Journal_, 447) reports from the Roper R., Gnangball, Odall,
+Nurumball, which from their form seem to be class names and identifiable
+with some of the Mara names.
+
+ _Class names_
+ XI. Awukaria
+ Roumburia
+ Urtalia
+ Wialia
+
+_Tribe_: Anula (_Nor. Tr._ 119).
+
+XII. For the eight-class system see Table I a; in which it is assumed
+that patrilineal descent prevails in all the tribes.
+
+With these are associated the following phratries:
+
+(_a_) Umbaia, Gnanji Illitchi Liaritchi
+(_b_) Warramunga, Walpari, Uluuru Kingilli
+ Wulmala
+(_c_) Worgaia " Bimgaru
+(_d_) Bingongina Wiliuku Liaraku
+
+Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ pp. 100-102, 119. On p. 102 is a
+statement about the Bingongina inconsistent with that on the following
+page; according to the former the phratry names are Illitchi, Liaritchi,
+as among the Umbaia.
+
+ _Class names_
+XIII. Panunga
+ Bulthara
+ Purula
+ Kumara
+
+_Tribe_: S. Arunta (_Nat. Tr._ 90).
+
+XIII_a_. Deringara
+ Gubilla
+ Koomara
+ Belthara
+
+_Tribe_: Yoolanlanya etc. (_R.G.S. Qu._ XVI, 75).
+
+The arrangement suggests that matrilineal descent prevails, but there is
+probably some error.
+
+ _Class names_
+XIII_b_. Burong (Parungo)
+ Ballieri (Parajerri; Butcharrie)
+ Banaka (Boogarloo)
+ Kymerra (Kaiamba)
+
+_Tribes_: Gnamo, Gnalluma (_Int. Arch._ XVI, 12); Nickol Bay and
+Kimberley have the alternative forms of 1, 2, and 4 (Curr, I, 296;
+_Kamilaroi_, 36, Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXV, 220), Weedokarry (_id._
+in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89) have third form of 2; at Murchison
+R. Boorgarloo comes into use (_West Australian_, Ap. 7, 1906).
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ XIV. Tondarup (Namyungo) Fish hawk
+ Didaruk Sea
+ Ballaruk (Yangor) (Opossum)
+ Naganok (Fish)
+
+_Tribes_: S.W. Australia, Tarderick etc. (_West. Aust._, _loc. cit._;
+Moore, _Desc. Voc._, _Col. Mag._ V, 422.
+
+The phratries are
+
+(_a_) Wartungmat Munichmat
+
+The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Class names_
+ XV. Langenam
+ Namegor
+ Packwicky
+ Pamarung
+
+_Tribe_: Joongoongie of N. Queensland (Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._
+XXXIX, 93).
+
+Associated with them the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Jamagunda Gamanutta
+
+The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ XVI. Kari Emu
+ Waui Red kangaroo
+ Wiltu Eaglehawk
+ Wilthuthu Shark
+
+_Tribe_: Narrangga of Yorke Peninsula (Howitt, p. 130).
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[48] The Darkinung have Bya for Muri (_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 170).
+
+[49] Some of the Wiradjeri have Wōmbee for Kumbo (Gribble, 113).
+
+[50] Male descent.
+
+[51] Some of the names given by Howitt and Mathews seem to be identical
+with those of the Kiabara, but there is a difficulty about the
+arrangement, for Koorpal-Keeara=Yungnuru=Bunya-Jarbain; but Banniar,
+which seems to be the same as Bunya, falls in the other moiety.
+
+[52] Curr, II, 478.
+
+[53] Marinungo seems to be the same as Maringo but is not equivalent.
+
+
+TABLE I a: XII. CLASS NAMES OF EIGHT-CLASS TRIBES.
+
+ +---------------------+ +-------------------------------------------------+
+-|----------+----------|-+-|----------+-----------+------------+-------------|-+
+ Oolawunga | Bingongina | Umbaia[56] | Yookala | Binbinga |Gnanji[59] |
+ [54] etc. | [55] | | [57] etc. | [58] | |
+------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+---------------+
+ Janna | Thama } | Tjinum |Jinagoo |Tjuanaku |Uanuku |
+ _Nanakoo_ | Tchana} | _Ninum_ | |_Niriuma_ |_Nuanakurna_ |
+ | _Nana_ | | | | |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jimidya | Tjimita | Tjulum |Joolanjegoo|Tjulantjuka |Tjulantjuka |
+ _Namaja_ | _Namita_ | _Nulum_ | | _Nurlum_ |_Nurlanjukurna_|
+ | | | | | |
+ Dhalyeree | Thalirri | Paliarinji |Bullaranjee|Paliarinji |Paliarinji |
+ | _Nalirri_ | _Paliarina_| |_Paliarina_ |_Paliarina_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Dhongaree | Thungarie | Pungarinji |Bungaranjee|Pungarinji |Pungarinji |
+ | _Nungari_ |_Pungarinia_| |_Pungarina_ |_Pungarinia_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Joolama | Tjurla | Tjurulum |Jooralagoo |Tjurulum |Uralaku |
+ _Nowala_ | _Nala_ | _Nurulum_ | | _Nurulum_ |_Nuralakurna_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jungalla | Thungalla | Thungallum |Jungalagoo |Thungallum |Thungallaku |
+ | _Nungalla_ | _Nungallum_| | _Nungallum_|_Nungallakurna_|
+ | | | | | |
+ Jeemara | Tjimara | Tjamerum |Jameragoo |Tjamerum |Tjameraku |
+ | _Nunalla_ |_Niameragun_| | _Niamerum_ |_Niamaku_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jambijana | Tjambitjina| Yakomari |Yukamurra |Yakomari |Yakomari |
+ _Nambean_ |_Nambitjina_| _Yakomarin_| |_Yakomarina_|_Yakomarina_ |
+------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+---------------+
+
+
+ +--------------------------------------+
+-|----------+--------------+------------|-+-------------+-----------------+
+ Worgaia[60]| Yangarella | Inchalachie | Yungmunnie | Tjingillie[64] |
+ | [61] | [62] | [63] | |
+------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+
+ Wairgu | Narrabalangie|{Narrabalangie| Unwannee | Thamininja |
+ | _Neonammer_ |{Warkie | _Imbannee_ | _Namininja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Blaingunjhu| Bolangie | Bolangie | Eemitch | Tjimininja |
+ | _Nolangmer_ | | _Immadena_ | _Truminginja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Biliarinthu| Bulleringie | Belyeringie | Uwallaree | Thalaringinja |
+ | _Nulyarammer_| | _Imballaree_| _Nalaringinja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ | | | | |
+ Pungarinju | Bongaringie | Beneringie | Uwungaree | Thungaringinta |
+ | _Nongarimmer_| | _Imbongaree_| _Namaringinta_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Warrithu | Burralangie |{Burralangie | Urwalla | Tjurulinginja |
+ | _Nurralammer_|{Narechie | _Imbawalla_ | _Nalinginja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Kingelunju | Kunuller | Kungilla | Yungalla | Thungallininja |
+ | _Nungalermer_| | _Inkagalla_ | _Nalangininja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Tjameramu | Kommerangie |{Kommerangie | Unmarra | Thamaringinja |
+ | _Nemurammer_ |{Boonongoona | _Inganmarra_| _Namaringinja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Ikamaru | Yakomari |{Akamaroo | Tabachin | Tjapatjinginja |
+ | _Jumeyunyie_ |{Thimmermill | _Tabadenna_ | _Nambitjinginja_|
+------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+
+
+
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+ {Ilpirra[65] |{Warramunga[66] | Meening[67] | Mayoo[68] | Koorangie |
+ {Arunta |{Walpari | | | [69] etc.|
+ {Kaitish |{Wulmala | | | |
+ {Iliaura | | | | |
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+ Panunga | Thapanunga | Chowan | Chinuma | Janna |
+ | _Napanunga_ | _Nowana_ | _Nanagoo_ | _Nanakoo_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Uknaria | Tjinguri | Choongoora | Choongoora | Jamada |
+ | _Namigili_ | _Nangili_ | _Narbeeta_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ {Bulthara | Tjapeltjeri | Chavalya | Chavalya | Dhalyeree |
+ {Kabidgi | _Naltjeri_ | _Nanajerry_ | _Nabajerry_| |
+ _Appitchana_ | | | | |
+ | | | | |
+ Appungerta | Thapungarti | Chowarding | Changary | Dhungaree |
+ | _Napungerta_ | _Nabungati_ | _Nhermana_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Purula | Tjupila | Chooara | Choolima | Joolam |
+ | _Naralu_ | _Nooara_ | _Naola_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Ungalla | Thungalla | Changally | Chungalla | Jungalla |
+ | _Nungalla_ | _Nangally_ | _Nungalla_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Kumara | Thakomara | Chagarra | Chapota | Jameram |
+ |_Nakomara_ | _Nagarra_ | _Nemira_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Umbitchana | Tjambin | Chambeen | Chambijana | Jummiunga |
+ | _Nambin_ | _Nambeen_ | _Nambjana_ | |
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[54] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, X, 72.
+
+[55] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[56] _Ib._, 100, cf. _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIV, 121; XXXIX, 105.
+
+[57] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._, XXXVIII, 77.
+
+[58] _Northern Tribes_, 111.
+
+[59] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[60] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[61] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXII, 251.
+
+[62] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIII, 111.
+
+[63] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIV, 130.
+
+[64] _Northern Tribes_, 100; cf. _Am. Anth._, N.S. II, 495; _Proc.
+R.G.S. Qu._, XVI, 72, 73.
+
+[65] _Native Tribes_, 90; cf. _Proc. R.S. Vict._, N.S. X, 19;
+_T.R.S.S.A._, XIV, 224; _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXII, 72.
+
+[66] _Northern Tribes_, 100; cf. _J.A.I._, XVIII, 44; _J.R.S.N.S.W._,
+XXXII, 73.
+
+[67] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIII, 112; XXXV, 217.
+
+[68] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, XVI, 70.
+
+[69] Mathews in _Am. Phil. Soc._, XXXVIII, 78.
+
+
+TABLE II.
+
+_Phratry Names._
+
+ _Phratries_ _Meanings_ _Name of Tribe_
+ 1. †Waa(ng) Crow Wurunjerri[70]
+ Bunjil or Wrepil Eaglehawk
+ 2. Yuckembruk " Ngarrego[71]
+ Merung
+ 3. Umbe Crow Wolgal[72] etc.
+ Malian or Multa Eaglehawk
+ 4. Muquara " Berriait[73], Tatathi[74],
+ Kilpara Wathi-Wathi[74], Keramin[75],
+ Waimbio[76], Barkinji[77],
+ Milpulko[78], Wilya[78],
+ Itchumundi[79]
+ 5. Kumit (Gamutch, Black cockatoo
+ Kaputch, Kulitch)
+ Kroki (Krokitch, White cockatoo Booandik[80], Wotjoballuk[81],
+ Krokage) Gournditchmara[82] etc.
+
+The feminine terminations are -egor, -gurk or -jarr.
+
+For South-West Victoria Dawson (_Aborigines_, p. 26) gives two groups
+and an odd totem kin (?):
+
+ _Phratries_ _Meaning_ _Name of Tribe_
+
+ 6. Kuurokeetch Longbilled cockatoo
+ Kartpoerappa Pelican
+ Kappatch Banksia cockatoo
+ Kirtuuk Boa snake
+ Kuunamit Quail
+ 7. Kararu (Kiraru, Dieri[83], Parnkalla & Nauo[84],
+ Kararawa) Yandairunga[85], Urabunna[86]
+ Matteri
+ 8. Tinewa Yandrawontha, Yowerawarika[87]
+ Koolpuru (? Emu)
+ 9. Yungo (? Kangaroo)
+ Mattera Kurnandaburi[88]
+10. Kookoojeeba
+ Koocheebinga Geebera[89]
+
+The equivalence is not known.
+
+11. Koorabunna
+ Kooragula Goonganji[90]
+
+ _Phratry_
+
+12. Darboo* Bloomfield River[91]
+ Tooar
+
+*The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Phratry names._ _Four-class system_ _Meaning_
+20. Dilbi Kupathin Ia, III†
+21. Budthurung(1) Mukula Ib (1)=black duck
+22. Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen Ie Light blood; dark blood
+23. Ngielbumurra Mukumurra Ic
+24. Ngumbun Ngurrawan Id
+25. Girana Merugulli If
+26. Deeajee Karpeun IIIb
+27. Witteru Yungaru IVa, b; Vb (? Kangaroo; ? emu)
+27_a_. " Yungo Vf
+28. " Mallera Va, IXa
+29. " Pakoota Ve, IXb
+30. Naka Tunna Vc
+31. Walar Murla* VIIa Bee; bee
+32. Cheepa Junna Vd
+33. Jamagunda Gamanutta* XIa
+34. Wartungmat Munichmat* XIVa Crow; white cockatoo
+
+ _Eight-class system_†
+40. Illitchi Liaritchi XIIa
+41. Uluuru Biingaru XIIc (? Curlew)
+42. " Kingilli XIIb (? Curlew)
+43. Wiliuku Liaraku XIId
+44. Urku Ua Xa
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[70] Howitt, p. 126.
+
+[71] _Id._ p. 101.
+
+[72] _Id._ p. 102, Lang, _Secret_, p. 163.
+
+[73] Curr, II, 165.
+
+[74] _J.A.I._ XIII, 338; Howitt, p. 195.
+
+[75] _J.A.I._ XIV, 349.
+
+[76] Taplin, p. 17; Howitt, p. 100.
+
+[77] _J.A.I._ XIV, 348; Curr, II, 188, 195.
+
+[78] Howitt, p. 98.
+
+[79] _Id._ p. 106 n. For the Kurnai, Bunjil and Ngarregal were perhaps
+phratry names (Howitt, p. 135).
+
+[80] Curr, III, 461; Howitt, p. 123.
+
+[81] _Id._ p. 121.
+
+[82] _Id._ p. 124.
+
+[83] Howitt, p. 91.
+
+[84] Woods, p. 222.
+
+[85] Howitt, p. 187.
+
+[86] _Nor. Tr._ p. 60.
+
+[87] Howitt, p. 97.
+
+[88] Howitt, p. 92; Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 108.
+
+[89] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 187.
+
+[90] _Sci. Man_, I. 84; Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89; in
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._ he reports a third name in certain
+districts--Koorameenya.
+
+[91] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89.
+
+
+TABLE III.
+
+Allusion has been made in Chapter III to kinship organisations
+denominated "bloods" and "shades" by Mr R.H. Mathews. Whether it is that
+some observers have mistaken these for phratries or _vice versâ_, it
+seems that the names of the two classes of organisation are at present
+inextricably intermingled, as the following table shows:
+
+ _Tribe_ _Phratry_ _Blood_ _Meaning_
+Itchmundi[92] Kilpara-Muquara {Mukulo-Ngielpuru †Sluggish and
+ " {Muggula-Ngipuru† swift blood
+Wiradjeri[93] Mukula-Budthurung
+Wonghibon[94] Mukumura-Ngiel-
+ bumura
+Wonghi- }[95]
+ bon and } Ngumbun- Gwaigullimba- ‡Swift and sluggish
+ Ngneumba} Ngurrawan Gwaimudhan‡ blood
+
+Euahlayi[96] Gwaigullean- Light and dark
+ Gwaimudthen blooded
+
+Murawari[97] Girrana-Merugulli Muggulu-Bumbirra§ §Sluggish and
+ swift blood
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[92] Howitt, p. 106 n.; Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIX, 118.
+
+[93] _Id._ p. 107.
+
+[94] _Id._ p. 108.
+
+
+TABLE IV.
+
+The areas covered by the different class and phratry names are not
+co-extensive, that is to say a class is associated with more than one
+phratry and _vice versâ_. The Undekerebina[98] and Yelyuyendi[99] have
+phratries (No. 29) which are usually associated with classes but in
+their case none have been noted. On the other hand it is not uncommon to
+find classes without the corresponding phratry names; this is the case
+in the eight class area, among the tribes of N.S. Wales, S. Queensland,
+etc.; but no special significance attaches to it unless we are certain
+that it is not the negligence of the observer nor the disuse of the
+names which has produced this state of things. On the other hand the
+relation of phratry and class areas is of the highest importance, as is
+shown in Chapter V. The following table shows the anomalies:
+
+ _Tribe_ _Phratry_ _Class_
+Wiradjeri 21 I
+Euahlayi 22 I
+Ngeumba, Wonghi 23, or 24 I
+Murawari 25 I
+Kiabara, etc. 20 III
+Dippil 26 III
+Kuinmurbura, Kongulu 27 IV
+Yuipera, Badieri, Yambeena, etc. 27 V
+Kogai, Wakelbura, etc. 28 V
+Woonamura, Mittakoodi, Miorli, etc. 29 V
+Purgoma 30 V
+Jouon 32 V
+Miappe 29 VIII
+Kalkadoon 28 VIII
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[95] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ xxxix, 116. _Eth. Notes_, p. 5.
+
+[96] Mrs Langloh Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 11.
+
+[97] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, 1905, 52.
+
+[98] Rota, p. 56.
+
+[99] Howitt, p. 192.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+PHRATRY NAMES.
+
+The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
+ Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts.
+ Intercommunication. Tribal Migrations.
+
+
+It has been shown in Chapter III that from the point of view of kinship
+organisations Australia falls into three main areas--occupied by the
+classless two-phratry, the four-class and the eight-class organisations.
+The total number of phratry names, thirty-three pairs in all, does not
+of course fall solely to the count of the two-phratry tribes, but is
+divided between the three kinds of organisation, the two-phratry having
+twelve pairs with one anomalous area, the four-class sixteen, and the
+eight-class five such sets. As regards the relative size of the areas
+thus organised, the largest seems to be that occupied by the
+Matteri-Kiraru system, though the Muquara-Kilpara (5) probably runs it
+close, especially if we take into account the names of like meaning
+(1-4) in the East Victorian area. The remainder of the two-phratry
+systems do not range over a wide extent of country, so far as is known;
+but 10, 11, and 33 are of unknown extent.
+
+In the four-class area are two extensive systems, ranking next after
+those of South Australia and N.S. Wales; these are Mallera-Wuthera (27)
+and Pakoota-Wootaro (29); they have a single phratry name in common,
+which is also found in two other systems; if we add these together, as
+we may perhaps do on this evidence of a common basis, we have by far the
+largest phratric system in Australia as the result. Almost equal in
+extent to either of the two areas occupied by 27 and 29 is that claimed
+by the better known Kamilaroi system--Dilbi-Kupathin, which spreads over
+a long, comparatively narrow region, but had possibly at one time a
+wider field from which at the present time only the corresponding class
+names can be recovered. Of the remaining thirteen in the two-class
+region, only 28, one of the Wuthera systems already mentioned, has more
+than a restricted field of influence. Of moderate size are the four
+areas in the eight-class system proper, that of the Mara being small in
+comparison.
+
+Taking now the native names, we find that, in addition to the Wuthera
+(Ootaroo) sets already mentioned, the Dieri and Kurnandaburi have
+Matteri (Mattera) in common, while the latter have in the Baddieri tribe
+a neighbour which shares the Yungo phratry name with them. The fact, if
+correct, that with the Badieri Yungo is associated with Wutheru, and
+takes the place of the more usual Yungaru, suggests that we may equate
+the latter with Yungo. In the eight-class area Uluuru is common to two
+systems, while a third has Wiliuku, and the fourth Illitchi, all of
+which seem to be allied, if we may take it that uru, uku, and tchi are
+suffixes; that they are is borne out by the corresponding names
+Liaritchi and Liaraku. Other possible equations are Mukula--Mukumurra,
+and Cheepa--Koocheebinga, but in the latter case, even if koo is a
+prefix, the distance of the two systems makes any such correspondence
+improbable. In Victoria the Malian-Multa equation is indisputable; it is
+interesting to note that the former is found in N.S. Wales as the name
+of the bird, while Multa belongs to Yorke Peninsula.
+
+As regards the meaning of these names, we find that of the fifty-eight
+names which remain after deducting those which occur in more than one
+system, nineteen can be translated with certainty, and we can guess at
+the meaning of some half dozen more. Of translateable names the most
+widely spread are various titles of Eaglehawk and Crow, which appear in
+five different systems in Victoria and New South Wales[100]. Crow
+reappears in West Australia under the name of Wartung, with white
+cockatoo, also a Victorian phratry name, as its fellow. In North
+Queensland, as a parallel to the black and white cockatoo of the south,
+we find on the Annan River two species of bee giving their names to
+phratries; and the Black Duck phratry of the Waradjeri suggests that
+here too might be found another contrasting pair, if we could translate
+the other name. For the Euahlayi phratry names, on which more will be
+said in discussing the "blood" organisations, Mrs Parker gives the
+translation "Light-blooded" and "Dark-blooded," which comes near that
+suggested by Mr Mathews--slow and quick blooded. In the Ulu, Illi, and
+Wili of Northern Territory we seem to recognise Welu (curlew). Koolpuru
+(emu), Yungaru and Yungo (kangaroo), and Wutheroo (emu) are also
+possible meanings.
+
+The problems raised by the phratriac nomenclature are complex and
+probably insoluble. They are in part bound up with the problem of the
+origin of the organisation itself; of this nature, for example, is the
+question whether the names correspond to anything existing in the
+pre-phratriac stage, or whether the organisation was borrowed and the
+names taken over translated or untranslated into the idiom of the
+borrowers. If the latter be the solution, we have a simple explanation
+of the wide-spread Eaglehawk-Crow system as well as of other facts, to
+which reference is made below.
+
+If on the other hand the names have not been much spread by
+borrowing,--and the increasing number of small phratry areas known to us
+tells in favour of this, though it also suggests that the widely-found
+systems have gained ground at the expense of their neighbours,--then we
+obviously need some theory as to the origin of the organisation, before
+we can frame any hypothesis as to the origin of the names.
+
+The prominent part, however, played by the Eaglehawk among phratry names
+raises some questions which can be discussed on their merits. One of
+these is the age of phratry names. Some of the earliest records of
+initiation ceremonies in New South Wales mention that the eaglehawk
+figured in them[101]. In West Australia this bird is the demiurge, and
+the progenitors of the phratries, of which crow is one, are his nephews.
+This is not the only case in which these birds figure in mythology.
+
+As the Rev. John Mathew has pointed out in his work, _Eaglehawk and
+Crow_, there are found in Australia, especially in the south-eastern
+portion, a number of myths relating to the conflicts of these birds.
+These myths he interprets as echoes of a long-past conflict between the
+aboriginal Negrito race and the invading Papuans, and traces the origin
+of the phratries to the same racial strife. As an explanation of exogamy
+the hypothesis is clearly insufficient, but it is evident that no theory
+of the origin of the phratries can leave exogamy out of the question.
+The point, however, with which we are immediately concerned is the myth
+on which in the main Mr Mathew based his theory. Unfortunately, he did
+not think it necessary to attempt to define either the area covered by
+the different phratry names--an omission which is remedied by the
+present work--nor yet the limits within which the myth in question or
+its analogues are part of the native mythology. These analogues to the
+story of the battle of Eaglehawk and Crow, ended in the Darling area
+according to tradition by a treaty between the contending birds, are
+myths in which birds are said to have destroyed the human race, or a
+large portion of it, to have contended with Baiame, or one of the other
+gods, or to have figured in some other conflict[102]. The bird of this
+myth--the bird conflict myth, as it may be termed--is the Eaglehawk.
+Possibly, as I have pointed out in the note in _Man_, both bird conflict
+myths and Eaglehawk-Crow myths--they may be termed collectively bird
+myths--may go back to a common origin. So far as Mr Mathew's evidence
+goes, bird myths do not seem to be told outside the colony of Victoria
+and the Darling area of New South Wales.
+
+A little research, however, shows that this idea is altogether
+erroneous. There are unfortunately large areas in Australia, as to the
+mythology of which we know absolutely nothing. Therefore it must not be
+supposed that the bird conflict myth is confined to the districts in
+which we have evidence of its existence. We may rather infer that a myth
+so widely distributed--it ranges from the head of the Bight, 129° E., to
+the coast north of Sydney, and probably as far as Moreton Bay; to the
+north it is found among the Urabunna, and probably elsewhere--is common
+property of the Australian Tribes.
+
+A glance at the map will show that the eaglehawk and crow myth covers
+but a small portion of the area in which the bird conflict myth is
+found. On the other hand we find within the eaglehawk-crow myth district
+the phratry names Cockatoo, three names of unknown meaning, and the
+doubtful Kiraru--Kirarawa. Now if a racial conflict is indicated by the
+names eaglehawk and crow, this must be either because the contending
+races were already known by these names, or because the two birds in
+question are proverbially hostile to each other. In either case we are
+left without any explanation of the two cockatoo phratries. It may
+indeed be argued that the locality in which the eaglehawk-crow phratry
+names are found tells strongly in favour of the racial conflict
+hypothesis; for it is precisely in this area that the last stand of the
+aborigines against the invaders may, on the theory put forward by Mr
+Mathew and accepted by some anthropologists[103], be supposed to have
+taken place. But against this must be set the fact that in this area
+also we find two cockatoos, and on the Annan River two bees, arrayed
+against one another; unless it can be shown that these two birds are
+also proverbial foes, or that the Australian native had reached a point
+in his biological investigations at which he recognised that the
+presence of two closely allied species in a district involves a
+particularly keen struggle for existence (which they would, however,
+regard in such an advanced stage of knowledge as appropriate to the
+designation of intra-racial rather than inter-racial feuds), the two
+sets of facts balance one another, and leave us still engaged in a vain
+quest for a conclusion.
+
+Putting theories as to racial conflicts aside, and dealing with the
+facts as we find them, we seem to have a choice of two hypotheses.
+Either the eaglehawk-crow myths were told before the phratry names came
+into existence, or they were invented to explain the existence of the
+phratry names. Let us assume that none of the unknown names mean
+eaglehawk or crow, and that the eaglehawk-crow area has remained
+approximately the same size, or has, at any rate, not diminished
+(excluding, of course, those cases where it seems to have lost ground
+owing to the disappearance of phratry names altogether, as among the
+Kurnai); we must then, on the second theory, assume that the story of
+the combat spread to tribes with completely different phratry names like
+the Urabunna, and got mixed up with their ceremonies of initiation (the
+most sacred part of the mythology of the Australian natives, and one not
+likely to be much influenced by chance intruders); and that it came even
+in some cases to be told of Baiame, the creator and institutor of the
+rites of initiation, who is represented as himself taking part in the
+conflict and gaining a victory over the foes of mankind[104]. On the
+whole, therefore, this view of the case appears improbable.
+
+To the theory that the Eaglehawk-Crow story was originally independent
+of the phratry names no such objections apply. We are indefinitely
+remote from the period at which the anthropologist will be able to do
+for Australia what Franz Boas has done for the North-West of
+America--draw up a table showing the resemblances and differences
+between the stock of folktales of the different tribes, or, which is
+more important for our present purpose, of the main divisions, eastern,
+central, and western, which the analysis of initiation ceremonies gives
+us--a tripartite division which Curr also makes on the linguistic side,
+though Mathew's map shows considerable intermixture in this respect.
+Until we know to what extent the Urabunna or the Ikula have folktales in
+common with the Victorian area, or,--which is perhaps more important,
+though we do not seem to hear of any communication on this line,--how
+far there is a stock of folktales common to the Darling district and the
+central area, it is obviously idle to speculate as to how it comes that
+an Eaglehawk myth is told in both areas. The physical anthropology of
+the Australian natives is at present a little-worked field, in which,
+singularly enough, the French have done more than the English, to our
+shame be it said. Possibly a somatological survey might disclose to what
+extent the central tribes are distinct from the eastern group, and how
+far we may assume movements of population, subsequent to the original
+peopling of the country by the stocks in question, in either or both
+directions. In the absence of such data, and until an Australian Grimm
+has arisen to bring order into the present linguistic chaos, the
+evidence from folktales seems to promise most light on the question of
+migrations.
+
+We are, of course, confronted by the difficulty that this evidence may
+simply disclose the lines along which tribal intercommunication has been
+most easy, whether in the way of simple interchange of commodities,
+evidence of which we have over considerable areas in Australia, or in
+the way of intermarriage, which, as we see by the example of the
+Urabunna and the Arunta, is found in spite of fundamental differences of
+tribal organisation. A common stock of folktales due to this cause would
+leave unexplained the prominence of the bird myth in the sacred rites,
+and leave the present hypothesis, in this regard, on a par with that of
+post-phratriac dissemination, in respect of probability. On the other
+hand we have the Scylla of tribal property in land, an idea so firmly
+rooted in our own day in the minds of the Australians as to make wars of
+conquest unthinkable to them, and to transform the practical part of
+their intertribal feuds into mere raids. If, therefore, investigation
+showed that the central and eastern tribes are in possession of a stock
+of folktales with many items in common, we should always have to take
+into consideration the possibility that these tales antedate the
+complete occupation of Australia, and go back to a period when the
+eastern and central divisions were in close relation. The probability of
+this view would, of course, depend on the extent of the resemblance
+between the two stocks of tales, or, perhaps, rather on the extent of
+the resemblance between those tales which they have in common; for it is
+clear that a close resemblance between comparatively few items would be
+more effective proof of intercommunication than a less marked general
+resemblance between the tale-stocks as a whole.
+
+In spite of the deficiencies of our evidence we may perhaps incline to
+the view that the bird myth dates back to a very early period. Until it
+has been shown that intrusive elements are not only taken up into the
+tribal stock of tales, but also incorporated in the more sacred portion
+of those tales, which are told at the tribal mysteries, it will always
+remain more probable that the myth belongs to the two divisions as a
+result of lineal and not lateral transmission. If this is so the
+differences between the initiation ceremonies, no less than the
+anthropomorphic form of the myth in the eastern division, as compared
+with the purely theriomorphic story of the central division and the
+mixed form of the Ikula, will enable us to say that the period when the
+separation of the divisions took place must be very remote.
+
+There is, therefore, no inherent improbability in supposing that the
+bird myth was told before the phratry names were invented or adopted,
+and that the latter were in some cases taken from the principal
+characters in the myth. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
+the phratry names seem to be subsequent to the present grouping, if we
+may take as our guide the fact that the frontiers of the phratry names
+correspond with the boundaries between the central and eastern
+divisions. The fact that there is a cross division, if we base our
+reasoning on the class organisation, need not of course be taken into
+account, for we have every reason to believe that the classes are
+subsequent to the phratries.
+
+In favour of the derivation of the phratry names from the myth tells
+also the five-fold division of the eaglehawk-crow groups into Muquara
+and Kilpara, Bunjil and Waa, Merung and Yuckembruk, Multa or Malian and
+Umbe. For it is clearly more probable that the names should have been
+taken from a common object than that they should have been in their
+origin identical in form and subsequently differentiated, as the
+languages changed; we have in fact direct evidence of a tendency to
+preserve the old names, which we may perhaps regard as the sacred names,
+after the bird has been rebaptised in the terminology of daily life.
+Over and above this we have of course the fact that the sacred language
+has, generally speaking, both in Australia and elsewhere, this
+unchanging character. But this simple name-borrowing theory, it is
+clear, is equally valid as an explanation of the facts.
+
+Although we cannot determine the meaning of the names the quadripartite
+division of the Mallera-Wuthera[105] and allied phratries in the north is
+evidence of a similar tendency. It is by no means impossible that
+Mallera, Yungaroo, and Pakoota all mean the same thing. (This ignorance
+of the meaning of the phratry and class names is _primâ facie_ evidence
+of their high antiquity.) In the newly-discovered phratry names of the
+eight-class tribes we have yet another instance of tripartite division.
+If we may assume that Illitchi, Uluuru, and Wiliuku are from the same
+root (which, as we have seen, is probably _welu_, the terminations
+_-uku_, _-itchi_, and _-uru_ (=_-aree_) being formative suffixes), we
+have here too a single phratry name on the one side and three sister
+names on the other. While it is clear that the names cannot be in any
+sense of the term recent, from the fact that linguistic differentiation
+had already gone some distance in what we may call, for want of a better
+term, groups speaking a stock language (in proof of which we have only
+to look at the formative suffixes), it seems equally clear that the
+present phratry names must be considerably later than the final
+settlement of the country. At the same time it must not be forgotten
+that the existence of numerous small phratries, the number of which may
+yet be largely increased by more exact research, is _primâ facie_ a
+proof that the groups which adopted them had not reached the stage at
+which anything like that tribal (still less national) organisation was
+known, which is at the present day characteristic of the Arunta, and,
+perhaps, we may say, of all groups organised on a class system with
+class names known and used over an area far beyond that over which the
+(in a restricted sense) tribal language extends.
+
+The recurrence of crow in the phratry name of the far west lends further
+support to the view that the phratry names were selected in some way,
+and were not due to some accident of savage wit. The view has been taken
+that the phratry animals were originally totems, or animals that became
+totems at a later stage. In view of the large number of totems found in
+many tribes, or even restricting their number to six or eight in each
+phratry, it is not difficult to estimate the probability that cockatoo
+and crow would recur in different areas, and that an opposition of
+characters should be found in other cases. The hypothesis needs at any
+rate to be combined with a theory, firstly, of borrowing of phratry
+names, a process which must indeed have played a large part in the
+development of the present system, but which does not necessarily
+involve the supposition that the borrowed names replaced previously
+existing home-made names; and, secondly, of selection of such names as
+were not borrowed.
+
+It has been mentioned that the principle of tribal property in land or,
+to be strictly accurate, in hunting grounds, is, at the present day, a
+fundamental one in native Australian jurisprudence. But, as is shown by
+the map, in some cases the phratries are split into two or more
+segments[106], more or less remote from one another, geographically
+speaking. Now this apparent segmentation must be due to migration; it
+can hardly arise from the chance adoption of identical names; for the
+groups in which the names occur are, though separated by a considerable
+distance, not so remote as, on the theory of chance selection, we should
+expect them to be, in other words the probability is in favour of the
+segmentation of an original group or its cleavage by an intrusive
+element. Of the causes of this drift of population, which on a large
+scale, and under pressure of any kind, might well overrule even the
+rights of property, we have naturally no idea. In a homogeneous mass
+like the population of Australia, and especially in a mass whose level
+of culture is so low as to leave no remains behind which we could use
+for the purposes of chronology, it is hopeless to expect any solution of
+any of the problems connected with drift of population. One thing only
+seems clear, and on this point we may hope for some light from the data
+of philology, namely that the migration was long subsequent to the
+original _Volkerwanderung_; for this must have preceded the rise of
+phratry names, which again must have preceded the migration of which the
+segmentation of groups, evidenced by the names themselves, is at
+present, and in default of the aid of philology, our only proof.
+
+The migrations of which we are speaking must, if the possession of one
+phratry name in common be worth anything as evidence of a closer
+connection between the groups, have been internal to a group or, if the
+term be preferred, to a nation occupying the south of Queensland. For in
+the absence of evidence that phratry names are to be found outside their
+own linguistic groups, we cannot but infer from the quadripartite
+division of the Wuthera phratries both the linguistic unity (and
+language must be in Australia the ultimate test of racial relationship
+on a large scale) and the internal movements of the group in which they
+occur.
+
+In favour of the primitive unity of the Wuthera groups, is the fact that
+with small exceptions, and those on the outskirts of the district, the
+area occupied by the assumed homogeneous pre-phratry group has the same
+class names throughout--which is at the same time a proof that the class
+names are posterior to the phratry names; for the later the date, the
+more extensive the group, may be taken to be the rule in savage
+communities; if the phratry names came later than the class names we
+should expect them to be identical, and the class names different
+instead of the reverse. But to the relative age of classes and phratries
+we return at another point of our argument.
+
+The available data being few, it could hardly be expected that a
+discussion of them would be very fruitful. In the present chapter we
+have, however, shown that the phratry names and organisation are
+probably of very early date, that considerable movements of population
+took place within the linguistic groups subsequent to the adoption of
+the phratry names, and that these names have been selected for some
+explicit reason and not adopted at haphazard.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[100] For references, meanings, etc. see chap. IV.
+
+[101] See _Man_ 1905, no. 28.
+
+[102] Cf. _Man_, 1905, no. 28.
+
+[103] But see _J.R.S. Vict._ XVII, 120.
+
+[104] See _Man_, 1905, no. 28, where I show that in the Wellington
+Valley was current a myth of the conflict between Baiame and Mudgegong
+(=Eaglehawk).
+
+[105] Chap. IV, phratries, nos. 27-29.
+
+[106] See Map III, phratry no. 28.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.
+
+Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split groups.
+ The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory of
+ phratriac origin.
+
+
+If a pre-phratry organisation developed into the system as we find it,
+it is a little difficult to see how selection can have operated, unless,
+indeed, as Mr Lang suggests, the phratries are _transformed_ connubial
+groups, in which case they may have received new names. It is perhaps
+simpler to suppose that the cases of selection of phratry names cited
+above are those in which the organisation has been borrowed with full
+knowledge of its meaning. If this view is correct, no criticism of
+theories of the origin of phratries is possible from the point of view
+of the names actually existing, for we cannot say which, if any, are
+those which were evolved in the organisation which served as a model to
+the remainder.
+
+Broadly speaking the theories of origin at present in the field may be
+reduced to two: in the first place, the conscious reformation theory,
+which supposes that man discovered the evils of in-and-in breeding, a
+point on which some discussion will be found in a later portion of this
+work. In the second place, there is the unconscious evolution theory put
+forward by Mr Lang, whose criticism of the opposing view makes it
+unnecessary to deal with the objections here[107].
+
+Mr Lang's original theory took for its basis the hypothesis, put forward
+by the late Mr J.J. Atkinson, in _Primal Law_, of the origin of
+exogamy. His starting-point was mankind in the brute stage. At the point
+in the evolution of the human race at which Mr Atkinson takes up his
+tale, man, or rather Eoanthropos, was, according to his conjecture,
+organised, if that term can be applied to the grouping of the lower
+animals, in bodies consisting of one adult male, an attendant horde of
+adult females, including, probably, at any rate after a certain lapse of
+time, his own progeny, together with the immature offspring of both
+sexes. As the young males came to maturity, they would be expelled from
+the herd, as is actually the case with cattle and other mammals, by
+their sire, now become their foe. They probably wandered about, as do
+the young males of some existing species, in droves of a dozen or more,
+and at certain seasons of the year, one or more of them would, as they
+felt their powers mature, engage the lord of their own or of another
+herd in single combat, until with the lapse of time the latter either
+succumbed or was driven from the herd to end his days in solitary
+ferocity, his hand against everyone, just as we see the rogue elephant
+wage war indiscriminately on all who approach him.
+
+In process of time, so Mr Atkinson suggests, with the lengthening
+childhood conditioned by the progress of the race, maternal love of a
+more enduring kind developed, than is found among the non-human species
+of the present day. This led eventually to the presence of a young male,
+perhaps the youngest born of a given mother, being permitted to remain,
+on conditions, in the herd after he had attained maturity. The original
+lord and master of the herd retained, Mr Atkinson supposes, his full
+sovereignty over the females born in the herd as well as over those whom
+his prowess had perhaps added to it from time to time. The young male on
+the other hand was not condemned to a life of celibacy as a condition of
+his non-enforcement of the traditional decree of banishment. He was
+permitted to find a mate, but she must be a mate not born in the herd,
+nor one of the harem of his sire; he had, if he wished to wed, to
+capture a spouse for himself from another herd. For the detailed working
+out of this ingenious theory we must refer our readers to Mr Atkinson's
+work, _Primal Law_. Here it suffices to state the primal law which
+resulted from the process sketched above. This primal law was "thou
+shalt not marry within the group." This law, at first enforced by the
+superior strength of the sire, came in the process of time to be a
+traditional rule of conduct, almost an instinct. And with this we reach
+the theory put forward in _Social Origins_ by Mr Andrew Lang, according
+to which local groups received animal names, perhaps from their
+neighbours. These local groups being exogamous for the reason just
+given, and the group name being eventually[108] given, not only to the
+actual members of the group, but also to the women, captured or
+otherwise, who became the mates of the men of the adjoining groups, it
+necessarily resulted that the men of a group, so long as the mother's
+group name did not descend to her children, were of one name, while
+their wives were of another, or more probably of many other names. The
+group became definitely heterogeneous when the maternal group name
+descended to the children born in the alien group, and in process of
+time these maternal group names became totem names.
+
+Meanwhile the original group names had been retained and applied, along
+with the totem or quasi-totem names, to the members of the group; the
+name being probably, in the first place, that of the group in which they
+were born, but, with the rise of the matrilineal descent, which has been
+discussed above, eventually taken from the group to which the mother
+belonged.
+
+During these processes the custom had sprung up to select a wife, not at
+random from any of the probably more or less hostile surrounding groups,
+but from one particular group with which the group of the candidate for
+matrimony had in the course of time come to be on friendly terms.
+
+The names of these two groups, which drew in other smaller groups,
+became the phratry names of the newly-formed aggregate, the largest unit
+known to primitive society at that stage of its evolution, and
+corresponding roughly to what we have defined as a tribe; for it was
+united by bonds of friendship, and in the course of time the language,
+originally very different no doubt, how different we can, indeed, hardly
+say, must have so far coalesced, owing to the interchange of wives (in
+so far as a distinct woman's language, traces of which are found among
+some savage tribes, was not developed), as to produce a single tongue.
+
+This theory Mr Lang has now fortified and elaborated in _The Secret of
+the Totem_, the most important new point being the demonstration of the
+fact that totem kins which bear names of the same significance as the
+phratry names are almost invariably in the eponymous phratries--a clear
+proof that law and not chance has determined their position.
+
+As an explanation of the distribution of phratry names Mr Lang adopts a
+theory which combines the hypotheses of evolution and borrowing, and
+thus explains both the wide area covered by some systems, and the
+increasing multitude of organisations confined to small districts, which
+more minute research reveals. This does not, it is true, explain the
+geographical remoteness of different parts of the same system or of
+allied systems, shown to be so by the identity of phratry animal or
+name. Not only is Wuthera-Mallera split into two sections; but a portion
+of Wuthera-Yungaru seems to be in the same position; if we may take the
+Badieri Yungo as equivalent to Yungaru, dispersion alone suffices to
+explain the case; but if Yungo is derived from the Kurnandaburi, who
+have Mattera as the sister phratry, then we have the Badieri phratry
+names borrowed each from a different tribe, at any rate in appearance.
+
+In reality this state of things affords the strongest possible support
+to Mr Lang's hypothesis, if only we can suppose that the formation of
+tribes is subsequent to the elaboration of the phratriac system. For it
+might well happen that an original Yungo local group divided, from
+economic causes, but that each half retained its original name. Under
+these circumstances the two portions formed connubial alliances with
+other groups; and in the tribes as we see the names of these split
+groups are found as phratry names, combined in each case with a
+different sister phratry name. We find for example Wuthera-Yungo,
+Yungo-Mattera, Matteri-Kiraru in the central area. The same theory will
+explain the appearance of Wuthera beside three other sister names,
+though here we must call in the borrowing and migration theories as
+well, to explain the wide area over which the names are found. We have
+seen that in the northern tribes one of the phratry names appears to be
+in each case from the same root; if this is so, we can apply to them too
+the split-group hypothesis.
+
+The case of Eaglehawk-Crow is less simple. Separated from the Darling
+area by a considerable space lie four systems of the same name in the
+east of Victoria. Here it is hardly possible to assume that the latter
+systems have migrated; on the other hand the area covered by the Darling
+group suggests that it is unlikely to have been forced from its original
+home by pressure from outside. Perhaps it is simplest to suppose that
+the Wiradjeri have gradually forced their way in, wedge fashion, between
+the different sections, and either swallowed up the intervening members
+or driven them before them; this would account for the existence of the
+anomalous groups to the south-west.
+
+In this area, too, we seem to have a case of the split group; but the
+identity of meaning of the other phratry names (Malian and Multa both
+mean Eaglehawk) makes it clear that it is simply a case of
+translation--a possibility which must be kept in mind in the other cases
+also. It is a common phenomenon for two tribes to have the name of one
+animal in common, while for that of another entirely different words are
+in use. The four Victorian groups appear to have borrowed the phratry
+names, but the centre from which they took them must remain uncertain.
+
+It may be noted in passing that the view of Prof. Gregory, who holds
+that the occupation of Victoria by the blacks dates back no more than
+300 years, is hardly borne out by the distribution of the phratriac
+systems. It is clearly improbable that they were developed _in situ_,
+for this would make the organisation of very much more recent date than
+we have any warrant for supposing. On the other hand it is improbable
+that four tribes, all with the same phratriac names, should have taken
+their course in the same direction, and settled in proximity to one
+another, at any rate, unless the natural features of the country made
+this course the only possible one.
+
+To return to Mr Lang's theory, it obviously suggests, if it does not
+demand, that such phratries as are spread over wide areas should in the
+main follow the lines of linguistic or cultural areas. Our knowledge of
+these is hardly sufficient to enable us to say at present how far the
+presumption of coincidence is fulfilled; but it is certain that in more
+than one large area the facts are as Mr Lang's theory requires them to
+be.
+
+On the other hand in New South Wales we find an area in which we fail to
+discern the lines on which the phratriac systems are distributed. Here,
+however, we are at a disadvantage in consequence of the uncertainty
+introduced by the unsettled question of "blood" organisations[109].
+Further research may show that the supposed phratriac areas, which are
+apparently only portions of the Wiradjeri territory, are in reality to
+be assigned to the "blood" organisations, which we may probably assign
+to a later date than the phratries and classes.
+
+Perhaps Mr Lang's theory hardly accounts for the fact that eaglehawk and
+crow figure not only as phratry names but also in the myths and rites.
+It is not apparent why eaglehawk and crow groups should take the lead
+and give their names to the phratries unless it was as contrasted
+colours; on the other hand, if they were selected as the names from
+among a number of others this difficulty vanishes, but then we do not
+see why these names are not more widely found, unless indeed the
+untranslated names mean eaglehawk and crow; but possibly all express a
+contrast of some sort.
+
+On the whole, however, it may be said that Mr Lang's theory holds the
+field. Not only is it internally consistent, which cannot be affirmed of
+the reformation theory, but it colligates the facts far better. This may
+be illustrated by a single point.
+
+On the reformation theory, unaccompanied, as it is, by any hypothesis of
+borrowing of phratry names, we should _primâ facie_ find the latter,
+where they are translateable, to be those of the animals which are most
+frequently found as totems. Now in the area covered by Dr Howitt's
+recent work, omitting those tribes for which our lists of totems are
+admittedly not complete, we find that emu, kangaroo, snake, eaglehawk,
+and iguana are found as totems in about two-thirds of the cases; then,
+after a long interval, come wallaby and crow, less than half as often,
+with opossum rather more frequently, in half the total number. But it is
+clearly outside the bounds of probability that four of the commonest
+totems should not give their names, so far as is known, to phratries,
+while eaglehawk recurs five, crow six, and cockatoo three times, the two
+latter in one case in a remote area. Not only so, but the opposition
+between the phratry names--black and white or the like--is
+unintelligible, if, as on Dr Durkheim's theory, the phratries are simply
+the elementary totem groups which intermarried and threw off secondary
+totem kins. But criticism of other theories opens a wide field, into
+which it is best not to diverge.
+
+On the development theory the phratries came into existence perhaps as
+the result of the persistence of an old custom of exogamy, non-moral in
+its inception, or, it may be, as a result of the rise of totemic tabus.
+The reformation theory, on the other hand, makes the conscious
+attainment of a better state of society the object of the institution of
+a dichotomous organisation. It will therefore be well to see what
+results in practice from the phratriac organisation.
+
+In the two-phratry area (other rules, which usually exist, apart) it is
+impossible for children of the same mother or father, or of sisters or
+of brothers, to marry, nor can one of the parents, either mother or
+father, according to the rule of descent, take her or his own child in
+marriage. Now if the object of the reformation was to prevent parents
+from marrying children, it was clearly not attained. If, on the other
+hand, it was intended to prevent children of the same mother or father
+from intermarrying, the result could have been attained far more simply,
+either by direct prohibition, such as is found in other cases, or by the
+institution of totemic exogamy, which, in the view of some authorities,
+already existed, and consequently made the phratry superfluous.
+
+According to Dr Frazer's 1905 theory, phratries were introduced to
+prevent brother and sister marriage and exogamous bars began in the
+female line[110]. Against this hypothesis may be urged not only the
+objections first stated but also the fact that for Dr Frazer the Arunta
+are primitive and yet reckon descent (of the class) in the _male_ line.
+If, as he conceives, conceptional totemism was transformed in the
+central tribes into patrilineal totemism, I fail to see why the
+phratries or classes should descend in the female line.
+
+If in the third place, it was proposed to prevent children of sisters or
+of brothers from intermarrying, it is completely mysterious why children
+of brothers and sisters should not only not have been prevented in the
+same way, but absolutely be regarded as the proper mates for each other.
+Even if a single community reformed itself on these lines, it is hardly
+conceivable that many should have done so, even if we suppose that the
+advantages of prohibition were preached from tribe to tribe by
+missionaries of the new order of things. _Ex hypothesi_, cousin marriage
+was not regarded as harmful; and it is highly improbable that any people
+in the lower stages of culture should have discovered that in-and-in
+breeding is harmful, for the results, especially in a people which
+contained no degenerates, would not appear at once, even if they
+appeared at all.
+
+On this point therefore the probabilities are wholly on the side of
+development as against reformation.
+
+An additional reason against the reformation theory is found in the fact
+that phratries, on this theory, would never exceed two in number, but in
+practice there are, as shown in Chapter II, wide variations.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[107] _Secret of the Totem_, pp. 31, 91 sq.
+
+[108] Mr Lang's view is that the women from the first retained their
+original group names wherever they went. _Letter of July 27th_, 1906.
+
+[109] See pp. 31, 50.
+
+[110] _Fortn. Rev._ LXXVIII, 459.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CLASS NAMES.
+
+Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+ Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+ Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the
+ Names: Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names.
+
+
+The priority of phratries over classes is commonly admitted and it is
+unnecessary to argue the question at length. The main grounds for the
+assumption are: (1) that it is _a priori_ probable that the fourfold
+division succeeded the twofold division, exactly as the eightfold
+division has succeeded, and apparently is still gaining ground, at the
+expense of the four-class system. (2) Over a considerable and compact
+area phratries alone are found without a trace of named classes, if we
+except the anomalous organisation recorded by Dawson in S.W. Victoria.
+On the other hand, while we find certain tribes among whom no phratry
+names have yet been discovered, it is inherently probable that this is
+due to their having been forgotten and not to their never having
+existed. It is possible that the encroachments of an alien class system
+have in some cases helped on the extinction of the phratry names. (3) We
+find classes without phratry names, not in a compact group, but
+scattered up and down more or less at random, suggesting that chance and
+not law has been at work to produce this result. (4) Where class names
+are found without corresponding phratry names, they are invariably
+arranged in what may be termed anonymous phratries; that is to say, in
+pairs or fours, so that the member of one class is under normal
+circumstances not at liberty to select a wife at will from the other
+three, but is usually limited to one of the other classes. This state of
+things clearly points to a time when the phratries were recognised by
+the tribes in question.
+
+(5) While the classes are arranged in pairs or fours, according to
+whether the system is four- or eight-class, the totems, on the other
+hand, are distributed phratry fashion; in other words, one group of
+totems belongs to each pair or quadruplet of classes. This divergent
+organisation of the classes (four or eight for the whole tribe) and
+totems (two groups for the whole tribe) can only be explained on the
+supposition that the phratry everywhere preceded the class organisation.
+
+The spatial relations of the phratries and classes are sufficiently
+clear from the map; and a table shows how far cross divisions are found.
+
+The main area of disturbance of the normal relations is, as shown in
+Table IV (p. 51), the district occupied by the Koorgilla class-system
+and its immediate neighbourhood. The Yungaroo-Witteru group has three
+representatives in the Koorgilla class and one in the Kurpal class. The
+Pakoota-Wootaroo phratry has likewise three in the Koorgilla class, a
+fourth being in the Yowingo organisation. A large area is occupied by
+the Mallera-Witteru phratry in the Koorgilla class, and one tribe is
+again found in the Yowingo group. No class names are recorded for the
+Undekerebina in the Pakoota group, and no phratry names for the Mycoolon
+and Workobongo in the Yowingo group, nor for the Yerunthully in the
+Koorgilla group, which in addition to tribes belonging to the three
+Wuthera phratries also embraces within its limits the small Purgoma and
+Jouon tribes.
+
+The only other anomaly recorded in addition to those mentioned is among
+the tribes on the south and south-east of the area just dealt with,
+which have the Barang class names with the Kamilaroi phratry names, or
+the Kamilaroi class names with tribal phratry names. In four cases
+therefore the phratry is found outside the limits of the class usually
+associated with it, or, in other words, it is associated with a strange
+class system. In one case, that of the Kalkadoon, this is sufficiently
+explained by the fact that the tribe is itself now remote geographically
+speaking from its fellows, owing to the interposition of Pitta-Pitta
+and allied tribes. In the other three cases the facts seem to point to a
+change in the intertribal relationships in the period intervening
+between the adoption of phratry names and the introduction of the class
+system. If the lines of intercourse and intermarriage had suffered a
+revolution in the interval, the names, the origin of which we have yet
+to consider, would naturally show a different grouping of the tribes;
+for it is on the grouping of the tribes that the spread of the names,
+whether of phratries or classes, must have depended.
+
+The main mass of the tribes organised on the four-class system lies in
+Queensland and New South Wales, and whereas only two sets of names are
+found in the latter colony, no less than fifteen (some of which are,
+however, of more than doubtful authenticity) are reported from various
+parts of Queensland. From Northern Territory two (Anula and Mara) of
+small extent are reported[111]; a considerable area of this colony, as
+well as of South and West Australia, is occupied by the Arunta system,
+and the closely allied classes to the north-west of them. The only other
+four-class system in West Australia of which we have definite
+information is that west and north of King George's Sound and eastwards
+for an unknown distance.
+
+Covering nearly the whole of New South Wales outside the area occupied
+by the two-phratry tribes of the Darling country, and extending far up
+into Queensland, we find the well-known Muri-Kubbi, Ippai-Kumbo classes
+(1) of the Kamilaroi nation[112]. The Kamilaroi system appears to have
+touched the sea in the neighbourhood of Sydney. According to Mr Mathews,
+the Darkinung, who inhabited this part of New South Wales, substituted
+Bya for Muri. (1_a_) In like manner the Wiradjeri are stated by Gribble
+to have replaced Kumbo by Wombee; this may however be no more than a
+dialectical variant.
+
+Lying along the sea coast north-east of the Darkinung and east of the
+main mass of Kamilaroi tribe were the Kombinegherry and other tribes,
+whom Mr Mathews denominates the Anaywan. Their classes are given by him
+as Irrpoong, Marroong, Imboong, and Irrong; but an earlier authority
+gives the forms Kurbo, Marro, Wombo, and Wirro (2); at Wide Bay we find
+Baran, Balkun, Derwen, and Bundar (3) with an alternative form Banjoor.
+
+North of them, still on the coast, we find the Kuinmurbura with Kurpal,
+Kuialla, Karilbura, and Munal (4); for the Taroombul, which I am unable
+to locate, Mr Mathews gives Koodala in place of Kuialla and Karalbara
+for Karilbura. For the Kangoollo, lying inland from this group, Mr
+Mathews gives Kearra, Banjoor, Banniar, and Koorpal. This suggests that
+there is some confusion, for the names include two from 4, and one or
+two from 3.
+
+A very large area is occupied by tribes with the classes (5) Koorgila,
+Bunburi, Wunggo, and Obur (and variants). They include the Yuipera and
+allied tribes, the Kogai, the Wakelbura and allied tribes, the Yambeena,
+the Yerunthully, the Woonamurra, the Mittakoodi, the Pitta-Pitta, etc.,
+together with the Purgoma of the Palm Islands and the neighbouring
+Jouon, whose headquarters are at Cooktown. In the southern portion of
+this group a correspondent of Curr's has reported the classes Nullum,
+Yoolgo, Bungumbura, and Teilling. We have class names analogous in form
+to the third of these names, it is true, but it resembles tribal names
+so closely as to suggest that the observer in question was really
+referring to a tribe and not to a class. If this is so we may perhaps
+identify Teilling with the Toolginbura. There seems to be no reason for
+admitting these four names to a place among the other groups of class
+names. In like manner we may dismiss the class names assigned to the
+Yukkaburra by an inaccurate correspondent of Curr's, who gives Utheroo,
+Multheroo, Yungaroo, and Goorgilla. It seems clear that the first and
+third of these are really phratry names; possibly the second is a
+dialectical form for Utheroo.
+
+From Halifax Bay and Hinchinbrook Island are reported the names Korkoro,
+Korkeen, Wongo, and Wotero (with variants). Among the Joongoongie of
+North Queensland we find Langenam, Namegoor, Packewicky, and Pamarung
+(15); and among the Karandee Curr gives an anomalous and probably
+defective set, Moorob, Heyanbo, Lenai, Roanga, and Yelet.
+
+The Goothanto and Wollungurma have Ranya, Rara, Loora, and Awunga (8);
+allied to these perhaps are the Jury, Ararey, Barry, and Mungilly of the
+Koogobathy; the Ahjeerena, Arrenynung, Perrynung, and Mahngal of the
+Koonjan are clearly variants of the latter set. East of the Koogobathy
+lie the Warkeman with Koopungie, Kellungie, Chukungie, and Karpungie
+(6), with an allied tribe on the Tully River with classes, Kurongon,
+Kurkulla, Chikun, Karavangie, the two latter obviously corresponding to
+Warkeman classes, the second to Koorgilla.
+
+The Miappe, Mycoolon, Kalkadoon, and Workoboongo have Youingo, Maringo,
+Badingo, and Jimmilingo (9), with alternatives Kapoodingo, Kungilingo,
+and Toonbeungo.
+
+The Yoolanlanya and others have Deringara, Gubilla, Koomara, and
+Belthara, possibly a defective list, for Mr Mathews adds to these for
+the Ullayilinya Lookwara and Ungella (probably a defective set) in
+another communication. Two of these are obviously identical with the
+Arunta Koomara and Bulthara, with which are associated Purula and
+Panungka (13), while Ungilla and Gubilla are taken from the eight-class
+system to which we may probably assign the tribe. North-west of the
+Arunta, outside the eight-class area, the class names are almost
+identical with, though they differ widely in form from the Arunta names.
+They are Burong, Ballieri, Baniker, and Caiemurra (13). The form
+Boorgarloo is given as a variant. Mrs Bates has found a system (14) in
+S.W. Australia.
+
+On the western shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria we find the Mara with
+Purdal, Murungun, Mumbali, and Kuial (10); and the Anula with Awukaria,
+Roumburia, Urtalia, and Wialia (11).
+
+The only two remaining four-class systems of which the names are known
+are on the Annan River with Wandi, Walar, Jorro, and Kutchal (7)--the
+Ngarranga of Yorke Peninsula, with Kari, Wani, Wilthi, and Wilthuthu.
+
+Attention has been called in the course of the above exposition to
+various cases in which the class names found among one group of tribes
+are in part if not entirely identical with those found among their
+neighbours. A close examination discloses other possible though hardly
+probable points of contact besides those already enumerated. The variant
+form Banjoora in 3 seems to be the same as the Banjoor of the Kangulu,
+which again has Koorpal in common with 4, and also Kearra, if we may
+equate the latter with Kuialla. This again is perhaps the Kuial of the
+Mara tribe (9).
+
+The Marroong of 2 seems to be the Maringo of 9, and we may perhaps also
+equate the Kurbo of this group with the Kurpal of 4. Irroong resembles
+the roanga of the Karandee which is probably the Arawongo of the
+Goothanto.
+
+In 5 Wongo suggests the Youingo of 9; it reappears in the Halifax Bay
+list, as also does Koorgilla in one of the variants. Again Kubi (1)
+corresponds to Koobaroo (5), and Kumbo (Wombee) to Bunburi (Unburi), but
+we can hardly regard them as the same words. Koodalla and Koorpal (4)
+may be the same as Kellungie and Koopungie (6); the other pair shows no
+resemblance.
+
+Possibly the Wiradjeri Wombee is the Kombinegherry Wombo; it is at any
+rate significant that the name is found in the portion of the tribe
+nearest the Kombinegherry.
+
+We have seen that the Arunta and their north-western neighbours have a
+four-class system, the component names of which are found with little
+variation over a range of nearly 25° of longitude. In the forms
+Kiemarra, Palyeri, Burong, and Baniker, the class names in vogue among
+the southern Arunta meet us again near the North-West Cape, thus
+covering a larger area than even the widespread Koorgila-Bunburi class
+names of Queensland, and forming a striking contrast to the narrow
+limits of the majority of the four-class system. This peculiarity is
+reproduced in the compact area of the central eight-class tribes, north
+and north-east of the Koomara four-class area, though with much greater
+variations in the names. Bulthara however in the form Palyeri is found
+in more or less disguised shapes in the whole of the eighteen tribes,
+whose class names are shown in Table I a; Koomara is found in shapes
+which are on the whole harder to recognise, and Panunga and Purula in
+two or three cases, either replaced by another word or so changed as to
+be unrecognisable. Of the supplementary names belonging to the
+eight-class Arunta, Uknaria, Ungalla, Appungerta, Umbitchana, Ungalla is
+found in the whole of the tribes under consideration, and Appungerta
+undergoes on the whole but little change; Uknaria is practically not
+found outside the Arunta area, and Umbitchana is in six cases replaced
+by Yacomary, which seems to be a form of Koomara (to this point we recur
+later).
+
+Although this suggests that the names were in the first case taken from
+the Arunta a comparison of them shows that it is not among this tribe
+that the greatest number of forms common to the whole group and the
+greatest general resemblance of the names is to be found, as is shown by
+the comparative tables below. Judged by the standard of resemblance the
+Oolawunga of the north-west, on the Victoria River, have preserved the
+names nearest their original forms. Judged by the standard of least
+deviation from the common stock of names and basing the comparison, not
+on resemblances but on differences, the Koorangie of the upper waters of
+the same river take the first place, with the Oolawunga not far behind.
+In each case the Inchalachee, the most easterly of the group, take the
+last place, followed in the table of resemblances by the Walpari and the
+Worgaia; and in the table of differences by the Worgaia and, though at a
+considerable distance, the Mayoo and the Walpari.
+
+_Figure of Resemblance_[113].
+
+Oolawunga 55
+Bingongina 54
+Umbaia 51
+Koorangie 50
+Yookala, Binbinga 48
+Gnanji 47
+Meening 43
+Warramunga, Yungmunni 41
+Arunta, Mayoo 40
+Kaitish, Yungarella, Tjingilli 39
+Worgaia 37
+Walpari 31
+Inchalachee 28
+
+_Figure of Difference_[114].
+
+Koorangie 31
+Oolawunga 33
+Umbaia 35
+Bingongina 37
+Yungmunni 42
+Gnanji, Tjingilli 44
+Warramunga 45
+Arunta 46
+Binbinga 49
+Yookala 50
+Meening 52
+Kaitish 54
+Yungarella, Walpari 56
+Mayoo 57
+Worgaia 69
+Inchalachee 84
+
+Attention has already been drawn to the resemblance between the Arunta
+four-class names and the names of the eight-class group. It is clearly
+of high importance to determine whether the resemblance is on the whole
+between the names of the western group and the eight-class names, or
+whether the latter can more readily be derived from those of the Arunta.
+In the latter case it is obvious that the position of the Oolawunga and
+Koorangie in the comparative tables is due, not to their having been the
+tribes from which all the others derived their names, but rather to
+movements of population subsequent to the adoption of the class names.
+If on the other hand it appears that the names came in the first
+instance from the more western portion of the Koomara group, we have
+some grounds for supposing that the names and the system reached the
+eight-class area from the west and not from the south.
+
+We have already seen that in the case of Palyeri-Bulthara all the
+evidence points to the name having come from the west. In the case of
+Panunga the evidence is weaker, certain of the forms being derivable
+from either Baniker or Panunga, but with the exception of the
+Warramunga, and possibly the Tjingili, there are no tribes of whom we
+can definitely say that they took the name from the Arunta, whereas
+there are at least four cases where the resemblance is distinctly with
+the western class names, and several more in which it can more readily
+be derived from them. The resemblance between Koomarra and Kiemarra or
+Kiamba is already considerable, and makes it difficult to estimate the
+probabilities in most cases; the problem is complicated by the question
+of prefixes, which will come up for discussion later, and on the whole
+there appears to be no certain solution of the problem, though the Mayoo
+seem to have taken over and varied the western form. In the case of
+Purula-Burong there appear to be indeterminate cases; six seem to tell
+in favour of a southern origin; three suggest a western origin; and one
+word Chupil (f. Namilpa) seems to be from a different root.
+
+The problem is further complicated by the anomalous class name Yakomari,
+to which allusion has already been made. As will be seen later, _cha_ or
+_ja_ seem to be prefixes, and if that is so we can hardly avoid the
+conclusion that Yakomari is Koomara or Kiemara. But in the table it
+takes the place of Umbitchana, with which it is not even remotely
+connected philologically; Jamara and its various forms take the place in
+the table occupied by Koomara among the Arunta when Yakomari holds the
+eighth place as well as in other cases. If therefore _ku_, _ja_, and
+_ya_ are simply prefixes, as seems to be the case, we have this class
+name duplicated among five of the tribe--the Umbaia, Yookala, Binbinga,
+Worgaia, Yangarella, and Inchalachee, of which one comes near the top,
+and two fairly high in the comparative table. It is however worthy of
+notice that these six tribes form the eastern group, and are
+consequently precisely those among which we should, on the hypothesis
+that the class names originated in the western portion of the area,
+expect to find the greatest amount of variation and the most numerous
+anomalies. Dividing the six tribes into two groups, western and eastern,
+each of three tribes, we find that the cumulative resemblance of the
+western group to the Arunta is 132, to the Oolawunga 186; the same
+figures for the eastern group, more remote from the Oolawunga, but
+practically equidistant with the western group from the Arunta, are 91
+and 112. This again seems to lend support to the hypothesis of a western
+origin. It is perhaps simplest to suppose that the majority of the names
+came from the west; but that Yakomari, travelling upwards from the
+south-west, displaced the more usual eighth class name, or perhaps we
+should say, replaced it, when the eight-class system was adopted, for a
+name is not likely to have gone out of use when it had once been applied
+as a designation.
+
+Attention has been called in connection with the phratries to the
+suffixes such as _um_, _itch_, _aku_[115], etc. Their precise meaning is
+usually uncertain. An attentive consideration of the class names seems
+to show that similar suffixes have been used in forming them. If we
+compare Panunga and Baniker, it seems a fair conclusion that the _ban_
+or _pan_ is compounded with _iker_ (_aku_) or _unga_, for among the
+Yookala, the nearest neighbours of the Bingongina, who have it as a
+phratriac suffix, the _-agoo_ of the class names is unmistakeably
+independent of the root word, whatever that may be. In addition to
+_unga_ we find _inginja_, _angie_, _inja_, _itch_ (recalling the _itji_
+of the phratries), _itchana_, and the form _anjegoo_ which seems to have
+a double suffix. _Ara_, _yeri_, _aree_, _um_, _ana_, _ula_ (as we see by
+comparing Purula with Burong), _ta_, and the possibly double form
+_tjuka_, seem to be further examples.
+
+The feminine forms Nalyirri for Thalirri (=Palyeri), Nala for Chula,
+Ninum for Tjinum, Nana for Tjana or Thama, etc. suggest that prefixes
+are also to be distinguished. They seem to be _choo_, _joo_, _ja_, _ya_,
+_n-_, _yun_, _u-_, _ku_, _pu_, _bu_, _nu_, etc. We are however on very
+uncertain ground here, for the feminine forms may be deliberate
+creations. Allowance has to be made too for the personal equation of the
+observer, which is by no means inconsiderable. Possibly this factor,
+together with ordinary laws of phonetic change, the most elementary
+principles of which have yet to be established for the Australian
+languages, will suffice to account for the variations in the names as
+recorded. Otherwise the words are in most cases reduced to monosyllabic
+roots from which it seems hopeless to attempt to extract a meaning.
+
+These questions of suffixes and prefixes are intimately connected with
+the very difficult problem of the origin of the classes. The languages
+of these tribes are at present, if not distinct linguistic stocks, at
+any rate very far from being mere dialectical variations of a common
+tongue, for the members of two tribes appear to be mutually
+unintelligible, unless, contrary to the custom of the American Indians,
+they are bilingual. But if each tribe added a suffix, and thus adopted
+into their own language words which, from the general agreement among
+the class names of this group, seem to have come to them from outside,
+it is a reasonable hypothesis that the word which they adopted had some
+meaning for them. Of course we may suppose that the class names were all
+adopted in the far off time when all spoke a common language. But apart
+from the difficulty that this presupposes the existence of an
+eight-class system at that early period, it is clear from the Queensland
+evidence that class names have been handed on from tribe to tribe, and
+it is reasonable to suppose this to have been the case with the northern
+tribes. This conclusion is borne out by the forms of the suffixes, which
+do not appear to have been developed from one root determinative, as
+must have been the case if we suppose that the names originated when the
+language spoken by these tribes was undifferentiated; and by the facts
+as to the apparent duplication of Koomara, to which allusion has already
+been made.
+
+The important point about the class, as distinguished from the phratry
+systems, is the great extent covered by the former. The north-west area
+of male descent is virtually one from the point of view of class names;
+two other areas are very large, six are of medium size, three are small,
+and the remaining one is probably medium.
+
+Although the question of the meaning of the class names is closely bound
+up with that of their origin, the problem is closely bound up with some
+of the points discussed in this chapter. The meaning of the eight-class
+names is connected with the area of origin of the system, and linguistic
+questions, such as those relating to suffixes, come in. We may therefore
+briefly discuss at this point the meaning of the class names.
+
+On the whole it may be said that we know the meaning of the class names
+only in exceptional cases. The Kiabara, Kamilaroi, Annan River,
+Kuinmurbura, Narrang-ga, and two of the West Australian names can be
+translated (see Table I). But with these exceptions we have no certain
+knowledge of the meaning of the single class names.
+
+Conjectures are of comparatively little value. For in the first place
+the number of words recorded from any given tribe is as a rule very
+small, and little or no indication of the pronunciation is given even in
+the latest works on Australian ethnography. The variations, evidently
+purely arbitrary and due to the want of training in phonetics, are
+frequently very considerable. And finally the area over which the names
+prevail is sufficiently great to give us our choice from half a dozen or
+more different tribal languages, which combined with the variation in
+the form of the words, adds very considerably to the probability that
+there will be found somewhere within the area a word or words bearing a
+deceptively close resemblance to the class names. How far this is the
+case may be made clear by one or two instances of chance resemblances
+between animal names (it seems on the whole probable that if the names
+are translateable they will turn out to be animal names) in the same or
+neighbouring tribes. The meaning of Arunta seems to be white
+cockatoo[116], but we also find a word almost indistinguishable from it
+in sound--eranta--with the meaning of pelican[117]. Kulbara means emu
+and koolbirra kangaroo[118]. Malu (=kangaroo), mala (=mouse), and male
+(=swan) are found in tribes of West Australia, though not of tribes
+living in immediate proximity one to another[119]. But perhaps the best
+example is that of Derroein, which, as we have seen, means kangaroo. In
+addition to durween (young male kangaroo) we find at no great distance
+the words dirrawong (=iguana) and deerooyn (=whip snake), either of
+which bears a sufficiently close resemblance to the class name to be
+accepted as a translation for it in the absence of other
+competitors[120].
+
+With these facts in mind such suggestions as an attentive study of
+vocabularies has disclosed are naturally put forward with a full sense
+of their uncertainty, they are of a purely tentative nature.
+
+For the Koobaroo (var. Obur) of the Goorgilla set I find in the same
+group the homophone _obur_ (gidea tree), which is also a totem of the
+group of tribes in question[121]. The Wotero of Halifax Bay suggests
+Wutheru, for which I am unable to find a meaning, unless it be emu, as
+given by one observer, who however on another occasion gave a different
+translation. Korkoro in the same set may be the same as korkoren
+(opossum) of a tribe some 150 miles away[122]. The muri[123] and kubbi
+of the Kamilaroi and Turribul (?) mean kangaroo and opossum in the
+latter language, and ibbai means Eaglehawk in Wiraidhuri[124]. The
+Kamilaroi bundar (=kangaroo) may give us a clue to the meaning of the
+Dippil Bundar[125]; the Kiabara Bulcoin has a homophone in the Peechera
+tribe, where it means kangaroo; on the Hastings River it means red
+wallaby. Balcun however means native bear according to Mathew[126].
+
+If we turn to the eight-class tribes the results are hardly more
+striking. The Dieri Pultara, Palyara and Upala[127], are homophones of
+the class names which we have seen as alternative forms; but this very
+fact makes it certain, or nearly so, that one of the homophones is due
+to chance coincidence. Bearing in mind that the Arunta alone have the
+form Bulthara, we may perhaps see in the change undergone by the word in
+their language the result of attraction, though it must be confessed
+that the hypothesis is far-fetched in the case of a non-written
+language. On the other hand it tells against the Palyeri=Palyara
+equation that the Arunta, who are by far the nearest to the Dieri, use
+the form Bulthara. The equation Kanunka=Panunga is not backed by any
+evidence that the p-k change is admissible. Finally three of the four
+words mentioned seem to be compounded with a suffix; and if this is so
+it is clearly useless to equate them with words in which this suffix is
+a component part.
+
+One class name only, Ungilla, is found in the Arunta area itself (and
+far beyond it, as far as the Gulf of Carpentaria) with the meaning
+crow[128]. If we may regard the _j_ and _k_ of the forms jungalla,
+kungalla, as a prefix, the equation seems justified; otherwise it seems
+an insuperable difficulty that not the original form of the class name,
+but the derivative and shortened form is the one to which the equation
+applies. Our very defective knowledge of the languages of the
+eight-class tribes makes it possible that when we know more of them
+other root words may be discovered. At present it can only be said that
+in very few instances have we either in the four-class or the
+eight-class areas any warrant for saying that we know the meaning of the
+class names, much less that we know them to be derived from the names of
+animals.
+
+One piece of evidence on the subject we need mention only to reject. The
+Rev. H. Kempe, of the Lutheran Mission among the southern Arunta, has on
+two occasions stated that the classes in signalling to each other use as
+their signs the gestures employed to designate animals[129]. On one
+occasion however he assigns to the Bunanka class the eaglehawk gesture,
+on another the lizard gesture; the remaining three, which he added only
+on the second occasion, were ant, wallaby and eaglehawk. It may be noted
+that the eaglehawk sign is attributed by him to the two classes which
+would form the main part of the population of a local group; in the
+second place all four animals are among the totems of the tribe; it
+seems therefore probable that Mr Kempe has merely confused the sign made
+to a man of the given kin with a sign which he supposed to be made to a
+man of a certain class. If he paid little attention to the subject, and
+especially if on the second occasion he gained his information at a
+large tribal meeting, the large number of totems would render it
+improbable that conflicting evidence would lead him to discover his
+mistake. If he pursued his enquiries far enough he might, it is true,
+get more than one sign for a given class; but if he contented himself
+with asking four men, one of each class, the probability would be that
+he would get four separate gestures. In any case we have no warrant for
+arguing that the gesture in any way translates the class name.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[111] In practice they are eight-class.
+
+[112] The numbers refer to those used in chapter IV.
+
+[113] These are merely rough percentages based on arbitrary values for
+partial resemblances.
+
+[114] This table shows what percentage of names is completely different;
+partial differences are not allowed for.
+
+[115] Possibly a prefix also; cf. _Koocheebinga_, _Koorabunna_ and their
+sister names.
+
+[116] Curr, vocab. no. 37.
+
+[117] ib. no. 39. Spencer and Gillen give "loud voiced" as the meaning.
+
+[118] ib. nos. 34, 40, 49 _a_, 104.
+
+[119] Moore, _Vocab._; Mathew, p. 226.
+
+[120] Mathew, p. 232; Curr, nos. 164, 170, 178.
+
+[121] ib. no. 143.
+
+[122] ib. no. 110.
+
+[123] Elsewhere muri means red kangaroo.
+
+[124] ib. nos. 168, 181, 190; Mathew, _Eaglehawk_, p. 227.
+
+[125] Curr, no. 181.
+
+[126] Mathew, _Eaglehawk_, p. 100; Curr, no. 177.
+
+[127] ib. no. 55.
+
+[128] Roth, _Studies_, p. 50; Curr, nos. 37, 38, 39.
+
+[129] _Halle Verein fur Erdkunde_, 1883, p. 52; _Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._
+II, 640.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.
+
+Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
+ totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory
+ of classes.
+
+
+In dealing with the origin of the classes it is important to bear in
+mind that they are undoubtedly later than the phratries. This is clear,
+not only from the considerations urged on p. 71, but also from the fact
+that the areas covered by the same classes are in the three most
+important cases immensely larger than any covered by a phratriac system.
+We may therefore dismiss at the outset Herr Cunow's theory, which makes
+the classes the original form of organisation.
+
+To explain the origin of the classes, as of the phratries, two kinds of
+theories have been put forward, which are in this case also classifiable
+as reformatory and developmental respectively. The former labour under
+the same disadvantages, so far as they assume that particular marriages
+were regarded as immoral or objectionable, as do the similar hypotheses
+of the origin of phratries.
+
+What is the effect of dividing a phratry into two classes? Firstly and
+most obviously, to reduce by one half the number of women from whom a
+man may take his spouse. Secondarily, to put in the forbidden class both
+his mother's generation and his daughters' generation. It must however
+not be overlooked that it is the whole class of individuals that are
+thus put beyond his reach and not those only who stand to him in the
+relation of daughters in the European sense. Now it is certain that the
+savage of the present day distinguishes blood relationship from tribal
+relationship; of this there are plenty of examples in Australia
+itself[130]. In fact the hypothesis that the introduction of class
+regulations was due to a desire to prevent the intermarriage of parents
+and children, more especially of fathers and daughters, the mothers
+being of course of the same phratries as their sons in the normal tribe,
+depends for its existence on the assumption that consanguinity was
+recognised. But it is clearly a clumsy expedient to limit a man's right
+of choice to the extent we have indicated solely in order to prevent him
+from marrying his daughter, when the simple prohibition to marry her
+would, so far as we can see, have been equally effective.
+
+Dr Durkheim has suggested that phratries and classes originated
+together.
+
+If we start with two exogamous local groups in which the determinant
+spouse removes, the result is two groups in which both phratries are
+found, as is evident from the following graphic representation. The two
+sides represent the local grouping, the letters A and B the phratry
+names, and m or f male or female; the = denotes marriage, the vertical
+lines show the children, the brackets show that the person whose symbol
+is bracketed removes, and the italics that the symbol in question is
+that of a spouse introduced from without.
+
+ mA=_fB_ mB=fA
+ _______| |_______
+ | | | |
+ [fB] mB=_fA_ _fB_=mA [mB]
+ _________| |_________
+ | | | |
+ [fA] mA=_fB_ _fA_=mB [fB]
+ _________| |_________
+ | | | |
+ [fB] mB=_fA_ _fB_=mA [fA]
+ etc. etc.
+
+We see from this that the alternate generations are in each group A and
+B, whose spouses are in the same alternation B and A, the male remaining
+in the group, the female removing in each case, if we assume that the
+matrilineal kinship is the rule. The permanent members of each group
+therefore, and in like manner the imported members, are by alternate
+generations A and B, though of course there is no difference of age
+actually corresponding to the difference of generation.
+
+By the simple phratry law that A can only marry B, and may marry any B,
+local group mates are marriageable. The law however which forbids the
+marriage of phratry mates is on Mr Lang's original theory founded on the
+prohibition to marry group mates. If we suppose that the primal law or
+the memory of it continued to work, we have at once a sufficient
+explanation of the origin of the four-class system. The tribes or
+nations in which the instinct against intra-group marriage was strong
+enough to persist as an active principle after the law against
+intra-phratry marriage had become recognised, may have proceeded to
+create four classes at a very early stage, while those in whom the
+feeling for the primal law was less strong adhered to the simple phratry
+system.
+
+But it is an insuperable objection to this theory that it makes the
+four-class system originate simultaneously with, or at any rate shortly
+after, the rise of the phratries. For we cannot suppose that the feeling
+for the primal law remained dormant for long ages and then suddenly
+revived. On the other hand we have seen that if the difference in the
+distribution of the phratry and class names is any guide, a considerable
+interval must have separated the rise of the one from the rise of the
+other. Unless therefore it can be shown that some other explanation
+accounts for the non-coincidence of phratry and class areas, we can
+hardly accept any explanation of the origin of classes which makes them
+originate at a period not far removed from the introduction of the
+phratries.
+
+The fact that a certain number of class names are in character totemic,
+that is, bear animal names, suggests that the class system may be a
+development of the totem kins, which in certain cases are grouped within
+the phratries or otherwise subject to special regulations. In the
+Urabunna the choice of a man of one totem is said to be limited to women
+of the right status in a single totem of the opposite phratry. Among the
+similarly organised Yandairunga the limitation is to certain totems, and
+Dr Howitt gives other examples of the same order. In the Kongulu tribe
+these totemic classes seem to have been known by special names. In the
+Wotjoballuk tribe there are sub-totems, grouped with certain totems,
+which again seem to be collected into aggregates intermediate between
+the phratry and the simple totem kin. But it is difficult to see why, if
+the classes have arisen out of such organisations, there should be found
+over the great part of Australia four, and only four, classes from which
+the eight have obviously developed. In any case we have no parallel in
+these modifications to the alternate generations of the class system.
+
+These find an analogue, according to an old report, not subsequently
+confirmed, in the Wailwun tribe, where, however, it is supplementary to
+the classes. We are told that there are four totems in this tribe,
+though this does not agree with other reports, and that they are found
+in both phratries indiscriminately. A woman's children do not take her
+totem, nor, apparently, the totem of her brother, who belongs to a
+different kin, but are of the remaining two totems according to their
+sex[131]. From this it follows that the totems alternate, precisely as
+do the classes; the difference in the arrangement consists in the
+distinction of totem falling to males and females, which has no analogue
+in the class system. But such arrangements, even if we may take them as
+established facts, are clearly of secondary origin, and can hardly give
+a clue to the origin of the classes.
+
+There is an important difference between the four-class and eight-class
+organisations in respect of the totem kins. In the former systems the
+kins are almost invariably divided between the phratries; but within
+them they do not belong to either of the classes, though certain classes
+claim them[132]; but on the contrary, of necessity are divided between
+them. In the eight-class tribes this seems to be the case in some tribes
+also; in others, like the Arunta, abnormalities of development cause the
+totems to fall in both phratries. But in the Mara, the Mayoo, and the
+Warramunga[133] they fall, or are stated to fall, in the first case into
+groups according to the four classes, in the other cases according to
+the "couples," i.e. the two classes which stand in the relation of
+parent and child (the son of Panunga is Appungerta, his son is again
+Panunga, and so for the other pairs). This suggests that totemism has
+something to do with the division of the four classes into eight, as was
+pointed out by Dr Durkheim in 1905[134]. His argument is that as long as
+descent was in the female line, the rule was that a man could not marry
+a woman of his mother's totem. When the change to male descent took
+place, the mother's totem, as we see by actual examples[135], did not
+lose the respect which it formerly enjoyed; there is in more than one
+tribe a tabu of the mother's as well as of the father's totem. That
+being so, it is natural to suppose that the new marriage organisation
+according to male descent might be modified to take account of this
+fact. By dividing the classes and arranging that one member of a couple
+should be debarred not only from intermarrying with the class of his
+mother, for which the four-class system also provides, but also from
+intermarrying with the second member of the same couple too, this result
+was attained, in the view of Dr Durkheim.
+
+It remains however to be established that this segregation of totems is
+actually found in the tribes in question. For the Warramunga Spencer and
+Gillen distinctly state[136] that the arrangement is dichotomous, in
+which case the alleged result would not be brought about. The Anula and
+Mara are exceptional tribes with direct male descent; it is hardly
+likely that the eight-class system spread from them. The Mayoo have not
+yet been reported on by an expert. Finally some of the tribes have not
+even the dichotomous arrangement of totems but distribute them in both
+phratries. The basis of the hypothesis, therefore, is hardly
+established.
+
+Singularly enough, Dr Durkheim[137] expresses his adherence to a
+previous theory of his own as to the method of effecting the change from
+female to male descent in four-class tribes. This he supposes to have
+been done by transferring one of the two classes from each phratry to
+the opposite one; and in the former discussion (_Année Soc._ V, 82 sq.)
+he showed that this procedure would result in scattering the totems
+through both phratries, as we find them to be in the case of the Arunta.
+It is therefore singular to find that he adheres to this theory when his
+new hypothesis demands that the totems, so far from being more widely
+distributed, should be actually confined to the members of one couple.
+Beyond the Urabunna custom in intertribal marriages, however, which is
+hardly decisive evidence, there does not appear to be any proof that the
+transference from one phratry to the other ever took place.
+
+The further support claimed by Dr Durkheim for his hypothesis from the
+alleged male descent of the totem in tribes where female descent of the
+class names prevails, rests on too uncertain a basis to make it
+necessary to deal with it at length; some criticism of the evidence will
+be found elsewhere.
+
+We have seen above that the Dieri rule is precisely parallel to that of
+the eight-class tribes in practice; it is however expressed, not by a
+class system, but by enacting that people standing in a certain degree
+of kinship or consanguinity shall marry. If Dr Durkheim's theory of the
+origin of the eight-class system is correct, it should also apply to the
+Dieri. Now the rule that a man must marry his maternal great-uncle's
+daughter clearly prevents intermarriage with one of the mother's totem;
+but this cannot be the object of the rule, for it is prevented already
+by the phratry system. Dr Durkheim's theory therefore finds no support
+in the Dieri rule.
+
+On the other hand, unless the totems have been scattered through the
+phratries since the southern Arunta divided their classes, Dr Durkheim
+will have difficulty in explaining why a tribe where the totem does not
+concern marriage at all has found it necessary to split the classes; and
+that though the child does not take its totem from mother or father.
+
+Herr Cunow has advanced the view that the classes correspond to
+distinctions of age; but he took as his basis, not the differentia of
+elder and younger, but the distinction made by the initiation customs,
+which divide the community, in his view, into three strata--young, adult
+and old. Into the difficulties created by this theory we need not here
+enter. Suffice it to say that the theory depends on the supposition that
+an age-grade had to marry within itself. Now the age-grade is not a
+fixed body, but is continually changing its personnel; not only so, but
+it is difficult to see how marriage could take place, given the
+initiation ceremonies, in any other way; unions of "old men" with adult
+women apart, which are not, in fact, prohibited, so far as is known, the
+only marriages possible are those within the adult grade. Although
+father and son can rarely belong to the adult grade simultaneously,
+mother and daughter can readily do so. If not, these grades are clearly
+generation classes, and what Herr Cunow really takes as the basis of his
+theory is the generation in each family. This can readily be shown by a
+consideration of the kinship terms.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[130] Roth, _Eth. Stud._ p. 182; Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ p. 616;
+Howitt, p. 262; _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 166.
+
+[131] _J.A.I._ VII, 249, cf. _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 172.
+
+[132] Howitt, p. 110.
+
+[133] _Nor. Tr._ p. 167; _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XVI, 70; _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXX,
+111, 112.
+
+[134] _Ann. Soc._ VIII, 118.
+
+[135] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ p. 166.
+
+[136] _Nor. Tr._ p. 163.
+
+[137] p. 142.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+KINSHIP TERMS.
+
+Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
+ Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
+ Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger.
+
+
+Some classless two-phratry tribes observe in practice the same rules as
+the four and eight class tribes when they are deciding what marriages
+are permissible. The Dieri and Narrangga follow the eight-class rule;
+the position of the Urabunna is somewhat uncertain owing to the
+obscurity of our authorities, which again is probably due to their lack
+of intimate acquaintance with the tribe; and the Wolgal, Ngarrego and
+Murring have the simple four-class rule that a man marries his mother's
+brother's daughter.
+
+We have seen in an earlier chapter that kinship and consanguinity are
+distinct in their nature, though among civilised peoples they are not in
+practice distinguishable. In the lower stages of culture it is otherwise,
+as will be shown in detail below. Corresponding to this distinction of
+consanguinity and kinship but not parallel to it we have two ways of
+expressing these relationships--the descriptive and the classificatory.
+The terminology of the former system is based on the principle of
+reckoning the relationship of two people by the total number of steps
+between them and the nearest lineal ancestor of both. The latter does not
+concern itself with descent at all but expresses the status of the
+individual as a member of a group of persons. Thus, to take a single
+example, in a typical Australian tribe the word applied by a child to its
+father is not used of him alone but of all the other males on the same
+level of a generation provided they belong to the same phratry; to the
+other half of the generation is applied the term usually translated
+"mother's brother."
+
+Unfortunately but few Australian lists of kinship terms have been drawn
+up, and the anomalous tribes like the Kurnai have absorbed a large share
+of attention. It is however possible to give tables for the three classes
+of tribes with which we have been in the main concerned. Those given are
+in use among the Wathi-Wathi of Victoria, the Ngerikudi-speaking people
+of North Queensland and the Arunta[138].
+
+_Wathi-Wathi Tribe: two-phratry._
+
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----
+ _Phratry A_ | _Phratry B_ |Gen-
+ |_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |er-
+ |(mother's father) | |(mother's mother)|at-
+ |_Miimui_ | |_Matui_ |ion
+ |(father's mother) | |(father's father)|
+ | | | | I
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Mamui_ | |_Kukui_ | |
+(father) | |(mother) | |
+_Niingui_ | |_Gunui_ | | II
+(father's sister= | |(mother's brother=| |
+_Nalundui_, | |_Nguthanguthu_ | |
+wife's mother) | |wife's father) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Malunui_ | | EGO |
+ |(father's | |_Wawi, mamui_ |
+ |sister's son) | |(elder brother, | III
+ |_Neripui_ | |sister) |
+ |(father's sister's| |_Tatui, minukui_ |
+ |daughter=wife) | |(younger do.) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Waipui_ | |_Ngipui_ | |
+(son, daughter) | |(sister's son) | |
+ | |? (sister's dau. | | IV
+ | |=_Boikathui_, | |
+ | | son's wife) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |
+ |(daughter's son) | |(sister's |
+ |_Miimui_ | |daughter's son) | V
+ |(sister's son's | |_Matui_ |
+ | son) | | (son's son) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+---
+
+
+_Ngerikudi: Four-class._
+
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
+ | | | |Gen-
+ | | | |er-
+_Phratry A:_ |_Class a_1_ |_Phratry B:_ |_Class b_1_ |at-
+_Class a_ | |_Class b_ | |ion
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Daida_ (mother's | |_Mite_ (mother's |
+ |father) | |mother) | I
+ |_Baida_ (father's | |_Laeta_ (father's|
+ |mother) | |father) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Naider_ (father) | |_Naibeguta_ | |
+_Waita_ (father's | |(mother) | |
+brother) | |_Miata_ (brother) | |
+_Niata_ (elder | |_Goete_ (elder | | II
+sister) | |sister) | |
+_Wiata_ (younger | |_Datu_ younger | |
+do.) | |( do.) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ | | | EGO |
+ |_Danuma_ (wife= | |_Maneinga_ (elder|
+ |mo. bro. dau.) | |brother) |
+ |_Lanti ngenuma_ | |_Goete_ (elder | III
+ |(sister's husband | |sister) |
+ |=mo. bro. son) | |_Otro_ (younger |
+ | | |brother or |
+ | | |sister) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Yuta_ (son or | |? (sister's son | |
+daughter) | |or daughter) | |
+ | |_Yamaanta_ (dau.'s| | IV
+ | |husband) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Yudanta_ | |_Yuunta_ (son's |
+ |(daughter's child)| |child) | V
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
+
+So far as deficiencies in our information would allow, these tables have
+been drawn up on corresponding lines, and the first point which strikes
+us is the great similarity between the three tables, in spite of the
+apparent wide divergence in the kinship organisation of the tribes. To
+facilitate comparison the Wathi-Wathi terms have been arranged, not only
+according to the system in use in the tribe, but in such a way as to
+show how the terms would be arranged under the four-class system.
+
+
+_Arunta: Eight-class._
+
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+ _Panunga_ | _Uknaria_ | _Bulthara_ | _Appungerta_ |Gen-
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
+ | |_Ipmunna_ (mother's|_Arunga_ (father's|at-
+ | |mother, wife's |father) |ion
+ | |mother's father) | |I
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Oknia_ (father)|_Mura_ (wife's | | |
+_Uwinna_ |mother, wife's | | |II
+(father's |mother's | | |
+sisters) |brothers) | | |
+ | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | | EGO |
+ | |_Ipmunna_ (father's|_Okilia_ (elder |
+ | |sister's daughter's|brothers) |
+ | |husband, son's |_Ungaraitcha_ |III
+ | |wife's mother) |(elder sisters) |
+ | | |_Itia_ (younger |
+ | | |brothers and |
+ | | |sisters) |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Allira_ | | | |
+(children, | | | |
+brother's | | | |IV
+children) | | | |
+----------------|---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | |_Arunga_ (son's |
+ | | |son) |V
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+ _Purula_ | _Ungalla_ | _Kumara_ | _Umbitchana_ |Gen-
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
+ | |_Tjimmia_ |_Aperla_ |at-
+ | |(mother's father) |(father's |ion
+ | | |mother) |I
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Mia_ (mother, |_Ikuntera_ | | |
+mother's sister)|(wife's father)| | |II
+_Gammona_ | | | |
+(mother's | | | |
+brother) | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | | |
+ | |_Unkulla_ (father's|_Unawa_ (wife, |
+ | |sister's sons) |wife's sisters) |
+ | | |_Umbirna_ |III
+ | | |(wife's brother= |
+ | | |sister's |
+ | | |husband) |
+- | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Gammona_ (son's|_Umba_ | | |
+ wife) |(sister's | | |IV
+ |children) | | |
+ | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | |_Tjimmia_ | |
+ | |(daughter's child) | |V
+ ---------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+
+In the Wathi-Wathi system, we observe that in each generation there are
+two groups of males and two of females, corresponding to the two-phratry
+system, which are distinguished by names differing for each generation.
+Precisely the same arrangement is found in the four-class tribe. The
+four-class are therefore simply a systematisation of the terms of
+kinship in use under the two-phratry system.
+
+Comparing now the eight-class with the four-class system, we do not see
+at a glance the essential principle of the former. The clue is given by
+the fact that classes I and IV, II and III in phratry A, I and II, III
+and IV in phratry B, are what we have termed a couple, that is to say
+stand in the relation of parent and child alternately. Marriage being
+between classes of corresponding numbers, it follows that
+Kumara-Bulthara and Appungerta-Umbitchana are the maternal and paternal
+grandparents of the man EGO. The grandparents of his wife are in the
+same classes but with reversal as regards the sex. Bulthara is the
+cousin of Appungerta, Kumara of Umbitchana and so on. We see therefore
+that, just as among the Dieri, a man may not marry his cousin, but must
+marry his second cousin, to use ordinary terms, which in this case are
+not misleading.
+
+Looking now at the Ngerikudi system, we see that elder and younger
+sisters are distinguished in the generations of EGO and his parents.
+Possibly they are the eight-class tribe of Queensland to which Dr Howitt
+alludes. If not, we have in them a tribe one stage earlier than the
+southern Arunta, who have their four classes divided but as yet without
+any corresponding names.
+
+The Dieri rule is that of the eight-class tribes. The person designated
+as the proper spouse for a male is his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter, in other words, the grandchildren of brother and
+sister intermarry. This, as we have already seen, is precisely the
+effect of the eight-class rules. We are therefore confronted with three
+possibilities. Either the Dieri regulations are aberrant or they have
+introduced these rules under the influence of the neighbouring
+eight-class system; or the eight-class organisation is a systematisation
+of the Dieri rule, adopted perhaps to facilitate the determination of
+marriageableness or otherwise in the case of persons residing at some
+distance from each other and therefore less likely to be acquainted
+with genealogical niceties than the members of a small community. Now if
+the second of these hypotheses is correct, it is by no means clear why
+the Dieri, having in view the attainment of the object of the
+eight-class system, did not simply adopt it; for this we can find no
+reason; and it is clearly more reasonable on other grounds to suppose
+that these regulations are of independent origin. But we know the
+eight-class rule to have arisen from a division within a generation,
+which the Dieri rule is not. Therefore the latter must be sporadic.
+
+The same is probably true of the Urabunna, but here our information is
+very scanty and the precise working of the rules is far from clear. What
+happens is that an elder brother (A) of a woman (B) marries an elder
+sister (D) of a man (C); the daughter of this elder sister (D) is the
+proper mate for the son of the younger sister (B) of her husband; this
+younger sister's husband is the younger brother, C. Now the term elder
+brother, elder sister, does not seem to refer to age; the rule appears
+to be--once an elder brother, always an elder brother from generation to
+generation.
+
+We learn from Spencer and Gillen, that all the women of a generation in
+the one phratry, and presumably within the right totem only, are to a
+man either _nupa_ (=marriageable) or _apillia_. In the case given by Dr
+Howitt the younger sister is _nupa_ to the younger brother, the elder to
+the elder brother; but we do not learn how elder and younger are
+distinguished, if it is not by descent. Apparently it cannot be by
+descent, however; for we find that the son of the younger brother and
+sister marries the daughter of the elder brother and sister. As to what
+would happen if the younger brother and sister have a daughter, the
+elder a son, we have no information; but apparently they cannot marry.
+Such a daughter must find the son of two people who stand to her father
+and mother as they stood to A and D.
+
+From this example it is clear that the boundaries of the _nupa_ and
+_apillia_ groups are not fixed in a given group of women; it is not
+possible to divide the women and the men into elder brothers and sisters
+on the one hand, younger brothers and sisters on the other. But if this
+is the case, we are quite in the dark as to the meaning of the marriage
+regulations.
+
+One thing however seems certain; viz., that the Urabunna regulations do
+not give the same result as the four-class regulations. With them the
+division is within the generation. There is no class of women, who, with
+their descendants, are the normal spouses of a class of men, with their
+descendants. That being so, the Urabunna case can hardly throw light on
+the genesis of the four-class system.
+
+Among the Urabunna, however, like the Wathi-Wathi, we find the rule that
+a man must marry in his own generation; and this is _primâ facie_ the
+meaning of the four-class rule. It is true that the origin of the
+eight-class rule was not what its _primâ facie_ meaning suggests, viz.,
+the desire to prevent the marriage of cousins, for we know that it
+originated in the distinction between elder and younger sisters. But no
+similar theory appears to fit the case of the four-class tribes. No
+division within the generation could possibly produce an alternation of
+generations.
+
+The Red Indians have in many cases different names for the elder and
+younger sister; the Hausa impose on persons standing in these relations
+certain prohibitions and avoidances, which are not the same for both
+elder and younger; in Australia a man may speak freely to his elder
+sisters in blood, but only at a distance to his tribal _ungaraitcha_. To
+his younger sisters, blood and tribal, he may not speak save at such a
+distance that his features are indistinguishable. In many parts the
+elder brother has special rights with regard to the younger, and many
+similar customs might be quoted[139].
+
+The question why marriage within the generation--the rule of four-class
+and two-phratry tribes alike--should have come into existence is a
+complicated one and involves that of the origin of kinship terms. If we
+take a crucial case of kinship terminology, we find that a child applies
+the same term to its actual mother as to all the women whom its father
+might have married, to its potential mothers in fact. If therefore we
+have to choose between the gradual extension of the terms from the
+single family to the group or their original application to a group,
+this instance seems decisive in favour of the latter theory.
+
+Now if marriage was originally not "group" but individual, a question to
+be fully discussed in later chapters, we can hardly doubt that
+parent-child marriage was forbidden or perhaps instinctively avoided.
+But this would be equivalent to prohibiting marriage with one of a
+number of men or women embraced under a common kinship term. In the
+lower culture generally and especially among the Australians there is a
+tendency to follow things out to their logical conclusions. If this were
+done in the present case, the result would be to extend the prohibition
+to all the persons embraced under the kinship term.
+
+In any case the natural tendency in a small group would be to marry
+within the generation, and this might readily become crystallised in the
+kinship terms.
+
+The eight-class system, as we have seen, resulted from the distinction
+between elder and younger sister. What is the meaning of this and what
+analogies do we find to it?
+
+Widely extended also are the systems of age-grades. In all parts of the
+world the men, and sometimes the women, are or have been divided into
+associations, to which reference was made in Chapter I, which begin by
+being co-extensive with the tribe for all practical purposes, since all
+pass through the initiation ceremonies. The various initiation
+ceremonies during what may be termed the involuntary stage of these
+associations, no less than in their later form of secret societies,
+determine the rights and duties of the individuals who undergo them. The
+period at which they take place is determined, broadly speaking, by the
+age of the individual. It is therefore clear that for the peoples in the
+lower stage of culture considerations of age are of the highest
+importance.
+
+We find that in practice the elder brother has much authority, both over
+the younger brother and the sister. In Victoria he decides whom they are
+to marry. As we have seen in the tables of terms, the Wathi-Wathi man
+distinguishes both elder and younger of either sex by special terms,
+which points to their having special rights or duties[140].
+
+If therefore we cannot see why primitive man should have enacted that
+the elder rather than the younger, or the daughter of the elder rather
+than the daughter of the younger, should be preferred, it is at any rate
+of a piece with his other customs.
+
+From the terms of kinship tabulated above various conclusions have been
+drawn. It will be seen that a man applies to all the women in the other
+phratry on the level of his generation the same term as he applies to
+his actual wife. On this basis it has been argued that at one time all
+the men in one phratry were united in marriage with all the women in the
+other within the limits of the generation. Before this again a stage of
+absolute promiscuity is supposed to have existed. This alternative
+explanation of the kinship organisations demands to be considered.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[138] _J.A.I._ XIV, 354; _N. Queensl. Eth. Bull._ VI, 6; Spencer and
+Gillen, _Northern Tribes_, p. 90.
+
+[139] Morgan, in _Smithsonian Contr._ vol. XVII; _Globus_, LXIX, 3;
+_Nat. Tribes_, pp. 88-9.
+
+[140] For lists of tribes where this distinction is found see Mathew,
+_Eaglehawk_, p. 223-4.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.
+
+Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types. Hypothetical
+ and existing forms.
+
+
+Students of the sociology of white races enjoy conspicuous advantages
+over those who devote themselves to the investigation of the
+organisation of races in the lower stages of culture. In the first place
+they deal with conditions and forms with which they are personally
+familiar; and this familiarity is shared by those who form the audience,
+or the reading public, of these investigators, who may thus count on
+making themselves understood. Even should they find the already existing
+terminology insufficient, the knowledge of the phenomena enables them to
+introduce suitable modifications or innovations without fear of causing
+misunderstanding. It is true that terminology is often loose, but it
+exists and can be made to express what is meant.
+
+The student of primitive sociology, on the other hand, is called upon to
+digest the reports of other observers, who have not always understood
+the conditions which they describe, who have failed to define to
+themselves what they are endeavouring to make clear to others, and who
+make use of a terminology created for an entirely different set of
+conditions, as if exact definition and care in the use of terms were the
+last and not the first duty of the observer when he frames his report.
+
+Thus, to take a concrete example, there is not much danger that a writer
+who discusses the question of marriage in civilised communities will
+deal with one form of union of the sexes, while his readers may imagine
+that he is dealing with another form. For marriage is the form of
+sexual union recognised by the law of the land, and its legal sanction
+distinguishes it from all other forms of sexual union, however permanent
+they may be, and however short may be the period before the marriage is
+dissolved by an appeal to the courts of law. In fact in civilised
+communities the fulfilment of legal forms and ceremonies constitutes
+marriage, whatever might be said of a union sanctioned by legal forms
+but unaccompanied by the cohabitation of the parties. When, however, we
+are dealing with a people ruled by custom and not by law, the case is
+far different. The force of custom may and usually does in such cases
+far exceed the force of law in civilised communities. In the lower
+stages of culture there is far more reluctance to overstep the
+traditional lines of behaviour than is felt by the ordinary member of a
+European state, and this though there are penalties in the latter which
+do not necessarily exist in the former case. But law, in the sense of a
+rule of conduct, promulgated by a legislator and enforced by penalties
+inflicted by law courts and carried out by the agents of the state, does
+not necessarily exist, and, at most, exists only in a very inchoate
+state. If therefore we read of marriage among such a people, we are left
+in complete uncertainty whether it is a union corresponding to marriage
+in civilised lands, or whether it belongs to a different category. The
+difficulty of the case lies partly in the inability of the observer to
+distinguish _de jure_ from _de facto_ unions, partly in the fact that
+one may be transformed into the other, and no ceremony of any sort mark
+the change. An Australian may, for example, have a wife who is
+recognised as his by tribal custom and tradition; if she is abducted the
+aggrieved husband may vindicate his rights but will not necessarily be
+supported by even his own kin, and will certainly not find anything to
+correspond to the tribunal before which an Englishman would sue for the
+restitution of conjugal rights. If the aggrieved husband proves the
+weaker, he necessarily abandons his wife, and she becomes _ipso facto_
+the wife of the aggressor; divorce is in fact pronounced by the issue of
+an ordeal by combat. So far the matter is clear to the observer.
+
+But if the aggrieved husband take no steps to vindicate his rights, the
+woman will equally pass to the aggressor, and in this case there will
+be no customary ceremonial to mark for the benefit of the observer the
+exact moment of the transition from a marriage, recognised by public
+opinion, or tribal custom, with the first husband A to the same kind of
+union with B.
+
+Again, even where no second mate intervenes to complicate the question,
+the observer may be confronted with delicate problems; at what point,
+for example, does a mere liaison pass into something worthy of the name
+of marriage? What is the status of a union in which the parties are more
+or less permanently associated, but which confers no rights as against
+aggressors? If by native custom the union is not of such a nature as to
+confer on the male party to it any rights over the female, such as the
+liberty to chastise or punish without fear of the intervention of the
+woman's kin, are we to regard the tie as equivalent to marriage if only
+it is permanent? At what point does mere cohabitation pass into
+marriage?
+
+All these are questions which have to be debated and decided before we
+are in possession of a suitable terminology for dealing with the unions
+of the sexes in the lower stages of culture. But they are commonly
+neglected in controversies as to the origin and history of human
+marriage.
+
+We have seen above that in a European community we mean by marriage a
+union between two persons of opposite sexes, entered into with due legal
+formalities, and not dissoluble simply at the will of either or both the
+parties concerned. When we go further afield the connotation of the term
+is extended to embrace (1) polygyny, in which one male is associated
+with two or more females, (2) polyandry, in which one female is
+similarly associated with more than one male, and (3) the condition
+which I propose to term polygamy, in which both these conditions are
+found. In all these cases the union is properly termed marriage, in so
+far as it cannot be entered upon without due formalities nor be
+dissolved without the concurrence of the authority upon the carrying out
+of whose conditions in the preliminary steps the union depends for its
+marriage-character.
+
+When however we come to the so-called group marriage, using the term in
+its original sense of limited promiscuity, we are dealing with an
+entirely different state of things, and it is difficult to see any
+justification for the use of the term marriage in this connection at
+all. By group marriage is meant a condition only removed from absolute
+promiscuity by the existence of age-classes or of two or more exogamous
+classes in the community; it demands no special ceremonies prior to the
+individual union[141], it permits this union to be dissolved at will,
+and it consequently confers no rights on either of the parties to it,
+other than perhaps the right to the produce, or some of the produce, of
+each other's labour.
+
+If the confusion did not extend beyond the terminology, the advance of
+knowledge would perhaps be but little impeded; but experience shows that
+confusion in terminology is apt to go hand in hand with confusion in
+ideas. As will be shown later, this seems to be particularly true of
+investigations into the history of marriage and sexual relationships. It
+seems desirable therefore to clear the way by classifying the ideas with
+which we have to deal, and by defining the terms corresponding to them.
+
+Before classifying the various forms of sexual relationships, it may be
+well to say a few words on the definition of marriage in general. Dr
+Westermarck has defined it from the point of view of natural history as
+a more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting
+beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the
+offspring.
+
+It may not be possible to propose a better definition from the point of
+view selected by Dr Westermarck, which is certainly the one from which
+anthropology must regard sexual relationships. At the same time it is
+not entirely free from objection. In the first place we are employing
+the word marriage in a sense which has but little in common with its
+ordinarily accepted meaning. Suppose, for example, we are dealing with
+marriage in Europe, it is confusing to be compelled by our definition to
+regard as a marriage the _faux ménage_, not to speak of the not uncommon
+fairly permanent unions in which there is no common residence. Such
+monogamous relationships may be, technically speaking, marriages, in Dr
+Westermarck's sense, but it seems desirable to make use of some other
+term for them and reserve marriage for the unions sanctioned by legal
+forms. Or take the union of two people, each of whom has prior
+matrimonial engagements. Such a union may, as the records of the divorce
+court show, be anything but impermanent; but it does not make for
+clearness to call such an union marriage. Let us take a third example--a
+New Hebridean girl purchased, or in Upa stolen, for the use of the young
+men, who, of course, reside in their club-house. If any of the bachelors
+there resident chooses to recognise her children, they are regarded as
+his children; if not, they are supported by the whole of the residents
+in the club-house. How are we to classify the position of the mother of
+these children? The union is obviously fairly permanent, although some
+of the group enter into sexual relationships of an ordinary type and
+join the ranks of the married men, and others enter the club-house from
+the ranks of those hitherto shut out from the enjoyment of the
+privileges of the adult unmarried male. But the relationship established
+with the whole body of unmarried men and indistinguishable, so far as
+definition goes, from polyandry, hardly seems to be a permanent union of
+the type which Dr Westermarck had in mind when he framed his definition,
+much less a marriage in any accepted sense of the term.
+
+For Dr Westermarck's general term marriage it would be well to
+substitute _gamé_ or gamic union, to express all kinds of sexual
+relationships other than temporary ones. As sub-heads under this we
+have:
+
+(1) Marriage, a union recognised by law or custom, which imposes duties
+and confers rights on one, both, or all the parties to it.
+
+(2) Free union, a relationship not recognised by the community as
+conferring rights, but at the same time not punished and not necessarily
+regarded as immoral. Temporary unions we may classify as (_a_)
+promiscuity where marriage does not exist or is temporarily in abeyance:
+(_b_) free love, the relationships of the unmarried: (_c_ i.) temporary
+polyandry or polygyny of married people, where the unions are limited
+and recognised by custom: (_c_ ii.) marital licence where the husband is
+complaisant in the face of public opinion: (_c_ iii.) adultery where
+neither the husband nor public opinion permits them.
+
+(3) Liaison, a union in which one or both parties have other ties, which
+renders them liable to punishment, or to some kind of atonement.
+
+Ten various possible forms of sexual relationship actually found or
+assumed to have existed may now be classified.
+
+
+A. PROMISCUITY.
+
+I. Unregulated Promiscuity. (_a_) Primary unregulated promiscuity is the
+hypothetical state assumed by Morgan and others to be the primitive
+state of mankind. It may be noted that promiscuity _de jure_, which is
+all that is implied by Morgan's hypothesis, is not necessarily also _de
+facto_ promiscuity. Unless it be assumed that jealousy was absent at
+this stage, it is clear that free unions must have been the rule rather
+than the exception. But if this be so, the only distinction between
+Morgan's promiscuity and the ordinary state of things in an Australian
+tribe is constituted, intermarrying rules apart, by the fact that the
+Australian husband is at liberty to reclaim his wife, if he can, without
+fear of blood feud if perchance he slays his successor in the
+affections, or perhaps rather in the possession, of his wife, whereas in
+Morgan's primitive stage might was right and the abductor was on an
+equal footing with his predecessor and successor. (_b_) Secondary
+unregulated promiscuity is distinguished from primary promiscuity by the
+co-existence of other forms of sexual relations. It may temporarily
+supersede these as in Australia; or it may take their place, as among
+the Nairs.
+
+II. Regulated Promiscuity. This again falls into (_a_) primary regulated
+promiscuity, the hypothetical stage postulated for Australia before the
+introduction of individual marriage; and (_b_) secondary regulated
+promiscuity, which is found in certain tribes as an exceptional
+practice. With this custom I deal in greater detail below.
+
+
+B. MARRIAGE.
+
+III, Polygamy. This state is constituted by the union of several men
+with several women. It may be distinguished, as before, into primary and
+secondary polygamy. We may further distinguish (_α_) simple and (_β_)
+adelphic polygamy; and the latter may be (i) unilateral or (ii)
+bilateral, according as either the males or females, or both males and
+females, are brothers and sisters. A further sub-division is constituted
+by the relations of the groups of males or females, or both, within
+themselves. I distinguish these unions by the names of dissimilar (M.)
+and dissimilar (F.) according as one husband or one wife has a position
+superior to the others[142].
+
+IV, Polyandric and V. polygynic unions fall into the same divisions,
+save that they are naturally always unilateral. As a designation for the
+hypothetical stage postulated by Mr Atkinson in _Primal Law_, we may
+take "patriarchal polygyny," meaning thereby the state in which (_a_) in
+the earlier stage all the females of the horde[143] are _ipso facto_
+mates of the one adult male of the horde; or (_b_) in the second stage
+all females born in the horde are equally allotted to him.
+
+Finally we have VI, monogamy.
+
+To the three forms of marriage we can apply the determinants "regulated"
+and "unregulated," "temporary[144]," "permanent," as in the case of
+promiscuity.
+
+We have further two well-marked types of marriage and a mixed form in
+which (_a_) the husband goes to live with the wife; (_b_) he lives with
+the wife for a time and then removes to his own village or tribe; and
+(_c_) the wife removes to the husband. For the first of these Maclennan
+has proposed the name _beena_ marriage; Robertson Smith has proposed to
+call the third type _ba‘al_ marriage, and to include both _beena_ and
+_mot‘a_ marriages under the general name of _ṣadīca_. This terminology
+is unnecessarily obscure and has the further disadvantage of connoting
+the domination or subjection of the husband, a feature not necessarily
+bound up with residence. I therefore propose to term the three types
+matrilocal, removal, and patrilocal marriages. I suggest compounds of
+_pater_ and _mater_, not as being specially appropriate, but as being
+parallel to matrilineal and patrilineal, denoting descent in the female
+and male lines respectively.
+
+For the somewhat complicated relationships of _potestas_ in the family I
+propose two main divisions, (_a_) patri-potestal, (_b_) matri-potestal;
+the latter may be further subdivided according as the authority is in
+the hands (1) of the actual mother, (2) of the maternal uncles, (3) of
+the mother's relatives in general, and so on.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[141] The _pirrauru_ union is preceded by a ceremony, but this is no
+proof that primitive group marriage, if it existed, was contracted in
+the same way.
+
+[142] Dissimilar polygamy is, in respect of the inferior spouses, hardly
+to be distinguished from promiscuity, save that the number of them is
+limited. But in Australia the lending of _pirraurus_ sweeps away even
+this distinction.
+
+[143] He says family, or Cyclopean family. Harem in fact is the idea.
+
+[144] i.e. not life-long.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.
+
+Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+ harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts.
+
+
+The arguments for group marriage in Australia are of two kinds--(1) from
+the terms of relationship, that is to say of a mixed philological and
+sociological character, and (2) from the customs of the Australian
+tribes.
+
+The argument from the terms of relationship is so intimately connected
+with the theories of Lewis Morgan that it may be well to give a brief
+critical survey of Morgan's hypotheses. I therefore begin the treatment
+of this part of the subject by a statement of Morgan's views on the
+general question of the origin and development of human marriage.
+
+As a result of his enquiries into terms of relationships, mainly in
+North America and Asia, Morgan drew up a scheme of fifteen stages,
+through which he believed the sexual relations of human beings had
+passed in the interval between utter savagery and the civilised family.
+We are only concerned with the earlier portion of his scheme. It is not
+even necessary to discuss that in all its details. Morgan's first eight
+(properly five) stages are:
+
+I. Promiscuous Intercourse.
+
+II. Intermarriage or Cohabitation of Brothers and Sisters.
+
+III. The Communal Family (First stage of the Family).
+
+IV. The Hawaian Custom of Punalua[145], giving the Malayan Form of the
+Classificatory System[146].
+
+V. The Tribal Organisation, i.e. totemic exogamy plus promiscuity,
+giving the Turanian and Ganowanian System[147].
+
+VI. Monogamy.
+
+The objections to this theory or group of theories are numerous, and it
+will not be necessary to consider them all here. Were it not that no one
+has since Morgan's day attempted to trace in detail the course of
+evolution from promiscuity to monogamy, it would be almost superfluous
+to discuss the theories of a work on primitive sociology dating back
+nearly thirty years.
+
+With some points Morgan has failed to deal in a way that commends itself
+to us in the light of knowledge accumulated since his day; with others
+he has not attempted to deal, apparently from a want of perception of
+their importance.
+
+First and foremost among the points with which Morgan has failed to deal
+is that of the constitution of the primitive group. Was it composed of
+parents and children only or were more than two generations represented?
+If the former, why were the children expelled? if the latter, how are
+brother and sister marriages introduced, when _ex hypothesi_ the father
+of any given child was unknown and may have been any adult male? If
+Morgan and his supporters evade this difficulty by defining brother and
+sister as children of the same mother, they are met by the obvious
+objection that no revolution in a promiscuous group would result in the
+marriage of children of the same mother. _Ex hypothesi_ there were
+several child-bearing women in the group, and their children, if a
+reform were introduced prohibiting marriage outside one's own
+generation, would intermarry; but the children of these women are, on
+the definition adopted, not brothers and sisters.
+
+If brother and sister does not mean children of the same mother, what
+does it mean?
+
+By what process are these names supposed to have come into existence in
+a promiscuous group? If brother in this sense is taken to imply common
+parentage, the name must clearly denote the relation between two males
+because, although a whole group of men had access to the mother, the
+male parent was or may have been the same person in each case, and this
+whether the mother was the same or not. Now, quite apart from the fact
+that primitive man was unlikely to have evolved a term for such an
+indefinite relationship, except in so far as it involved rights or
+duties, it is obvious that great complications would arise which would
+in practice make the nomenclature unworkable. For to call two boys
+brothers because they have the same group of men as possible fathers is
+only practicable in a society which has already evolved a system of age
+grades, and has established restrictions on intercourse between
+different generations, to use a somewhat indefinite term. For it is
+clear that in a state of promiscuity the class of adults is continually
+being recruited and that the boy passes at puberty, in so far as
+restrictions in the nature of initiation ceremonies are not imposed,
+from the class of sons to that of fathers. In other words, if a group
+consists of M_1 M_2 M_3 M_4, and they have male children of all
+ages N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4, as soon as N_1 reaches puberty he
+becomes a possible father of the children O_1 O_2 O_3 O_4, who
+differ in age from N_4 only by a few years at most and reckon as his
+brothers. But this means that N_1 is the son of M_1, for example,
+but at the same time the father of O_1, who is likewise the son of
+M_1; in the same way O_1 is the brother of N_4, who is the brother
+of N_1; but O_1 is not the brother of N_1. The extraordinary
+complexity of the relations that would arise is at once obvious, and it
+seems clear that relationship terms could never come into existence
+under such circumstances unless they implied something beyond mere
+relationship and denoted rights and duties[148]. But if they denoted
+rights and duties, these must have preceded the relationship term, which
+consequently need not be held to apply to kinship in any proper sense of
+the term.
+
+It is clear that the same difficulties apply when we try to work out the
+development on the hypothesis that a group of mothers existed. We are
+therefore reduced to the supposition that the term brother denoted
+originally a person born within a given period of time, and that this
+period was the same for whole sections of the community; in other words
+that the name brother was given to all males born between, let us say,
+B.C. 10,000 and B.C. 9,990. This is of course equivalent to the
+establishment of age grades and is in itself not unthinkable; age grades
+are of course perfectly well known among primitive peoples; but the
+establishment of age grades implies a degree of social organisation;
+and, what is more important, this hypothesis makes the term brother
+quite meaningless as a kinship term; for at the present day a common
+term of address for members of an age grade does not imply any degree of
+consanguinity, and unless it be proved that age grades are a product of
+the period of "group marriage" it cannot be argued that they ever did
+imply kinship.
+
+It is sufficiently clear from these examples that Morgan entirely failed
+to work out the process by which the transition from pure to regulated
+promiscuity came about. But if the process is uncertain the causes are
+equally obscure. In Mr Morgan's view, or at any rate in one of the
+theories on which he accounted for the change, it was due to "movements
+which resulted in unconscious reformation"; these movements were, he
+supposes, worked out by natural selection. These words, it is true,
+apply primarily to the origin of the "tribal" or "gentile" organisation,
+as Mr Morgan terms totemism, but they probably apply to the original
+passage from promiscuity to "communal marriage," and I propose to
+examine how far such a theory has any solid basis.
+
+Natural selection is a blessed phrase, but in the present case it is
+difficult to see in what way it is supposed to act. The variation
+postulated by Mr Morgan as a basis for the operation of natural
+selection is one of ideas, not physical or mental powers. Now under
+ordinary circumstances we mean by natural selection the weeding out of
+the unfit by reason of inferiorities, physical or psychical, which
+handicap them in the struggle for existence. But it cannot be said that
+the tendency to marry or practice of marrying outside one's own
+generation is such a handicap to the parents. How far is it injurious to
+the children of such unions? Or rather, how far have children who are
+the offspring of brothers and sisters or of cousins a better chance of
+surviving than the offspring of unions between relatives of different
+generations?
+
+It is at the outset clear that savages are not in the habit of taking
+account of such matters. Even if it were otherwise, it is not clear how
+far they would have data as to the varying results of unions of near
+kin. For though on this question, so far as the genus homo is concerned,
+we have very few data on which to go, such data as we have hardly bear
+out his view. Modern statistics relate almost exclusively to the
+intermarriage of cousins, and apply, not to primitive tribes, such as
+those with which, _ex hypothesi_, Mr Morgan is dealing, but to more or
+less civilised and sophisticated peoples, among whom the struggle for
+existence is less keen owing to the advance of knowledge and the
+progress of invention, and among whom possibly the rise of humanitarian
+ideas not only tends to counteract the weeding out of the unfit, but
+even makes it relatively easy for them to propagate their species. What
+the result of the intermarriage of cousins is when war, famine, and
+infanticide are efficient weeders out of the unfit, we cannot say.
+Possibly or even probably the ill results would be inappreciable. It
+must not be forgotten that the marriage of near relatives is only
+harmful because or if it hands on to the children of the union an
+hereditary taint in a strengthened form, a result which is likely to
+follow in civilised life because hereditary taints are allowed to
+flourish unchecked by prudence and controlled by natural selection only
+so far as humanitarianism will permit it. These hereditary degeneracies
+however are probably largely if not entirely absent among savages. It is
+therefore open to question how far intermarriage of cousins would prove
+harmful under such conditions.
+
+Statistics of the influence of cousin-marriage are not however what Mr
+Morgan wants. It is essential for him to prove that father-daughter
+marriage is more harmful than brother-sister unions.
+
+It might be imagined that the data for estimating the effect of the
+union of father and daughter would be non-existent, but this is not so.
+Within the last few years it has been stated that such unions are common
+in parts of South America, and that the children, so far from being
+degenerates, are remarkably healthy and vigorous[149]. This is of
+interest in connection with Mr Atkinson's speculations as to the history
+of the family. In this connection it may be pointed out that such
+unions, _ex hypothesi_, are unlikely to result in continual in-and-in
+breeding, and would in all probability seldom be continued beyond the
+first alliance of this nature.
+
+We are practically in complete darkness as to the results of brother and
+sister marriage in the human species. We have of course various cases of
+ruling families who perpetuated themselves in this way, but the data
+from such peoples refer to an advanced stage of culture and to a
+favoured class. They are not therefore applicable to similar unions
+among savages where they formed, as Mr Morgan suggests, the invariable
+practice. It is however possible to deduce from very simple
+considerations the probabilities as to the respective effects of
+adelphic and father-daughter unions. In the first place, as has been
+already pointed out, the father-daughter union implies only one family
+of in-and-in-bred children; in the case of brother and sister marriage,
+on the other hand, this state of things may go on indefinitely. If this
+is not enough to turn the scale against adelphic unions there is the
+further fact that, taking the descendants of the first pair of
+intermarrying descendants of common parents, whose tendency to disease
+or deformity is we will suppose x^1 on both sides, and assuming that
+this tendency increases in a simple ratio, the offspring have the same
+tendencies to the second power of x. If their children marry each other
+the measure of degeneracy in the third generation is x^4. Suppose now
+a father and mother with index of degeneracy each x^1; a daughter of
+this union will have as her index x^2; if the daughter bears children
+to the father, their index will be not x^4, but x^3, if the simple
+law which I have assumed for the purposes of argument holds good.
+
+It is therefore clear that the offspring of adelphic unions, so far from
+being at an advantage compared with the offspring of father-daughter
+unions, are at a disadvantage in the proportion of 4 to 3. In the third
+place, in father-daughter unions the male is physically as well as
+sexually mature. In adelphic unions both parties are probably immature.
+Consequently from this point of view also the advantage is with the
+supposed injurious type of union. Now if the father-daughter union was
+less harmful than the brother-sister union, _a fortiori_ are uncle-niece
+and similar unions less harmful. Yet Morgan supposes them to have been
+prohibited in favour of brother and sister unions.
+
+Mr Morgan's reformation therefore turns out to have been no reformation
+at all, but a retrograde step. Assuming however that the facts were as
+he supposed them to be, and that the reformation was a real one, it is
+by no means clear how he supposes it to have been brought about. It was,
+as we have seen, an unconscious[150] reformation; it is not supposed
+therefore that the primeval savage detected more pronounced signs of
+degeneracy in the offspring of one class of union and by the force of
+public opinion caused such unions to fall into disrepute and ultimately
+into desuetude. So far as can be seen the method which Mr Morgan had in
+his mind was this: certain unions resulted in offspring less able to
+maintain the struggle for existence, and these families consequently
+tended to die out. Other unions--those of sisters and brothers--on the
+other hand produced more vigorous children, and tended to perpetuate
+themselves. Whereas originally there was no tendency either one way or
+the other, some families developed from unknown causes, which, whatever
+they were, were neither moral nor utilitarian, the practice of brother
+and sister marriage. This diathesis followed the ordinary laws of
+descent, and eventually those families which were fortunate enough to be
+affected in that way exterminated their rivals.
+
+Now, as will be shown immediately, this course of events seems to be in
+contradiction with the facts of savage society at the present day and
+with all probability. Apart from that however, how does Mr Morgan
+suppose his eugenic diathesis to be transmitted? It can hardly be
+maintained that this was the result of the different social conditions
+of the families in which brothers and sisters intermarried. Obviously
+there would be nothing to prevent the male in one of these unions from
+reverting to the other type of marriage. This would indeed be highly
+probable for reasons to be developed in the next paragraph. But if
+social conditions were not the determining factor, we are left with the
+somewhat grotesque theory of innate ideas. It is hardly necessary to
+refute this origin of social evolution.
+
+Perhaps the strongest objection, however, to Mr Morgan's theory is the
+fact that in the most primitive communities the female tends to be
+younger, often much younger, than her mate. It is a readily
+ascertainable fact, though it seems to have been neglected by Mr Morgan,
+that the age of puberty does not coincide with the greatest development
+of the physical powers, but precedes it in the human subject by many
+years. The result of this is that the younger males are, as a rule, in
+the case of many mammals, held in subjection by the patriarch of the
+herd, the result being what I have termed above patriarchal polygyny, as
+long as the old male retains his powers. We have, it is true, no
+evidence of any such conditions among the anthropoids; but it must not
+be forgotten that we have no evidence of the consanguine family either
+among anthropoids, other mammals or human beings.
+
+It tells against the hypothesis of patriarchal polygyny that both among
+horses and among camels there is evidence of the existence of actual
+sexual aversion between both sire and filly and dam and colt in the
+first case; and, as Aristotle tells us, at least between dam and colt in
+the case of camels; but we can hardly argue from Ungulata to Primates.
+
+However this may be, the objections to Morgan's theories do not lose
+their strength. Enough has perhaps been said of them from the point of
+view of theory. We may look at them in the light of the known facts of
+social evolution among races of low stages of culture.
+
+If we now turn for a moment to see what light Australian facts throw on
+the first two stages postulated by Mr Morgan, we find that the
+theoretical objections are amply supported by the course of evolution
+which can be traced in Australian social regulations. It will be
+recollected that in his view father-daughter marriage disappeared first,
+then brother and sister marriage. Totemism apart, there are in
+Australia, as we have seen, two kinds of organisation for the regulation
+of marriage--phratries, the dichotomous division of the southern tribes,
+and classes, the four-fold or eight-fold division of the other areas as
+to which we have any knowledge. Of these the phratry is demonstrably
+older than the class. But the result of the division of a tribe into two
+phratries is to prevent brother and sister marriage, while, so far as
+phratry rules are concerned, father and daughter are still free to marry
+in those tribes where the descent is matrilineal. The result (though not
+necessarily the original object) of the class-system, on the other hand,
+is to prevent the marriage of fathers and daughters and generally of the
+older generation with the younger, so far as the classes actually
+represent generations. In actual practice the class into which a man may
+marry includes females of all ages, so that he is only debarred from
+marrying young females if they are his own daughters. But if we may
+assume that the original object of the classes was to prevent the
+intermarriage of different generations, it is at once obvious that in
+Australia the evolution postulated by Mr Morgan, if it took place at
+all, took place in reverse order, the brother and sister marriage being
+the first to be brought under the ban.
+
+The objections to which attention has been called seem to make it
+difficult if not impossible to accept Morgan's explanations either of
+the processes or of the causes which led to the passage from promiscuity
+to communal marriage.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[145] This is not really material.
+
+[146] Properly speaking these are not stages in the same sense as the
+other forms.
+
+[147] See note 2 on previous page. [Transcriber's Note: Refers to [146]]
+
+[148] We find that in practice change of age grade, i.e. of relationship
+term, does exist; a clearer proof could not be given that the term of
+relationship has nothing to do with descent.
+
+[149] _Wiener Med. Wochenschrift_, 1904; cf. _Fort. Rev._ LXXXIII, 460,
+n. 18. There is, as Mr Lang informs me, a curious Panama case in records
+of the Darien expedition, 1699.
+
+[150] Sometimes but usually not, for Morgan is utterly inconsistent.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.
+
+Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. _Noa._ Group Mothers.
+ Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms
+ express status. The savage view natural.
+
+
+We may now turn to consider the terms of relationship from the point of
+view of marriage, more especially in connection with Australia. We have
+already seen that there are great difficulties in the way of Morgan's
+hypothesis that the names accurately represent the relations which
+formerly existed in the tribes which used them. I propose to discuss the
+matter here from a somewhat different standpoint.
+
+It seems highly probable that if any individual term came into use,
+whether monogamy, patriarchal polygyny, "group marriage," or promiscuity
+prevailed, it would be that which expresses the relationship of a mother
+to her child. The only other possibility would be that in the first two
+conditions mentioned the relation of husband to wife might take
+precedence.
+
+In actual practice we find that the name which a mother applies to her
+own child is applied by her equally to the children of the women whom
+her husband might have married. This state of things may obviously arise
+from one of three causes, (_a_) In the first place the name may have
+been originally that which a mother applied to her own son, and it may
+have been extended to those who were her nephews in a state of monogamy,
+or stepsons (=sons of other women by the same father) in a state of
+polygyny either with or without polyandry. (_b_) The theory that a name
+was applied originally to own and collateral relatives has already been
+discussed, so far as it refers to the "undivided commune." The case of
+regulated promiscuity is different and must be considered here. (_c_) On
+the other hand the name which she uses may have been expressive of
+tribal status or group status, and may have had nothing to do with
+descent.
+
+It is unnecessary to say much about the first of these possibilities.
+First, there is no evidence to show that such a thing has taken place;
+secondly, we can see no reason why such a thing should take place;
+thirdly, if such a change of meaning did take place, it is quite clear
+that we have no grounds for regarding the philological evidence for
+group marriage as having the slightest significance.
+
+In connection with the second hypothesis--that the names actually
+represent the relations formerly existing, it may be well to preface the
+discussion by a few remarks on the regulation of marriage in Australia.
+The rules by which the Australian native is bound, when he sets out to
+choose a wife, make the area of choice as a rule dependent on his
+status, that is to say, he must, in order to find a wife, go to another
+phratry, class, totem-kin, or combination of two of these, membership of
+which depends on descent, direct or indirect; on the other hand he may
+be limited by regulations dependent on locality, that is to say he may
+have to take a wife from a group resident in a certain area. There is
+reason to suppose that the latter regulations are the outcome of earlier
+status regulations which have fallen into desuetude. However this may
+be, all that we are here concerned with is the fact that regulations in
+this case also are virtually dependent on descent, inasmuch as a man is
+not in practice free to reside where he likes, but remains in his own
+group, though occasionally he joins that of his wife (this does not
+apparently affect the exogamic rule). The groups are therefore to all
+intents and purposes totem-kins with male descent.
+
+Taking the Kurnai as our example of the non-class-organised groups, we
+find that the fraternal relationship once started goes on for ever; the
+result of this is that with few exceptions the whole of the
+intermarrying groups, so far as they are of the same generation, are
+brothers and sisters. Dr Howitt, whose authority on matters of
+Australian ethnology is final, recognises that on the principles on
+which group marriage is deduced from terms of relationship, this fact
+should point to the Kurnai being yet in the stage of the undivided
+commune (why, it is difficult to see, when they are definitely
+exogamous), but regards the argument from terms of relationship as
+untrustworthy in this instance. If it is not reliable in one case it may
+well be unreliable in all; we are entitled to ask supporters of the
+hypothesis of group marriage what differentiates this case from those in
+which they have no doubt of the validity of the philological argument.
+
+Now if Dr Howitt's doubts as to the interpretation to be put upon the
+Kurnai terms of relationship are correct, we may reasonably, in the
+absence of proof that they originated in a different way from the
+Malayan terms, ask ourselves upon what basis the case for promiscuity
+rests. Beyond a few customs, and it will be shown below that it is
+unnecessary to regard them as survivals of a period when marriage was
+unknown, the proof is purely philological, and on examination the
+philological proof is found to be wanting.
+
+Dr Howitt, in his recent book, rests the case for the undivided commune
+(i.e. promiscuity) on the Australian terms of relationship which he
+discusses, viz. those of the Dieri and the Kurnai. He will not admit
+that the Kurnai terms point to the undivided commune; we are therefore
+left with the Dieri terms. But the Dieri organisation, so far from being
+that of an undivided commune, is the two-phratry arrangement by which a
+man is by no means free to marry any woman in his tribe, but is limited
+to one-half of the women; further, tribal customs limit his choice still
+further and compel him to marry his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter (these terms do not refer to blood but so-called
+"tribal" relationship, i.e. it is a woman with a certain tribal status
+whom he has to marry). Where then does Dr Howitt find his proof of
+promiscuity?
+
+We have, it is true, a certain number of tribal legends, according to
+which the phratry organisation was instituted to prevent the marriage
+of too near kin. But, quite apart from the fact that tribal legends are
+not evidence, the legends merely point to a period when marriage was
+unregulated, when a man was free to marry any woman, not when he was _de
+facto_ or _de jure_ the husband of every woman. Even if it be proved
+beyond question that marriage was once unregulated, it does not follow
+that promiscuity prevailed.
+
+The existence of the undivided commune is a proof of promiscuity only
+for those who discover proofs of group marriage in the divided commune,
+in other words in the terms of relationship and the customs of the
+ordinary two-phratry tribe of the present day. We may therefore let the
+decision of the question of the validity of terms of relationship as a
+proof of extensive connubial activities rest upon the discussion of the
+evidence to be drawn from the tribes selected by Dr Howitt and Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen, viz. the Dieri and the Urabunna.
+
+It may however be pointed out that neither of these writers has dealt
+with the passage from promiscuity to "group marriage," nor shown how
+under the former system terms of relationship could come into existence
+at all. With the difficulties we have dealt above.
+
+We must now revert to the question of the origin of the so-called "terms
+of relationship." Are they expressive of kinship or only of status and
+duties? Neither Lewis Morgan nor the authorities on Australian marriage
+customs--Dr Howitt and Messrs Spencer and Gillen--discuss the question
+at length, but seem to regard it as an axiom (although they warn us that
+all European ideas of relationship must be dismissed when we deal with
+the classificatory system) that all these terms may be interpreted on
+the hypothesis that the European relationships to which they most nearly
+correspond actually existed in former times, not, as in Europe, between
+individuals, but between groups. The case on which Spencer and Gillen
+rely is that of the _unawa_ relationship. They argue that a man is
+_unawa_ to a whole group of women, one of whom is his individual wife;
+for this individual wife no special name exists, she is just _unawa_
+(=_noa_) like all the other women he might have married. Consequently
+the marital relation must have existed formerly between the man in
+question and the whole group of _unawa_ women. The reasoning does not
+seem absolutely conclusive, and our doubts as to the validity of the
+argument are strengthened when we apply it to another case and find the
+results inconsistent with facts which are known to the lowest savage.
+Not only has a man only one name for the women he might have married,
+and for the woman he actually did marry, but a mother has only one name
+for the son she actually bore, and for the sons of the women who, if
+they had become her husband's wives, would have borne him sons in her
+stead. From this fact by parity of reasoning we must draw the obvious
+conclusion that during the period when group marriage was the rule,
+individual mothers were unknown. If we are entitled to conclude from the
+fact that a man's wife bears the same name for him as all the other
+women whom he might have married, that he at one time was the husband of
+them all, then we are obviously equally entitled to conclude, from the
+fact that a woman's son is known to her by the same name as the sons of
+other women, either that during the period of group marriage she
+actually bore the sons of the other women or that the whole group of
+women produced their sons by their joint efforts. Finding that the term
+which is translated "son" is equally applied by the remainder of the
+group of women to the son of the individual woman, whose case we have
+been considering, we may discard the former hypothesis and come to the
+conclusion that if there was a period of group marriage there was also
+one of group motherhood. This interesting fact may be commended to the
+attention of zoologists.
+
+It is perhaps unnecessary to pursue the argument any further. The single
+point on which Spencer and Gillen rely is sufficiently refuted by a
+single _reductio ad absurdum_. If more proof is needed it may be found
+in Dr Howitt's work[151]. We learn from him that a man is the younger
+brother of his maternal grandmother, and consequently the maternal
+grandfather of his second cousin. Surely it is not possible in this case
+to contend that the "terms of relationship" are expressive of anything
+but duties and status. It seems unreasonable to maintain in the
+interests of an hypothesis that a man can be his own great uncle and
+the son of more than one mother.
+
+From the foregoing discussion it will be clear that there are very
+grave, if not insurmountable, difficulties in the way of regarding the
+"terms of relationship" as being in reality such. In reply to those who
+regard them as status terms it is urged that if they are not terms of
+relationship, then the savages have no terms of any sort to express
+relationships which we regard as obvious, the implication being that
+this is unthinkable.
+
+Now in the first place it may be pointed out that the converse is
+certainly true. Civilised man has a large number of terms of
+relationship, but he has none for such ideas as _noa_; a boy has no term
+for all men who might have been his father; a woman has no name for the
+children of all women who might have married her husband, if she had not
+anticipated them. To the savage this is just as unthinkable as the
+converse seems to be to some civilised men.
+
+In the second place it is perfectly obvious that the savage has, as a
+matter of fact, no names for the quite unmistakeable relationship of
+mother and child. The name which an Australian mother applies to her
+son, she applies equally to the sons of all other women of her own
+status; the name which a son applies to his mother, he applies equally
+to all the women of her status, whether married or unmarried, in old
+age, middle life, youth, or infancy. If there is no term for this
+relation we can hardly argue that the absence of terms for other
+relations is unthinkable.
+
+Morgan attempted to meet this objection by urging that in a state of
+promiscuity a woman would apply the same name to the children of other
+women as to her own, because they were or might be by the same father.
+But in the first place this assumes that the relationship to the father
+was considered rather than the relationship to the mother, and this is
+against all analogy. In the second place, even granting Morgan's
+postulate, the relation of a mother to her son is not that of a wife to
+the children of other wives of a polygynous husband. Poverty of language
+is therefore established in this case, and may be taken for granted
+where the obvious relationships are concerned.
+
+It has been pointed out more than once that there are grave difficulties
+in the way of any hypothesis which assumes that terms of relationship,
+properly so called, were evolved in a state of pure promiscuity. It has
+now been shown that no intelligible account of the meaning of such terms
+can be given, even if we dismiss the difficulties just mentioned and
+assume that terms were somehow or other evolved, and a transition
+effected to a state of regulated promiscuity. If on the other hand we
+regard the "terms of relationship" as originally indicative of tribal
+status and suppose they have been transformed in the course of ages into
+"descriptive" terms such as we use in everyday life, the difficulties
+vanish.
+
+For one proof of this hypothesis we need look no further than the terms
+of relationship applied by a mother to her own (and other) children, an
+illustration which has already done duty more than once. It is
+abundantly clear that what this term expresses is not relationship but
+status, the relation of one generation to the next in the Malayan
+system, of the half of a generation to the next generation in the same
+moiety of the tribe among the Dieri, and so on.
+
+It is admitted even by believers in group marriage that the terms of
+relationship do not correspond to anything actually existing; beyond the
+"survivals" which we shall consider below, they can produce no shadow of
+proof that the terms ever did correspond to actual relationships, as
+they understand them. They can give no proof whatever that they did not
+express status.
+
+It is therefore a fair hypothesis that _unawa_ (_noa_) and similar terms
+express status and not relationship. From the example of mother and son
+we see that the Australian does not select for distinction by a special
+term that bond which is most obvious both to him and us. It is therefore
+by no means surprising that by _unawa_ he should mean, not the existence
+of marital relations, but their possibility, from a 'legal' point of
+view. Just as he is struck, not by the genetic relation between mother
+and son, but by the fact that they belong to different generations, so
+in the case of husband and wife the _existence_ of marital relations
+between them is neglected, and the point selected for emphasis is the
+_legality_ of such marital relations, whether existent or not.
+
+It is singular that anyone should regard this savage view of life as
+anything but natural. For the Australian the due observance of the
+marriage regulations is a tribal matter; their breach, whether the
+connection be by marriage or free love, is a matter of more than private
+concern. The relations of a man with his legal wife however concern
+other members of the tribe but little. Public opinion among the Dieri,
+it is true, condemns the unfaithful wife, but her punishment is left to
+the husband; among the Kamilaroi the tribe indeed takes the matter up
+but only on the complaint of the husband; and generally speaking it is
+the husband who, possibly with his totemic brethren, pursues the
+abductor. We have therefore in this insistence on the legal status of
+the couple and the comparative indifference to the husband's rights a
+sufficiently exact parallel to the insistence on status and not marital
+relations in the use of the term _unawa_.
+
+The course of evolution has been, not, as group-marriagers contend, from
+group to individual terms of relationship but from terms descriptive of
+status to terms descriptive of relationship.
+
+It is, in fact, on any hypothesis, impossible to deny this. Whatever
+terms of relationship may have meant in the past, no believer in group
+marriage contends that they represent anything actually existing. But
+this is equivalent to admitting that they express status and not
+relationship, and no proof has ever been given that they were ever
+anything else.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[151] p. 163.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+PIRRAURU.
+
+Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
+ marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
+ _pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
+ Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
+ _Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
+ scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_:
+ obscure points.
+
+
+We now come to the marriage customs of the Australian natives of the
+present day and the supposed survivals of group marriage. In dealing
+with the question of group marriage we are met with a preliminary
+difficulty. No one has formulated a definition of this state, and the
+interpretations of the term are very diverse.
+
+Fison, for example, says[152] group marriage does not necessarily imply
+actual giving in marriage or cohabitation; all it means is a marital
+right or rather qualification which comes by birth. He argues however on
+a later page[153] that Nair polyandry, which is more properly termed
+promiscuity, is group marriage. Much the same view is taken by A.H.
+Post[154], who regards the theory of pure promiscuity and the undivided
+commune as untenable.
+
+Kohler, on the other hand[155], speaks of group marriage as existing
+among the Omahas, a patrilineal tribe, be it remarked; but means by that
+no more than adelphic polygyny.
+
+Spencer and Gillen criticise Westermarck's use of the term "pretended
+group marriage" and assert it to be a fact among the Urabunna. On the
+very next page group marriage is spoken of as having preceded the
+present state of things. Both statements cannot be true.
+
+For the purposes of the present work I understand group marriage to mean
+promiscuity limited by regulations based on organisations such as
+age-grades, phratries, totem-kins, or local groups.
+
+The fact is that Spencer and Gillen and other writers on Australia use
+the term group merely as a noun of multitude. They do not mean by group,
+in one sense, anything more than a number of persons. In this sense they
+speak of group marriage (=polygamy) at the present day--a fact which is
+not peculiar to Australia and which no one is concerned to deny. By a
+quite illegitimate transformation of meaning they also apply the term
+group to a portion of a tribe distinguished by a class name and (or or)
+term of relationship and mean by group marriage class promiscuity. They
+do not even perceive that they make this transition, for otherwise
+Messrs Spencer and Gillen could hardly assail Dr Westermarck for using
+the term "pretended group marriage" which is quite accurate as a
+description of group (=class) marriage or promiscuity. Even if there
+were justification for assuming that group marriage (=polygamy) is a
+lineal descendant of group marriage (=class promiscuity), nothing would
+be gained by using the term group marriage of both. In the subsequent
+discussion it will be made clear that whatever their causal connection,
+there is hardly a single point of similarity between them beyond the
+fact that the sexual relations are in neither case monogamous. It is
+therefore to be hoped that the supporters of the hypothesis of group
+marriage will in the future encourage clear thinking by not using the
+same term for different forms of sexual union.
+
+I now proceed to discuss the alleged survival of group marriage and
+other Australian marriage customs.
+
+Taking the Dieri tribe as our example the following state of things is
+found to prevail. The tribe is divided into exogamous moieties, Matteri
+and Kararu; subject to restrictions dependent on kinship, with which we
+are not immediately concerned, any Matteri may marry any Kararu. A
+reciprocal term, _noa_[156], is in use to denote the status of those who
+may marry each other. This _noa_ relationship is sometimes cited as a
+proof of the existence of group marriage. As a matter of fact it is no
+more evidence of group marriage than the fact that a man is _noa_ to all
+the unmarried women of England except a few, is proof of the existence
+of group marriage in England; or the fact that _femme_ in French means
+both wife and woman is an argument for the existence of promiscuity in
+France in Roman or post-Roman times.
+
+A ceremony, usually performed in infancy or childhood, changes the
+relationship of a _noa_ male and female from _noa-mara_ to
+_tippa-malku_. The step is taken by the mothers with the concurrence of
+the girl's maternal uncles, and is in fact betrothal. Apparently no
+further ceremony is necessary to constitute a marriage. At any rate
+nothing is said as to that.
+
+In connection with this form of marriage there are two points of
+importance to be noted. The first is that whereas a man may have as many
+_tippa-malku_ wives as he can get, a woman cannot have more than one
+_tippa-malku_ husband, at any rate not at the same time. After the
+husband's death she may again enter into the _tippa-malku_ relation. The
+second point is that the _tippa-malku_ relation must precede the
+_pirrauru_ relation, of which I shall speak in a moment, and cannot
+succeed it[157].
+
+There are unfortunately many points in Dr Howitt's narrative which
+demand elucidation. He says, for example, that _noa_ individuals become
+"_tippa-malku_ for the time being[158]." This suggests, probably
+erroneously, that the _tippa-malku_ relation is merely temporary; but I
+am unable to say whether it in reality means that the _tippa-malku_
+relation is terminated by the capture of the woman, or that divorce is
+practised and may terminate the relationship at the will of the man only
+or of both parties.
+
+Another point on which we have no information is the position of the
+unmarried girls and widows. Free love is permitted, the only
+limitation[159] given by Dr Howitt being that the man (who must of
+course have passed through the Mindari ceremony) must not be
+_tippa-malku_ to the girl, but must be _noa-mara_. It would be
+interesting to know whether girls in the _tippa-malku_ relation before
+actual marriage are at liberty to have sexual relations with any men of
+the right status or only with unmarried men, or whether the privilege is
+restricted to those who are not yet _tippa-malku_ to any one, and how
+far the same restriction applies to the men.
+
+Any man who has been duly initiated, whether he is married to a
+_tippa-malku_ wife or not, and any woman who has a _tippa-malku_
+husband[160], can enter or be put into a relation termed _pirrauru_ with
+one or more persons of the opposite sex. The effect of the
+ceremony--termed _kandri_--is to give to the _pirrauru_ spouses the
+position of subsidiary husbands and wives, whose rights take precedence
+of the _tippa-malku_ rights at tribal gatherings, but at other times can
+only be exercised in the absence of the _tippa-malku_ spouse, or, when
+the male is unmarried, with the permission of the _tippa-malku_ husband
+of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
+
+The _pirrauru_ relation is, for the woman, a modification of a
+previously existing _tippa-malku_ marriage; that being so, it cannot be
+quoted as evidence of a more pristine state of things in which she was
+by birth the legal and actual spouse of all men of a certain tribal
+status.
+
+The _pirrauru_ relation falls under two heads of the classification I
+have given above, according as the man has or has not a _tippa-malku_
+wife. In the first case, it is, taken in combination with the
+_tippa-malku_ marriage, a case of bi-lateral adelphic dissimilar (M. and
+F.) polygamy. In the latter it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal)
+polyandry, adelphic being taken here, be it noted, in the sense of
+tribal, and possibly, but not necessarily, own brother.
+
+Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes
+contradictory. We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a _pirrauru_
+is always a brother's wife or a wife's sister (they are usually the
+same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their
+wives[161]. But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can
+also become _pirraurus_. It appears further that a woman may ask for a
+_pirrauru_, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear. It
+is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the
+arrangement. Further we find that important men have many _pirrauru_
+wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention.
+Then again we are told that when two new _pirrauru_ pairs are allotted
+to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted. Are we to understand
+from this that the allocation of new _pirraurus_ is a rare event or that
+the _pirrauru_ relationship is a very temporary affair? Or does
+re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over? If the latter,
+the terminology is very unfortunate. Gason's statement is perfectly
+clear: once a _pirrauru_, always a _pirrauru_[162]. Again does it imply
+that the wishes[163] of the already existing _pirraurus_ are consulted
+in the matter or not? If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy
+between _pirraurus_, especially when one of them (the male) is
+unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one
+another. Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother's wife
+as his _pirrauru_, giving presents to his brother. Does this imply that
+the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse
+it, or that it is purchased? Again we read "a man is privileged to
+obtain a number of wives from his _noas_ in common with the other men of
+his group, while a woman's wish can only be carried out with the consent
+of her _tippa-malku_ husband." This latter statement clearly implies
+that a man can obtain a _pirrauru_ without the consent of the
+_tippa-malku_ husband, but this contradicts what has already been told
+us about the exchange by brothers of their wives. Exchange is clearly
+not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the
+matter, it is rather a transfer. These are by no means all the unsettled
+questions on which light is needed. What, for example, is the position
+of a _pirrauru_ wife whose _tippa-malku_ husband dies? Does she pass to
+a new _tippa-malku_ husband? If so, must he be an ex-_pirrauru_? Does
+she continue in the _pirrauru_ relation to her former _pirraurus_,
+regardless of her new husband's wishes? Can the _pirrauru_ relationship
+be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?
+
+With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves
+fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special
+ceremony is necessary to make the _pirrauru_ relation legal; this is
+performed by the head or heads of the men's totems, and need not be
+described here.
+
+With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the
+_tippa-malku_ spouse always takes precedence of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
+Where two men are _pirrauru_ to the same woman, the _tippa-malku_
+husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share
+his rights and duties with the younger. It is the duty of the _pirrauru_
+husband to protect a woman during the absence of her _tippa-malku_
+husband.
+
+A woman cannot refuse to take a _pirrauru_ who has been regularly
+allotted to her. In her _tippa-malku_ husband's absence the _pirrauru_
+husband takes his place as a matter of right. He cannot however take her
+away from the _tippa-malku_ husband without his consent except at
+certain ceremonial times[164]. One other fact may be noted. An
+influential man hires out his _pirraurus_ to those who have none.
+
+Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well
+to mention the analogous customs of the only two tribes outside the
+Dieri nation where the same relation is asserted to exist, and certain
+cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all probability, as on the same
+level as the _pirrauru_ custom. In the Kurnandaburi, according to an
+informant of Dr Howitt's, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers
+and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united,
+apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe
+assembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other times[165].
+
+Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with
+his sister-in-law (wife's sister or brother's wife), although they are
+in the relation of _Kodi-molli_ and practise a modified avoidance. This
+he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage. It is not however clear
+that it is more than what we have called a liaison. Our authority does
+not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet
+that any ceremony initiates the relations[166]. In the absence of these
+details we cannot regard his view as probable. It may however be noted
+that the widow in this tribe passes to the brother.
+
+The only other case of "group marriage" which Dr Howitt gives[167] is in
+the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland. Here however, so far from being
+group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic
+polyandry. A man's unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties,
+the child is said to term them its father. It may however be pointed out
+that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would
+do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any
+other man besides the primary husband.
+
+It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we
+have is neither precise nor free from contradiction. A most essential
+point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the
+_pirrauru_ relationship. Among the Dieri the men may be of different
+totems. Is this the case among the Wakelbura? Was it always the case
+among the Dieri?
+
+Before we leave Dr Howitt's work it is necessary to refer again to the
+Kurnai. The most important point in connection with the Kurnai, so far
+as the present work is concerned, is that, contradictory to Bulmer's
+statement[168] that unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives,
+and sometimes even married men, Dr Howitt mentions[169] as a singular
+fact that he recalls one instance of a wife being lent in that tribe.
+
+Dr Howitt however holds that there are traces of group marriage in the
+tribe, and refers to the fact that the term _maian_[170] is applied to a
+wife by her husband and by his brother, whose "official wife[171]" she
+is thus declared to be, and that a brother takes his deceased brother's
+widow. He regards this rather unfortunately named custom of the levirate
+as having its root in group marriage. Now _maian_ is applied, not only
+by a husband to a wife, but by a wife to her husband's sister, and by a
+sister to her brother's wife. If therefore the use of the term proves
+anything, it proves, not group marriage, as Dr Howitt understands it,
+but promiscuity, the prior existence of the undivided commune, and this,
+as we have seen, Dr Howitt declines to accept on the strength of the
+philological argument.
+
+We are therefore reduced to the levirate as a proof of the former
+existence of group marriage. But there is nothing whatever to show that
+it is not a case of inheritance of property. For the Australians, as for
+many other savage peoples, the married state is the only thinkable one
+for the adult, and that being so it is natural for the widow to remarry.
+She has however been purchased by the exchange of a woman in the
+relation of sister to the deceased, and if the widow were allowed to
+pass to another group, the property thus acquired would be alienated.
+Moreover the marriage regulations require the woman to marry only a
+tribal brother of the deceased. It is therefore in every way natural for
+a brother to succeed to a brother. No arguments for the prior existence
+of group marriage can be founded on the levirate, any more than an
+argument for primitive communism can be founded on other laws of
+inheritance. At most the _maian_ relationship is evidence of adelphic
+polygyny[172].
+
+For the Urabunna we depend on the information gained by Spencer and
+Gillen on their first expedition. Here the circle from which a man takes
+his wife is much more restricted than among the Dieri. Not only is he
+bound to choose a woman of the other moiety of the tribe, but he is
+restricted to a certain totem[173] in that moiety, and to the daughters
+of his mother's elder brothers (tribal) in that totem. Hence although
+the _kami_ relationship of the Dieri is unknown among the Urabunna, the
+choice among the latter is more limited.
+
+The marriageable group is termed _nupa_ by both men and women; in
+addition to the _nupa_ relationship and the unnamed individual marriage,
+into which a man enters with one or more of his _nupa_, there is the
+_piraungaru_ relationship, corresponding to the _pirrauru_ of the Dieri.
+In each case the elder brothers of the woman decide who are to have the
+primary and who the secondary right to the female. In the case of the
+_piraungaru_ however the matter requires confirmation by the old men of
+the tribe. The circumstances under which the _piraungaru_ claims take
+the first rank are not stated by Messrs Spencer and Gillen; the
+statement that a man lends his _piraungaru_ need not, of course, refer
+to times at which he himself cannot claim the right of access[174].
+
+We may now turn to a discussion of the bearing of the facts just cited
+on the question of "group marriage." The first point is naturally that
+of nomenclature, and we at once recognise that among the Dieri the
+relations of the _pirrauru_ are not marriage, either on the definition
+suggested by Dr Westermarck or on that given in Chapter XI of the
+present work. If two _tippa-malku_ pairs are reciprocally in _pirrauru_,
+the only relations between them, unless the _tippa-malku_ husbands
+absent themselves or are complaisant, are, strictly speaking, those of
+temporary regulated polygamy or promiscuity, and rather a restriction
+than an extension of similar customs in other tribes, as I shall show
+below.
+
+A second point of a similar nature is that the parties to a _pirrauru_
+union are in no sense a group[175]. They are not united by any bond,
+local, totemistic, tribal, or otherwise. The theoretical "group
+marriage"--the union of all the _noa_--does, in a sense, refer to a
+group, though this term properly refers rather to a body of people
+distinguished by residence or some other _local_ differentia from other
+persons or groups. But no distinction of this kind can in any sense be
+affirmed of the _pirrauru_ spouses; it cannot be said of them that they
+are in any way distinguished from the remainder of their tribe, phratry,
+class or totem-kin. From this it follows that the term class-marriage
+cannot be applied to the relation between the _pirrauru_, nor yet class
+promiscuity; the _pirrauru_, though members of a certain class, do not
+include all members of that class.
+
+Turning now to the custom itself, let us examine how far it presents any
+marks of being a survival of a previous state of class promiscuity.
+_Pirrauru_ relations are regarded by Dr Howitt and others as survivals
+from a previous stage of "group," by which we must, presumably,
+understand class or status marriage, or promiscuity. So far as they are
+evidence of this, the _pirrauru_ customs are certainly important. If
+however it cannot be shown that they probably point to some form of
+promiscuity, they have but little importance except as a freak or
+exceptional development of polyandry and polygyny.
+
+Let us recall the distinguishing features of the _pirrauru_ union. They
+are (1) consent of the husband (?); (2) recognition by the totem-kin
+through its head-man; (3) temporary character[176]; (4) priority of the
+_tippa-malku_ union in the case of the woman; (5) purchase of _pirrauru_
+rights by (_a_) the brother who becomes a widower, and (_b_) visitors or
+others without _pirraurus_ of their own, the rights being in the latter
+case for a very short period and not dependent on recognition by the
+totem-kin, so far as Dr Howitt's narrative is a guide. Now unless "group
+marriage" was very different from what it is commonly represented to be,
+the essence of it was that all the men of one class had sexual rights
+over the women of another class. How far does this picture coincide with
+the features of the _pirrauru_, which is regarded as a survival of it?
+In the first place _pirrauru_ is created by a ceremony, which is
+performed, not by the head, nor even in the Wakelbura tribe, by a member
+of the supposed intermarried classes of the earlier period; but by the
+heads of the totem-kins of the individual men concerned. Now it is quite
+unthinkable that the right of class promiscuity, to use the correct
+term, should ever have been exercised subject to any such restriction;
+even were it otherwise the performance of the ceremony would more
+naturally fall into the hands of tribal, phratriac, or class authorities
+than of the heads of totem-kins. Then too if _pirrauru_ is a survival of
+group marriage we should expect the ceremony to be performed for the
+_tippa-malku_ union and not for the _pirrauru_.
+
+Again if _tippa-malku_ is later and _pirrauru_ earlier, what is the
+meaning of the regulation that the woman must first be united in
+_tippa-malku_ marriage before she can enter into the _pirrauru_
+relationship? On the "group marriage" theory this fact demands to be
+explained, no less than the different position of men and women in this
+respect. We have seen that freedom in sexual matters is accorded to both
+bachelors and spinsters. It is therefore from no sense of the value of
+chastity, from no jealousy of the future _tippa-malku_ husband's rights,
+that the female is excluded from the _pirrauru_ relation until she has a
+husband.
+
+Again, if _pirrauru_ is a relic of former rights, now restricted to a
+few of the group which formerly exercised them, why is the husband's
+consent needed before the _pirrauru_ relation is set up, and why is the
+_pirrauru_ relation, once established, not permanent (assuming that my
+reading of Dr Howitt is right)?
+
+Once more, if _pirrauru_ is a right, how comes it that a brother has to
+purchase the right, when he becomes a widower[177]? What too is the
+meaning of the transference of _pirrauru_ women to strangers in return
+for gifts?
+
+All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival
+theory, and we may add to them the fact that the _tippa-malku_ husband,
+so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains
+his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother's
+brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are
+not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the
+introduction of individual marriage. When we consider that the _jus
+primae noctis_ is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the
+position of the _tippa-malku_ husband and the method in which he obtains
+his wife are exceedingly instructive.
+
+Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what
+other way the facts can be explained. The unfortunate lack of detail to
+which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any
+counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from
+the facts already at our disposal. We have seen that in the Wakelbura
+tribe, so far from the condition being one of "group marriage," it is
+one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry. Now it is by no means easy to see
+how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which,
+according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity. On the
+other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found
+in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other
+regions, the result of a scarcity of women[178], or, what is the same
+thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the
+independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28
+or 30.
+
+With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is
+required to purchase his _pirrauru_ rights, that the young man without
+_pirrauru_ wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one
+of his _pirrauru_ spouses, and that the _tippa-malku_ marriage always
+precedes the _pirrauru_ relation in the female. It may indeed be urged
+against the view that the purchase of a temporary _pirrauru_ is in fact
+not a case of _pirrauru_ at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of
+hospitality among savage nations. This is no doubt the case and we might
+merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of sexual
+rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia. Looked at from another
+point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive. So
+far as Dr Howitt's statements go, the husband of the _pirrauru_ who is
+thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter. The _pirrauru_
+husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she
+were a slave. On the theory of group marriage the _tippa-malku_ husband
+has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the _pirrauru_
+husband. In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the
+transaction. It is true that in the case we are considering the
+_pirrauru_ husband seems to have exceptional privileges, for we have
+seen that under ordinary circumstances the _tippa-malku_ husband has
+exclusive rights at ordinary times. But we must probably understand the
+passage to mean that the lending of _pirraurus_ takes place at tribal
+meetings[179] or on other occasions when the right of the husband is in
+abeyance. In either case, the facts tell far more strongly in favour of
+the view suggested here than in favour of group marriage.
+
+There is another factor to be considered. Abductions and elopements are
+merely ordinary amenities of married life among the aborigines of
+Australia. We have seen that it is the duty of the _pirrauru_ husband to
+protect the wife during the absence of the _tippa-malku_ husband.
+Clearly this is a sort of insurance against the too bold suitor or the
+too fickle wife, unless indeed the _pirrauru_ himself is the offender, a
+point on which Dr Howitt has nothing to say, though Mr Siebert's
+evidence may be fairly interpreted to mean that such occurrences are
+not known.
+
+We shall see below in connection with the question of the _jus primae
+noctis_ that special privileges are sometimes accorded to men of the
+husband's totem or class in return for assistance in capturing the wife.
+Now assuming that a wife is abducted or elopes, it is, I think, on the
+same persons that the duty of aiding the injured husband would fall.
+Whether this is so or not, the men of his own totem are those with whom
+a man's relations are, in most tribes, the closest. We have seen that
+the heads of the totem-kins play an important part in assigning
+_pirraurus_. Now although it is actually the practice for men of
+different totems to exchange wives, it by no means follows that it was
+always the case. The element of adelphic polyandry, for example, may
+well have upset the original relations and brought about a practice of
+exchange between men of different totems. At any rate the theory here
+suggested affords an explanation of the part played by the totem
+headmen, and on the theory of group marriage their share in the
+transaction remains absolutely mysterious.
+
+In connection with these possible explanations of the _pirrauru_ custom,
+it is important to observe that there are duties in regard to food owed
+by the _pirrauru_ wife to her spouse, when her husband is absent. Now it
+is hardly conceivable that in a state of "group marriage" any such
+practice should have obtained. A woman would doubtless have collected
+food for the man with whom she was actually cohabiting; but in the case
+of the _pirrauru_ relation, the absence of the _tippa-malku_ wife of her
+_pirrauru_ spouse must coincide with the absence of her own
+_tippa-malku_ husband before this position is reached. So long as only
+one _tippa-malku_ partner is absent, the _pirrauru_ spouse is under the
+obligation of lightening the labours of the woman whose place she
+sometimes occupies, and this is very far from what we should expect in
+the "group marriage" stage.
+
+On the whole therefore I conclude that the _pirrauru_ relation affords
+absolutely no evidence of a prior stage of group marriage. So far from
+the quantity of evidence for group marriage having been increased by Dr
+Howitt's recent book, it has undergone a diminution. Gason had
+stated[180] that tribal brothers had the right of access in the absence
+of the husband without first being made _pirrauru_. This, if correct,
+would have been much nearer group marriage than the actual facts; the
+statement however appears to be incorrect, if we may judge by the fact
+that Dr Howitt has silently dropped it.
+
+Of the _piraungaru_ relation but little can be said, mainly for the
+reason that our information is so scanty. We do not learn, for example,
+if it is temporary or permanent, if the consent of the woman is needed,
+if she ever asks her husband for a certain _piraungaru_, or if she
+applies rather to her elder brothers. We do not know what becomes of the
+_piraungaru_ when the primary spouse dies, whether the brother can claim
+a right to his brother's wife as _piraungaru_ on giving presents,
+whether married and unmarried alike enter into the relationship, whether
+a woman can become _piraungaru_ before she has a special husband,
+whether relations of free love are barred between a man and his
+prospective wife and permitted with other _nupa_ women, and a host of
+other questions. We do not even learn when access is permitted to a
+_piraungaru_ spouse. We have, it is clear, far too few data to be able
+to estimate the value of the dictum of Messrs Spencer and Gillen that
+"individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice in the
+Urabunna tribe." If their views are based only on the facts they have
+given us, they have clearly overlooked a number of essential points; if,
+on the other hand, they took other facts into consideration, we may
+reasonably ask to be put in possession of the whole case.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[152] _Aust. Ass._ IV, 689.
+
+[153] _Ib._ p. 717.
+
+[154] _Ausland_, 1891, p. 843.
+
+[155] _Zts. Vgl. Rechtsw._ XII, 268.
+
+[156] The statement, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 55, that a man and woman
+become _noa_ by betrothal is clearly erroneous.
+
+[157] _Nat. Tribes_, p. 181. This was not brought out by Dr Howitt's
+paper of 1890 in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, and is denied in _Folklore_
+XVII, 174 sq. by Dr Howitt himself; see my criticism, _ib._ 294 sq.
+
+[158] p. 179.
+
+[159] p. 187. Subject to the girl having passed the _wilpadrina_
+ceremony. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.
+
+[160] But see p. 129, n. 2.
+
+[161] This is in contradiction with the statement (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._
+XX, 56) that the various couples are not consulted. We also learn (_loc.
+cit._ p. 62) that the exercise of marital rights by own tribal brothers
+is independent of their _pirrauru_ relation. The order of precedence is
+(1) _tippa-malku_, (2) _pirrauru_, (3) brothers.
+
+[162] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 57.
+
+[163] Howitt says (p. 182) that each of a pair of _pirrauru_ watch each
+other carefully to prevent more _pirrauru_ relations arising.
+
+[164] In the Urabunna tribe a woman is lent irrespective of _piraungaru_
+to all _nupa_, _Nor. Tr._ p. 63. It is therefore a matter of no moment
+even if the consent of the primary husband is never refused at
+non-ceremonial times.
+
+[165] It appears, however (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62), to be only on
+ceremonial (Muni) occasions that anything like general intercourse
+occurs, termed Wira-jinka, then it is promiscuous. The Dippa-malli
+relation is not permanent (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61), and the
+_mebaia_ husband receives a present. If the Dippa-malli "group" is not
+permanent, it does not appear why Dr Howitt speaks of a "group" at all.
+
+[166] In the absence of these there is nothing to distinguish the
+practice from the adultery which prevails among the Dieri (p. 187), in
+which Dr Howitt does _not_ see a survival of group marriage or
+promiscuity.
+
+[167] He mentions the _pira_ marriage of the Yandairunga in _Journ.
+Anthr. Inst._ XX, 60, but drops it in _Native Tribes_. It is unfortunate
+that we never learn why Dr Howitt omits to mention facts which he has
+previously published. Are we to infer that the previous statements are
+erroneous in every case? If so, _pirrauru_ must be a temporary
+relationship.
+
+[168] Curr, III.
+
+[169] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61, n. 2.
+
+[170] Dr Howitt's argument from the use of _maian_ raises a difficulty.
+Twenty-five years ago he stated (Brough Smyth, II, 323) that among the
+Brabrolung a wife was termed _wrūkŭt_, and this seems to be the ordinary
+term.
+
+[171] Titular _maian_ is Dr Howitt's phrase.
+
+[172] Dr Howitt's statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably passes
+to the brother is contradicted by passages on pp. 227 and 248.
+
+[173] Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but cf. his
+attitude on p. 188.
+
+[174] But cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 58 n.; this may, however, have
+been regarded as a ceremonial occasion, though there is no other
+evidence of such being the case.
+
+[175] Properly speaking group marriage should mean that all persons in a
+local group live in polygamy, a state not far removed indeed from
+promiscuity, the boundary between which and polygamy I cannot undertake
+to discuss here, or else that the whole of one group is united in
+marriage to those of the opposite sex in another group.
+
+[176] This is uncertain, as I have already intimated.
+
+[177] This tells strongly in favour of my theory. The unmarried youth
+gets his _pirrauru_ free, for he will reciprocate the attention later.
+The man who has lost his wife and can make no return purchases the
+right.
+
+[178] Cf. Curr, III, 546.
+
+[179] Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 73.
+
+[180] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+TEMPORARY UNIONS.
+
+Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for
+ adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven.
+
+
+It has been mentioned above that the _pirrauru_ custom, so far from
+being an extension of the recognised practice of Australian tribes, is
+in some respects a limitation of it. We may now proceed to illustrate
+this. Even among the Dieri the tribal festival on the occasion of an
+inter-tribal marriage is marked by free intercourse between the sexes
+without regard to existing sexual unions[181] (? either _tippa-malku_ or
+_pirrauru_). In the same way the Wiimbaio tribal gatherings were
+accompanied by regulated promiscuity, the class rules being the only
+limitation. At others wives could be lent or temporarily exchanged by
+the husbands[182]. The Geawe-gal held festivals at which wives were lent
+to young men, subject to class laws[183]. In other cases the exchange
+was limited to brothers or men of the same totem[184]. Among the
+Kamilaroi a wife was lent to friendly visitors but only with her
+consent. In all these cases we see a state of things similar to or not
+unlike the relations of the Dieri _pirrauru_ spouses, and it should be
+noted that it is at tribal gatherings that the latter can claim to
+exercise their rights. From this it appears that the Dieri custom
+amounts to an ear-marking of certain women for the use of certain men,
+and is consequently a limitation of the common custom; in consideration
+of the fact that the _pirrauru_ men protect them in the absence of their
+husbands, they are permitted at the same time to exercise marital
+rights, provided their own primary spouses are absent.
+
+Among the Wiimbaio, when sickness was believed to be coming down the
+Murray[185], and among the Kurnai, when the _Aurora australis_ was
+seen[186], an exchange of wives was ordered by the old men to avert the
+threatened evil[187]. This is explained by Dr Howitt as a reversion to
+the ancient custom of group marriage. It is however not quite clear on
+what grounds it is necessary to treat it as a survival at all. If a day
+of prayer and fasting is ordered in order to avert national calamities,
+it does not follow that the nation in question was in the habit of
+perpetual prayer and fasting at some previous stage of its existence.
+Moreover, if the magical rite was formerly the universal practice we may
+well ask what induced the tribes which believe in its efficacy to adopt
+a new form of marriage. _Ex hypothesi_, it is pleasing to Mungan, or
+good against disease; knowing this, they have not hesitated to abolish
+group marriage, but apparently without incurring Mungan's wrath, or
+bringing any epidemic upon them.
+
+Among the Narrinyeri[188], the old men have a right of access to the
+newly initiated girls, but apparently Dr Howitt does not regard this as
+a survival. On the other hand the _narumbe_ (initiated youths), who may
+not at this period take wives, had unrestricted rights over the younger
+women, those "of his own class and totem not excepted," and this Dr
+Howitt regards as a survival from the days of the undivided commune,
+though if it is so it is hard to see why they should have rights only
+over the younger women. The practice does not appear to differ from the
+free love found among the Dieri except in the absence of class
+restrictions and its limitation to the period after initiation which is
+among many other peoples a period of sexual licence.
+
+Another group of customs, also interpreted by Dr Howitt as a survival of
+group marriage and an "expiation for individual marriage," calls for
+some discussion. It is unnecessary to refer here to the explanation of
+the _jus primae noctis_ suggested by Mr Crawley. It may be that the
+matter can also to some extent be explained as payment for services, in
+the same way as the _pirrauru_ relation shows some signs of being a
+_quid pro quo_.
+
+In certain tribes access to the bride is permitted to men of the group
+of the husband. Among the Kuinmurbura they are the men who have aided
+the husband to carry off the woman[189]; and the same is the case with
+the Kurnandaburi and Kamilaroi tribes[190]. It is very significant that
+among the Narrinyeri the right of access only accrues in case of
+elopement and precisely to those men who actually give assistance in the
+abduction, a fact hard to explain on the theory of expiation[191]. Among
+the Mukjarawaint the right seems to belong to those of the same totem,
+but apparently the young men only[192]; but here too their position as
+accessories is quite clear, as indeed it must be in any tribe where the
+right accrues to men of the same totem. By all the rules of savage
+justice a punishment may be inflicted in these cases either on the
+offender himself or on the men of his totem. It is therefore not strange
+that they require from the abductor some return for the danger to which
+he exposes them, especially if they actually take part in the abduction.
+An aberrant form of the custom is found among the Kurnai, among whom the
+_jus primae noctis_ falls to men initiated at the same _jeraeil_ as the
+bridegroom.
+
+Among the Kurnandaburi there was a period of unrestricted licence after
+the exercise of the _jus primae noctis_, even the father of the bride
+being allowed access to her. This did not of course violate totem or
+phratry regulations. Dr Howitt does not comment on the case, but it
+would have been interesting to hear whether both these customs are to be
+regarded as survivals and if so what caused the duplication[193].
+
+In estimating the value of the custom of _jus primae noctis_ as evidence
+of a prior state of group marriage, a custom of the Yuin should not be
+overlooked. If a man elopes with another man's betrothed he is punished
+by having to fight the girl's father, brothers, and mother's brother;
+the girl was sometimes punished by being beaten; all the men who pursued
+her had a right of access provided they were of the right totem and
+locality. If however the eloping couple were not caught they were not
+liable to punishment after a child was born. There is no mention of any
+_jus primae noctis_ where the marriage was the result of betrothal. In
+this case therefore the right of access is a punishment, so far as the
+girl is concerned; it is earned by taking part in the pursuit, a fact
+which confirms the suggested explanation of the right of access at
+marriage.
+
+It should not be overlooked that this form of punishment is found among
+some tribes as the penalty for adultery[194], when it certainly cannot
+be interpreted as an expiation for individual marriage. This was the
+case among the Wotjoballuk, the Kamilaroi, and the Euahlayi.
+
+We may now turn to the customs of the central and northern tribes
+visited by Messrs Spencer and Gillen. Except in the case of three of the
+north-eastern tribes the right of access accrues in connection with the
+_ariltha_ ceremony. It may be said at once that there is among these
+tribes no trace of access as payment for services; for on the rare
+occasions when a wife is captured she is allotted to an individual and
+becomes his property at once, according to a statement in the first work
+of Spencer and Gillen[195]. In the same work, it is true, this statement
+is contradicted by the assertion that on such occasions only the men of
+the right class are allowed to have access[196]. But this statement does
+not seem to be based on any facts within the knowledge of the writers,
+for they make a definite statement to the contrary with regard to the
+Arunta customs, and it was with the Arunta that they were specially
+concerned, and in the later volume no further details are given, as they
+should have been, if the custom was found among any of the tribes
+visited on the second expedition.
+
+The association of the right of access with the initiation ceremony is
+paralleled, as we have already seen, among other tribes. It hardly seems
+necessary to argue a state of primitive promiscuity from a custom of
+licence at the period of puberty, which does not in fact differ, except
+in degree, from the licence normally enjoyed by the unmarried, and is
+readily explicable on other grounds than those suggested by Spencer and
+Gillen. If we are not prepared to regard this licence at puberty, which
+may equally well have subsisted side by side with marriage or group
+promiscuity, as a mere expression of the newly attained sexual rights,
+we have as an alternative the magical theory of Mr Crawley. I do not
+propose to dwell on this but will pass at once to discuss some points
+which seem to have escaped the notice of Spencer and Gillen when they
+proposed their hypothesis of promiscuity.
+
+The essential point in connection with these ceremonies is the fact that
+access is not limited, as in the case of the Dieri, to men who might
+lawfully marry the woman. The right is restricted to men of six classes
+out of the eight, including all four of the other moiety and the two of
+her own half of her own moiety. Now whatever else may be deduced from
+this, one thing is clear, and that is that the custom in its present
+form, at any rate, took its rise before the eight classes were
+introduced but after the four classes were already in existence and _a
+fortiori_ after the phratries were known. Consequently no argument for
+promiscuity can be founded on the right of access at initiation. It
+cannot be a survival from a time when no marriage regulations were
+known, for the simple reason that the custom itself bears unmistakeable
+traces of regulations of a comparatively advanced type. It may of course
+be argued that these limitations are of late origin. How far this is so
+and why such limitations should have been introduced it is impossible to
+say; but it is impossible to base an argument for primitive promiscuity
+on a state of things which is admittedly not primitive unless we have
+good _primâ facie_ grounds for regarding the custom as a survival. There
+is nothing in the present case to show that it is not a magical rite.
+
+At other times access is permitted in accordance with class regulations,
+the husband's consent being necessary, if indeed he does not actually
+take the preliminary steps himself. We have seen that a similar state of
+things exists in other tribes. It does not seem necessary to look for
+the explanation further than the ordinary customs of savage hospitality,
+the desire to do a favour to men who may be useful. It is difficult to
+see why Spencer and Gillen regard the fact that women are lent in this
+way only to their _unawa_ as a proof of the former existence of group
+marriage. Clearly if intercourse is permitted only between certain
+persons before marriage and only certain persons are allowed to marry,
+we can hardly be surprised to find that these latter are restricted in
+the choice of men to whom they may lend their wives after marriage. The
+surprising thing would be if it were otherwise.
+
+In addition, as in the tribes we have already considered, irregular
+access is practised for magical purposes in connection with the
+performance of ceremonies and the sending out of messengers. It has
+already been pointed out that we have no grounds for regarding such
+practices as survivals; for if we put on sackcloth and ashes as a
+penance for our misdeeds, it does not follow that this was ever the
+prevailing costume. It is even less possible to interpret the ritual
+lending of wives to messengers as a survival, for, _ex hypothesi_, the
+messengers were not of the group which "group-married," and messengers
+of any sort point to a stage when inter-tribal relations had made
+considerable advance and the tribes in question are hardly likely to
+have been still in the stage of the "undivided commune."
+
+The survey of Australian customs and terms of relationship leads us to
+the conclusion that the former, so far from proving the present or even
+former existence of group marriage in that continent, do not even render
+it probable; on the latter no argument of any sort can be founded which
+assumes them to refer to consanguinity, kinship or affinity. It is
+therefore not rash to say that the case for group marriage, so far as
+Australia is concerned, falls to the ground. Even were it otherwise,
+even were group marriage proved for Australia or for any other part of
+the world, we should still be far from having established promiscuity
+and group marriage as a stage in the general history of mankind. For
+that at least a scheme of development is needed. Even were the arguments
+in favour of the group marriage hypothesis much stronger, its supporters
+might reasonably be asked to give us something more than assertion and
+reassertion without any attempt to show in detail the process of
+evolution. To take an example from another sphere, it may safely be said
+that the general theory of evolution would find few supporters if it
+were not possible to trace some existing species and genera back to some
+generalised type in the past. At present the position of a supporter of
+the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage is analogous to
+that of an evolutionist who can only point to a few more or less useless
+peculiarities in the anatomy of man without being able to show
+resemblances between them and the corresponding portions of fossil or
+actually existing anthropoids. He calls them "vestiges[197]" and insists
+that _homo_ is descended from a generalised anthropoid. The mere
+assertion of the vestigial character of such bones or organs would
+hardly carry conviction unless they could be shown to exist in some
+anthropoid in a more fully developed state. Similarly the arguments for
+promiscuity and group marriage suffer from incurable weakness, and would
+so suffer, even were the basis far more reliable than I have shown to be
+the case, unless and until it has been shown by what process and for
+what reasons man took each upward step. So far only one writer has
+attempted, and that nearly thirty years ago, to trace the course of
+human development on the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity, and his
+scheme is a house of cards.
+
+The student of sociology is at a disadvantage compared with the
+zoologist in not being able to unearth his fossils for comparison with
+living forms. He must therefore trace the relationship between living
+forms, and, in seeking to discover the earlier stages of human progress,
+rely in part on the sociology of the higher mammals, in part on the
+possibility of showing a logical scheme of human development. When he
+examines the living forms he is of course unable to say whether actually
+existing savage institutions are in the main line of human progress or
+merely bye-paths embryological or teratological. It may be possible to
+show that group marriage exists somewhere on the earth at the present
+time. Even if this is so, the theory of primitive promiscuity and group
+marriage as stages in the general history of mankind remain mere
+baseless guesses until we have a systematic account both of the causes
+which led to the various steps, and of the processes by which the
+various stages were reached.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[181] Howitt, p. 205.
+
+[182] p. 214.
+
+[183] p. 217.
+
+[184] pp. 224, 260.
+
+[185] p. 195.
+
+[186] pp. 170, 277.
+
+[187] Also among the Kurnandaburi, the Wonkamira, etc. _Journ. Anthr.
+Inst._ XX, 62. General circumcision was a remedy in Fiji when the chief
+was ill.
+
+[188] And among the Dieri, according to Gason, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX,
+87.
+
+[189] p. 219.
+
+[190] pp. 205, 193. _J.A.I._ XII, 36.
+
+[191] p. 245.
+
+[192] p. 269.
+
+[193] He also omits to mention the _Muni_ ceremony, described in _Journ.
+Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62. If general licence is of magical efficacy in cases
+of sickness, it can hardly be argued that general licence at marriage
+has not, as Mr Crawley argues, a magical significance.
+
+[194] p. 245.
+
+[195] _C.T._ 556.
+
+[196] _C.T._ 104.
+
+[197] Commonly but erroneously termed "rudimentary organs." It is a
+natural and justifiable assumption for a zoologist that all vestigial
+organs have previously been more largely developed. It is also an
+assumption that a given custom is vestigial, but it is not a justifiable
+one.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX.
+
+ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
+
+Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
+ and "Castes."
+
+
+A certain number of Australian tribes have ceased to adhere strictly to
+the regulations of their class systems. Thus, in the Kamilaroi tribe a
+correspondent of Dr Howitt's found intra-class marriage, the totem only
+being different; in determining the class and totem of the children the
+ordinary rule held good[198]. The Wiradjeri on the Lachlan permit Ipai
+to marry Muri as well as Kumbo, the two classes both belonging to
+Kupathin; in each case certain totems only, viz. emu, opossum, snake and
+bandicoot, have the privilege[199]. The same anomaly is found in the
+Wonghibon tribe[200].
+
+Among the Warramunga and other northern tribes Spencer and Gillen find
+that the division of the classes, explained in the last chapter, does
+not prevent marriages from taking place which this division ought to
+prevent, if the Arunta rule were followed[201]. A curious feature of
+these marriages is that the children of the anomalous union pass into
+the class which would have been theirs if their mother had wedded her
+normal spouse. It is not easy to say whether this should be regarded as
+a survival of matrilineal descent; it is, however, clear that only the
+existence of phratriac names enables us to say definitely that the
+descent in this tribe is in the male line.
+
+According to the information printed by Mr R.H. Mathews this
+irregularity is by no means the sum total of anomalies. His information
+is far from being commonly accepted as accurate; but, as will be shown
+later, there are correspondences between his statements and those of
+other observers, which make it probable that his statements have some
+basis in fact. At any rate they deserve notice, if only that they may be
+contradicted by competent witnesses, if they are incorrect.
+
+In the Inchalachee tribe, according to Mr Mathews, descent of the
+classes is reckoned through females. In the place of the arrangement
+shown in Table I a, he gives the order 3, 4, 8, 7; 6, 5, 1, 2[202]. Any
+man of the first moiety may marry any woman of the second, though
+certain marriages are normal and one of the remainder more usual than
+the others. The effect of these rules is to make it possible for a man
+to marry any woman of his own generation, even if she be of his own
+class. This is precisely the same as the case reported from the
+Kamilaroi by Dr Howitt, if we may take it that in the latter case the
+normal marriages are found side by side with the anomalous ones.
+
+In the Inchalachee marriages the children, as in the Warramunga cases of
+Spencer and Gillen, take the class which they would have had if the
+woman had taken her normal spouse. On this Mr Mathews relies for the
+statement that descent is reckoned in the female line in this tribe.
+But, as we have seen, such a view is erroneous as regards the
+Warramunga, among whom anomalous marriages also occur; it is therefore
+by no means clear that the Inchalachee are matrilineal. We have even
+more reason to doubt his view as to the Binbinga, for whom we have the
+evidence of Spencer and Gillen.
+
+Mr Mathews also reports among the Wiradjeri marriages resembling in many
+respects those mentioned above from the Wailwun tribe[203]. The table
+does not seem to be complete; it is therefore useless to enquire on what
+principle these marriages are arranged. There seems, however, no reason
+to doubt the substantial accuracy of the information.
+
+More revolutionary is the statement that these cross-class marriages are
+based on an actual kinship organisation, to which Mr Mathews gives the
+name of "blood" (Table III, p. 50)[204].
+
+Running across the phratries and classes are divisions known as
+Gwaigullean and Gwaimudthen, Muggulu and Bumbirra, etc., which have the
+meaning of "sluggish" and "swift" blood respectively. The bloods again
+are sometimes subdivided. In the Ngeumba tribe Gwaimudthen is divided
+into nhurai (butt) and wangue (middle), while Gwaigulir is equivalent to
+winggo (top). These names refer to different portions of the shadow of a
+tree and refer to the positions taken up in camping by the persons
+belonging to the different "bloods" and "castes." In this, it may be
+noted, these organisations follow the parallel of the phratries and
+classes.
+
+With the correspondences in names shown in Table III. before our eyes,
+it is difficult to suppose that the statements of Mr Mathews have no
+basis in fact. In the absence of further information, however, it is
+clearly impossible to discuss the origin of these divisions. It seems
+most probable that they are the systematisation of the anomalous
+marriages already cited. But much more information is needed before
+anything like certainty can be attained in the matter. Both actual
+genealogies and tables of terms of relationship must be in our hands
+before we can come to a decision.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[198] Howitt, p. 204.
+
+[199] _ib._ p. 211.
+
+[200] _ib._ p. 214, cf. _J.A.I._
+
+[201] _Nor. Tr._ pp. 107, 114.
+
+[202] _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 71.
+
+[203] _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 173.
+
+[204] _ib._ XXXVIII, 207-17, XXXIX, 117, _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 53, etc.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES.
+
+Phratry and Blood names are in caps., Class names in roman. In the
+ references Map II is equivalent to Table I (pp. 42-48), Map III to
+ Table II (pp. 48-51). The numbers refer to pages, save in the case
+ of Table I a.
+
+
+Ahjereena, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Akamaroo, Table I a, 9
+
+Anbeir, 44, Map II, v
+
+Appitchana, Table I a, 12
+
+Appungerta, Table I a, 12
+
+Arara, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Ararey, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Arawongo, 45, 76, Map II, viii
+
+Arenia, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Arrakan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Arrenynung, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Awukaria, 47, Map II, xi
+
+Awunga, 45, Map II, viii
+
+
+Badingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Balgoin, 43, 83, Map II, iii
+
+Ballaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Ballieri, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Banaka, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Banjoor, 43, 44, 76, Map II, iii, iv
+
+Banniar, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Barah, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Baran, 43, 74
+
+Barry, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Belthara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Belyeringie, Table I a, 9
+
+Beneringie, Table I a, 9
+
+BIINGARU, 47, 50, Map III, 41
+
+Biliarinthu, Table I a, 7
+
+Blaingunju, Table I a, 7
+
+Bolangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Bondan, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Bondurr, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Bongaringie, Table I a, 8
+
+Boogarloo, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Boonongoona, Table I a, 9
+
+BUDTHURUNG, 42, 50, Map III, 21
+
+Bullaranjee, Table I a, 4
+
+Bulleringie, Table I a, 8
+
+Bulthara, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+Bunbai, 44, Map II, v
+
+Bunburi, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+Bunda, 43, 83, Map II, iii
+
+Bungaranjee, Table I a, 4
+
+Bungumbura, 74
+
+BUNJIL, 48, Map III, 1
+
+Bunjur, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Bunya, 44, Map II, iv
+
+BURGUTTA, see also Pakoota
+
+Burong, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Burralangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Butcharrie, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Butha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Bya, 42, Map II, i
+
+
+Carburungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Carribo, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Carrigan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+CHEPA, 45, 50, 53, Map III, 32
+
+Chagarra, Table I a, 14
+
+Chambeen, Table I a, 14
+
+Chambijana, Table I a, 15
+
+Changally, Table I a, 14
+
+Changary, Table I a, 15
+
+Chapota, Table I a, 15
+
+Chavalya, Table I a 14, 15, 16
+
+Cheekungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Chikun, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Chinuma, Table I a, 15
+
+Chooara, Table I a, 14
+
+Choolima, Table I a, 15
+
+Choongoora, Table I a, 14, 15
+
+Chowan, Table I a, 14
+
+Chowarding, Table I a, 14
+
+Chungalla, Table I a, 15
+
+
+DARBOO, 50, Map III, 12
+
+DEEAJEE, 43, 50, Map III, 26
+
+Deringara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Derwen=Theirwain, 43, 82, Map II, iii
+
+Dhalyeree, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+Dhongaree, Table I a, 1
+
+Dhungaree, Table I a, 16
+
+Didaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+DILBI, 42, 43, 50, 53, Map III, 20
+
+
+Eemitch, Table I a, 10
+
+
+GAMANUTTA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
+
+GAMUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+GIRANA, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
+
+Gnangball, 47
+
+Gooroona, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Goothamungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Gubilla, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+GWAIGULLEAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
+
+GWAIGULLIMBA, 51
+
+GWAIMUDHAN, 51
+
+Gwaimudthen, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
+
+
+Heyanbo, 74
+
+
+Ikamaru, Table I a, 7
+
+ILLITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
+
+Imballaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbannee, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbawalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbongaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Imboong, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Immadena, Table I a, 10
+
+Inganmarra, Table I a, 10
+
+Inkagalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Ipai, 42, Map II, i
+
+Ipatha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Irrakadena, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Irroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Irpoong, 43, 73, Map II, ii
+
+Irpoong-Marroong classes, 73
+
+
+Jamada, Table I a, 16
+
+JAMAGUNDA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
+
+Jambijana, Table I a, 1
+
+Jameragoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jameram, Table I a, 16
+
+Janna, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+Jarbain, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Jeemara, Table I a, 1
+
+Jimidya, Table I a, 1
+
+Jimmilingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Jinagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Joolam, Table I a, 16
+
+Joolama, Table I a, 1
+
+Joolanjegoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jooralagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jorro, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Jumeyungie, Table I a, 8
+
+Jummiunga, Table I a, 16
+
+Jungalagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jungalla, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+JUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 32
+
+Jury, 46, 75, Map II, viii
+
+
+Kabidgi, Table I a, 12
+
+Kapoodungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+KAPPATCH, 49, Map III, 6
+
+KAPUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kaiamba, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Kairawa, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KARARAWA, 49, Map III, 7
+
+KARARU, 49, Map III, 7
+
+Karavangi, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Kari, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Karilbura, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KARPEUN, 43, 50, Map III, 26
+
+Karpungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+KARTPOERAPPA, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kearra, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+Kellungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
+
+KILPARA, 49, Map III, 4
+
+Kingelunju, Table I a, 7
+
+KINGILLI, 47, 50, Map III, 42
+
+KIRARU, 49, Map III, 7
+
+KIRTUUK, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kommerangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+KOOCHEEBINGA, 49, Map III, 10, 53
+
+Koodala, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+KOOKOOJEEBA, 49, Map III, 10
+
+KOOLPURU, 49, Map III, 8
+
+Koomara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Koopungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
+
+KOORABUNNA, 49, Map III, 11
+
+KOORAGULA, 49, Map III, 11
+
+KOORAMEENYA, 49, n. 19
+
+Kooran, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Koorgilla, 44, 74, Map II, v
+
+Koorpal, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KROKAGE, 49, Map III, 5
+
+KROKI, 49, Map III, 5
+
+KROKITCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kubaru, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+Kubi, Kubbi, 42, 76, 83, Map II, i
+
+Kubitha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Kuial, 46, Map II, x
+
+Kuialla, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+KULITCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kumara, 47, 76, 79, Map II, xiii, Table I a, 12
+
+Kumbo, 42, 76, Map II, i
+
+KUMIT, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kunggilungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Kungilla, Table I a, 9
+
+Kunullu, Table I a, 8
+
+KUPATHIN, 42, 43, 50, Map III, 20
+
+Kurbo, 43, 74, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Kurgan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Kurkilla, 45, 72, Map II, v
+
+Kurongon, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Kurpal, 44, 72, 74, 76, Map II, iv
+
+Kutchal, 45, Map II, vii
+
+KUUNAMIT, 49, Map III, 6
+
+KUUROKEETCH, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kymerra, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+
+Langenam, 48, 74, Map II, xv
+
+Lenai, 74
+
+LIARAKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
+
+LIARITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
+
+Loora, 45, Map II, viii
+
+
+Mahngal, 46, Map II, viii
+
+MALIAN, 49, 53, Map III, 3
+
+MALLERA, 45, 50, 52, Map III, 28
+
+MALLERA-WUTHERA phratries, 52 sq.
+
+Mambulgit, 36
+
+Manjarojally, 36
+
+Manjarwuli, 36
+
+Maringo, 46, 75, 76, Map II, ix
+
+Marinungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Marro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Marroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Maroongah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Matha, 42, Map II, i
+
+MATTERA, 49, 66, Map III, 7
+
+MATTERI, 49, 52, 53, 66, Map III, 7
+
+Matyang, 43, Map II, ii
+
+MERUGULLI, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
+
+MERUNG, 48, Map III, 2
+
+Moorob, 74
+
+Moroon, 43, Map II, iii
+
+MUKULA, 42, 50, 53, Map III, 21
+
+MUKUMURRA, 42, 50, 53, Map II, 23
+
+MULLARA, 46, 50, Map III, 28
+
+MULTA, 49, 53, Map III, 3
+
+Mumbali, 46, Map II, x
+
+Munal, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Mungilly, 46, Map II, viii
+
+MUNICHMAT, 48, 50, Map III, 34
+
+Munjungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+MUQUARA, 49, 52, Map III, 4
+
+Muri, 42, 73, 83, Map II, i
+
+Muri-Kubbi classes, 73
+
+MURLA, 45, 50, Map III, 31
+
+Murungun, 46, Map II, x
+
+
+Nabajerry, Table I a, 15
+
+Nabungati, Table I a, 14
+
+Naganok, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Nagarra, Table I a, 14
+
+NAKA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
+
+Nakomara, Table I a, 13
+
+Nala, Table I a, 2
+
+Nalangininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalirri, Table I a, 2
+
+Naltjeri, Table I a, 13
+
+Namaja, Table I a, 1
+
+Namaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namaringinta, Table I a, 11
+
+Nambean, Table I a, 1
+
+Nambeen, Table I a, 14
+
+Nambin, Table I a, 13
+
+Nambjana, Table I a, 15
+
+Nambitjin, Table I a, 2
+
+Nambitjinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namegor, 48, Map II, xv
+
+Namigili, Table I a, 13
+
+Namininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namita, Table I a, 2
+
+Namyungo, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Nana, Table I a, 2
+
+Nanagoo, Table I a, 15
+
+Nanakoo, Table I a, 16
+
+Nanajerry, Table I a, 14
+
+Nangally, Table I a, 14
+
+Nangili, Table I a, 14, 15
+
+Naola, Table I a, 15
+
+Napanunga, Table I a, 13
+
+Napungerta, Table I a, 13
+
+Naralu, Table I a, 13
+
+Narbeeta, Table I a, 15
+
+Narechie, Table I a, 9
+
+Narrabalangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Nemira, Table I a, 15
+
+Nemurammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Neonammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Ngarrangungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+NGIELBUMURRA, 42, 50, Map III, 23
+
+NGIELPURU, 50
+
+NGIPURU, 50
+
+NGUMBUN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
+
+NGURRAWAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
+
+Nhermana, Table I a, 15
+
+Niamaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Niameragun, Table I a, 3
+
+Niamerum, Table I a, 5
+
+Ninum, Table I a, 3
+
+Niriuma, Table I a, 5
+
+Nolangmer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nongarimmer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nooara, Table I a, 14
+
+Nowala, Table I a, 1
+
+Nowana, Table I a, 14
+
+Nuanakuma, Table I a, 6
+
+Nullum, 74
+
+Nulum, Table I a, 3
+
+Nulyarammer, Table I a, 18
+
+NUMBUN, 42, Map III, 24
+
+Nunalla, Table I a, 2
+
+Nungalermer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nungalla, Table I a, 2, 13, 15
+
+Nungallakurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Nungari, Table I a, 2
+
+Nuralakurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nurlanjukurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nurlum, Table I a, 5
+
+Nurralammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Nurumball, 47
+
+
+Obu, 44, 83, Map II, v
+
+Odall, 47
+
+OOTAROO, 45, 46, 50, Map III, 29; see also Wuthera, etc.
+
+
+Packwicky, 48, Map II, xv
+
+PAKOOTA, 45, 46, 50, 53, Map III, 29
+
+Paliarina, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Paliarinji, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Palyang, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Pamarung, 48, Map II, xv
+
+Pandur, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Panunga, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+Parajerri, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Parang, 43, 72, Map II, iii; see also Baran
+
+Parungo, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Patingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Perrynung, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Pungarinia, Table I a, 3, 6
+
+Pungarinji, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Pungarinju, Table I a, 7
+
+Purdal, 46, 75, Map II, x
+
+Purula, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+
+Ranya, 45, 75, Map II, viii
+
+Rara, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Roanga, 74, 76
+
+Roumburia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+
+Tabachin, Table I a, 10
+
+Tabadena, Table I a, 10
+
+Taran, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Tarbain, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Tchana, Table I a, 2
+
+Teilling, 74
+
+Thakomara, Table I a, 13
+
+Thalaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thalirri, Table I a, 2
+
+Thama, Table I a, 2
+
+Thamaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thamininja, Table I a, 10
+
+Thapanunga, Table I a, 13
+
+Thapungarti, Table I a, 13
+
+Theirwain, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Thimmermill, Table I a, 9
+
+Thungalla, Table I a, 2, 13
+
+Thungallaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Thungallinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Thungarie, Table I a, 2
+
+Thungaringinta, Table I a, 11
+
+TINEWA, 49, Map III, 8
+
+Tjambin, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjambitjina, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjameraku, Table I a, 6
+
+Tjameramu, Table I a, 7
+
+Tjamerum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Tjapatjinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjapetjeri, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjimara, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjimininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjimita, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjinguri, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjinum, Table I a, 3
+
+Tjuanaku, Table I a, 5
+
+Tjulantjuka, Table I a, 5, 6
+
+Tjulum, Table I a, 3
+
+Tjupila, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjurla, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjurulinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Tondarup, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+TOOAR, 50, Map III, 12
+
+Toonbeungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Trumininja, Table I a, 11
+
+TUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
+
+
+UA, 46, 50, Map III, 44
+
+Uanaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Ubur, 44, 83, Map II, v
+
+Uknaria, Table I a, 12
+
+ULUURU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 41, 42
+
+UMBE, 49, Map III, 3
+
+Umbitchana, Table I a, 12
+
+Unburri, 44, Map II, v
+
+Ungalla, Table I a, 12
+
+Unmarra, Table I a, 10
+
+Unwannee, Table I a, 10
+
+Uralaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Urgilla, 44, Map II, v
+
+URKU, 46, 50, Map III, 44
+
+Urtalia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+Urwalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Uwallaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Uwungaree, Table I a, 10
+
+
+WAA, 48, Map III, 1
+
+WAANG, 48, Map III, 1
+
+Wairgu, Table I a, 7
+
+WALAR, 45, 50, Map III, 31
+
+Walar, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Wandi, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Warganbah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Warkie, Table I a, 9
+
+Warrithu, Table I a, 7
+
+WARTUNGMAT, 48, 50, 53, Map III, 34
+
+Waui, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Weiro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Werrican, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wialia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+WILIUKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
+
+Wilthuthu, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Wiltu, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Wirrikin, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wirro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+WITTERU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+Wombee, 42, 76, Map II, i
+
+Wombo, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Womboongah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wongan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wongo, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+WOODAROO, 46, 50, Map III, 27, 28, 29
+
+WOOTAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27; see also Ootaroo
+
+WREPIL, 48, Map III, 1
+
+WUTHERA, 45, 50, 53, 54, 66, Map III, 28
+
+WUTHERA-MALLERA phratry, 66
+
+WUTTHURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+
+Yakomari, Table I a, 3, 5, 6, 8, 79
+
+Yakomarin(a), Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Yangor, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Yelet, 74
+
+Yoolgo, 74
+
+Youingo, 46, 72, 76, Map II, ix
+
+YUCKEMBRUK, 48, Map III, 2
+
+Yukamura, Table I a, 4
+
+Yungalla, Table I a, 10
+
+YUNGAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGARU, 44, 50, 53, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGNURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGO, 45, 49, 50, 53, 66, Map III, 9, 27
+
+YUNGO phratry, 66
+
+
+
+
+SUBJECT INDEX.
+
+Names of Australian tribes are in Clarendon, native words and parts of
+ words in italics. Words in inverted commas are defined.
+
+
+Abduction, 103
+
+Adoption, 2, 5, 7
+
+Adultery, punishment for, 146
+
+Affinity, 6
+
+"Age grades," 2, 92, 112
+
+_Agoo_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Aku_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Akulbura= classes, 44
+
+America, tribe in, 7
+
+American organisations, 9, 33
+
+_An_ as feminine termination 43, 44
+
+_Ana_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Anaywan= classes, 43
+
+_Angie_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Anjegoo_ as suffix, 80
+
+Annan R., classes on, 45
+
+Anomalous areas, 51, 72
+
+Anomalous marriages, 151
+
+=Anula= classes, 47
+
+_Ara_ as suffix, 80
+
+Arab phratries, 10
+
+_Archæologia Americana_, 33, 34
+
+_Aree_ as suffix, 60, 80
+
+_Ariltha_, 145
+
+=Arunta= classes, Table I a, 47
+ customs, 145
+ kinship terms, 96
+ meaning of, 82
+ primitiveness, 70
+ S., classes, 47
+ totemism, 12
+
+Associations, changes in, 1
+ natal, 2
+
+Atkinson, J.J., 63
+
+Aversion, sexual, 117
+
+
+=Badieri= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+Baiame, 57
+
+_Balcoin_, 83
+
+=Barkinji= betrothal, 22
+ phratries, 49
+
+=Bathalibura= classes, 44
+
+_Beena_ marriage, 108
+
+Belyando R., classes on, 44
+
+=Berriait= phratries, 49
+
+Betrothal and potestas, 22
+ rule of descent, 22 sq.
+
+=Binbinga= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Bingongina= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+Bird myth, 55
+ conflict myth, 55
+
+Blood and phratry organisations, 68
+ cousins, marriage forbidden to, 7
+ division, 31
+ feud, 26
+ organisations, 30, 153
+ relationship, 4
+
+Bloomfield R., phratries on, 38, 50
+
+Brother and sister marriage, 69
+ meaning of terms in Morgan's work, 111
+
+_Bu_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Bulcoin_, 83
+
+_Bulthara_, 83
+
+_Bundar_, 83
+
+=Buntamurra= classes, 44
+
+
+"Caste" subdivision, 153
+
+_Cha_ as prefix, 79
+
+Chieftainship, 25
+
+Child and parent, 23, 119
+
+Children and parents, 4
+
+_Choo_ as prefix, 80
+
+"Classes, intermarrying," 30
+ and phratries, 51, 72, 87
+ and totems, 89
+ later than phratries, 71
+ list of, 42 sq.
+ names, borrowing of, 75 sq.
+ meaning of, 82
+
+Class organisations, 37 sq.; Map II, 40
+ effect of, 86
+ origin of, 100
+
+Classificatory terms of relationship, 93
+
+Conception, theories of, 12, 23
+
+"Consanguinity," 3 sq.
+
+Consent of husband, 131, 138, 146
+
+Contrasts in phratry names, 54, 56, 68
+
+"Couple," 30
+
+Cousin marriage, 70
+
+Crow phratry, 53
+
+Cunow, H., 86, 91
+
+
+=Dalebura= classes, 44
+
+=Darkinung= classes, 42 n.
+
+_Deeroyn_, 82
+
+Degeneration and incest, 113
+
+Descent, rule of, 11, 12 sq.; Map I, 40
+ change of, 15, 16
+
+Descriptive terms of relationship, 93
+
+"Determinant spouse," 30
+
+=Dieri= betrothal, 22
+ marriage rules, 97
+ phratries, 49
+ wife lending, 143
+
+_Dippa-malli_, 133
+
+=Dippil= classes, 43, 51
+ phratries, 43, III b, 51
+
+"Direct descent," 30
+
+_Dirrawong_, 82
+
+Durkheim, E., 69, 87, 90
+
+_Durween_, 82
+
+
+Eaglehawk, 54
+ and crow, 53, 59
+ phratries, 67
+
+_Eanda_, 10
+
+Earl, G.W., 36
+
+Economic conditions and rule of descent, 27
+
+_Egor_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+Eight-class names, centre of origin, 78
+ percentages of resemblance and difference, 77, 78
+ system, 76
+ tribe in Queensland, 97
+
+Elder and younger, meaning of, 98
+ brother, authority, 100
+
+Elopement, 20, 144
+
+_Eranta_, 82
+
+=Euahlayi= classes 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 e, 50, 51, 54
+
+Exchange of wives, 143
+
+Exogamy, 6, 30
+ origin of, 63
+
+
+Family, 1
+ types of, 8
+
+Father and son, conflict of, 17
+
+Father and daughter marriage, 114
+
+Father right, see Patriliny
+
+Female descent, see Matriliny
+
+Females, property vested in, 26
+
+Feminine class names, 80
+
+Fison, L., on group marriage, 127
+
+Folktales, stock of, 57
+
+Four-class area, 73
+ and eight-class systems, results compared, 97
+
+Frazer, J.G., 69
+ on totemism, 12
+
+Free love, 106, 129
+
+Free union, 106
+
+
+Gason, S., 13
+
+_Gamé_, 106
+
+_Gan_ as feminine termination, 43
+
+=Geawegal classes=, 42
+ wife lending, 142
+
+=Geebera= phratries, 49
+
+Generation, marriage within, 99
+
+=Gnalluma= classes, 47, 48
+
+=Gnamo= classes, 47, 48
+
+=Gnanji= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Goa= classes, 44
+
+=Goonganji= phratries, 49
+
+=Goothanto= classes, 45
+
+Gregory, J.W., 27, 67
+
+Grey, Sir G., 34
+
+Groups, local, 29
+ meaning of, 136
+ primitive, 13, 64
+
+Group marriage and _pirrauru_, 136
+ meaning of term, 127
+ not proven, 148
+
+_Gurk_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+
+Haida phratries, 9
+
+Hausa rules of avoidance, 99
+
+Hereditary kinship groups, 12
+
+Hodgson, C.P., 35
+
+Homophones, 82
+
+Hottentots non-totemic, 8
+
+Howitt, A.W., 16, 23, 37, 121, 134
+
+
+_Iker_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Iliaura= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Ilpirra= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+In-and-in breeding, 115
+
+Incest and degeneration, 113
+
+=Inchalachee= classes, Table I a, 47
+ marriage, 151
+
+"Indirect descent," 30
+
+Individual property, 25
+
+_Inginja_ as suffix, 80
+
+Inheritance and descent, 18, 25
+ and patriliny, 22
+ of widow, 20
+ of wife by brother, 20, 21
+
+Initiation and free love, 144
+
+_Inja_ as suffix, 80
+
+"Intermarrying classes," 30
+
+Isaacs, F.N., 35
+
+_Itch_ as suffix, 63, 80
+
+_Itchana_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Itchumundi= "bloods," 50
+ phratries, 49, 50
+
+
+_J_ as prefix, 84
+
+_Ja_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+_Jarr_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+Jealousy, 131
+
+_Joo_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Joongoongie= classes, 48
+ phratries, 48
+
+=Jouon= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+_Jus primae noctis_, 140, 144
+
+
+_K_ as prefix, 84
+
+=Kabi= classes, 43
+
+=Kaitish= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Kalkadoon= classes, 46, 51
+ phratries, 46, 51
+
+=Kamilaroi= classes, 42
+ customs, 143
+ marriage, 151
+ organisation, 31 sq.
+ phratries, 42 a
+ wife lending, 142
+
+_Kandri_, 130
+
+=Kangulu= classes, 44
+ phratries, 44, IV b, 51
+
+_Kanunka_, 83
+
+=Karandee= class names, 74
+
+Kempe, H., 84
+
+=Keramin= phratries, 49
+
+=Kiabara= classes, 43, 51
+
+Kimberley, classes at, 47, 48
+
+"Kin group," 8
+
+"Kinsman," 31
+
+"Kinship," 3 sq.
+ and consanguinity, 23
+ groups, 2, 7
+ origin of idea, 13, 14
+ tribal, 5
+
+_Kodi-molli_, 133
+
+=Kogai= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+Kohler, J., on group marriage, 127
+
+=Kombinegherry= classes, 43
+
+_Koo_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Koogobathy= classes, 46
+
+_Koolbirra_, 82
+
+=Koonjan= classes, 46
+
+=Koorangie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Korkoren_, 83
+
+_Korkoro_, 75, 83
+
+_Ku_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+_Kubbi_, 83
+
+=Kuinmurbura= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 44
+ customs, 144
+ phratries, 44, IV a, 51
+ rules of residence, 16
+
+_Kulbara_, 82
+
+=Kurnai= customs, 143, 144
+ phratries, 49, n. 8
+ polygamy, 134
+ relationships, 120
+ rule of residence, 17, 18
+
+=Kurnandaburi= phratries, 49
+ polygamy, 132
+
+Kutchin phratries, 9
+
+
+Landed property, 7, 8, 29
+
+Lang, Andrew, ii, 63
+
+Languages, differentiation of, 60, 81
+
+Leichardt, L., 35
+
+Lending of wives, 132 sq., 143
+ _pirrauru_ wives, 132, 135, 139
+
+Levirate, 20, 134
+
+Liaison, 107, 133
+
+=Limba Karadjee= classes, 36
+
+Local group, constitution of, 26
+ influence of, in causing change of rule of descent, 26
+ types of, 8
+
+
+Macarthur, Capt., 35
+
+_Maian_, 134
+
+_Mala_, 82
+
+_Male_, 82
+
+Male descent, _see_ Patriliny
+
+_Malu_, 82
+
+=Mara= classes, 46
+ phratries, 46
+
+Marriage, definition of, 103, 105 sq.
+ evolution of, Morgan's theory, 110
+ forms of, 108
+ origin of, 64
+ prohibitions, 3, 6
+ rules, 97 sq.
+ and kinship terms, 93
+
+Maryborough tribes, classes of, 43
+ phratries, 43, III a, 51
+ rules of residence, 17
+
+Mathews, R.H., 31, 150
+
+Matriliny in eight-class tribes, 151
+ origin of, 13, 19
+ primitive, 69
+ priority of, 12, 15
+
+"Matrilocal," 30
+ marriage, 16
+
+Matripotestal family, 8, 109
+
+=Mayoo= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Meening= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+Melanesian phratries, 10
+
+=Miappe= classes, 46, 51
+ phratries, 46, 51
+
+Migrations, 61
+
+=Milpulko= phratries, 49
+
+=Miorli= classes, 44
+
+=Mittakoodi= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+"Mixed group," 8
+
+Mohegan phratries, 9
+
+=Monobar= classes, 35
+
+Moore, G.F., 34
+
+=Moree= classes, 42
+
+Morgan, Lewis, on promiscuity, 110
+
+Mother right, see Matriliny
+
+Mother, term for, 123
+
+=Mukjarawaint= betrothal, 22
+ customs, 144
+
+=Murawari= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 f, 50, 51
+
+Murchison R., classes on, 47, 48
+
+_Muri_, 83
+
+=Mycoolon= classes, 72
+
+Myths, diffusion of, 56
+
+
+_N_ as prefix, 80
+
+Nagualism, 12
+
+Narran R., classes on, 42
+
+=Narrangga= classes, 48
+
+Narrinyeri customs, 143, 144
+
+"Natal associations," 2
+
+=Nauo= phratries, 49
+
+Near relatives, marriage of, 113
+
+New Hebrides club-house, 106
+
+=Ngarrego= phratries, 48
+
+=Ngerikudi= kinship terms, 95
+
+=Ngeumba= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 d, 51
+ organisation, 152
+
+Nicol Bay, classes at, 47, 48
+
+Nind, S., 34
+
+_Noa_, 122, 129
+
+_Noa-mara_, 129
+
+_Nu_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Nupa_, 98, 135
+
+
+_Obur_, 83
+
+=Oolawunga= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Oruyo_, 11
+
+Ovaherero organisations, 10
+
+
+_Palyara_, 83
+
+_Palyeri_, 83
+
+_Panunga_, 83
+
+=Parnkalla= phratries, 49
+
+Paternity, uncertain, 21
+
+Patria potestas, 15, 19
+
+Patrilineal inheritance, 18
+
+Patriliny, causes of, in Australia, 27
+ cause of rise, 22
+ possible primitive, 13
+
+"Patrilocal," 30
+
+Patripotestal family, 8, 109
+
+=Peechera= classes, 42
+
+Phratries and classes, 51, 72, 87
+ list of, 48 sq.
+ object of, 69
+ origin of, 65
+ systematic groups as, 9
+
+"Phratry," 30
+
+Phratry names, 32 sq.
+ meanings of, 53 sq.
+ organisations, distribution of, 9, 37 sq.; Map III, 40
+ segmentation, 61, 66
+
+=Pikumbul= classes, 42
+
+_Piraungaru_, 135, 141
+
+_Pirrauru_, 130
+ and group marriage, 136
+ distinguishing features, 137
+ origin of, 139, 140, 141
+ spouses, duties of, 139-141
+
+=Pitta-Pitta=, authority of husband among, 19
+ classes, 44
+ phratries, 45
+
+Polyandry, 104, 108
+
+Polygamy, 104, 108
+
+Polygyny, 104, 108
+
+Post, A.H., on group marriage, 127
+
+Potestas, 4
+ and betrothal, 22
+ and patriliny, 22
+ and residence, 14
+ and rule of descent, 14
+ relation of, to rule of descent, 19
+
+Poverty of language, 124
+
+Powell, J.W., 27
+
+Prefixes, 79, 80
+
+Primitive group, 111
+
+Promiscuity, 133 n., 144
+ forms of, 107
+
+Property, inheritance of, 25
+ in law, 2, 7, 18
+
+Protectorship of woman's kin, 19, 20
+
+_Pu_ as prefix, 80
+
+Puberty, licence at, 143 sq., 146
+
+Pueblo peoples, descent among, 27
+
+_Pultara_, 83
+
+Punishment, 19, 20
+
+Purchase of wife, 21
+
+=Purgoma= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+
+Queries as to Australian facts, 129 sq., 132, 141
+
+
+Racial conflict, 55
+
+Rank and intermarrying class, 35
+
+Relationship, systems of, 93
+
+Residence and potestas, 14
+ and rule of descent, 14
+ customs of, 8, 10
+
+Ridley, W., 36
+
+Right of betrothal, 22
+
+=Ringa-Ringa= classes, 44
+
+
+Scarcity of women, 139
+
+Schürmann, C.W., 34
+
+"Secret Societies," 3
+
+Sexual aversion, 117
+ unions, 102 sq.
+
+"Shade" division, 31, 152
+
+Sign language, 84
+
+Sisters, exchange of, 19, 20
+
+"Social organisation," 3
+
+Societies, secret, 3
+
+Solidarity of totem kin, 140
+
+Spencer, B., on group marriage, 128
+
+Status and kinship terms, 120, 125
+
+Stokes, J.L., 36
+
+"Sub-tribe," 30
+
+Suffixes, 53, 60, 80
+
+
+_Ta_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Tarderick= classes, 48
+
+=Taroombul= classes, 44
+
+=Tatathi= phratries, 49
+
+_Tchi_ as suffix, 53, 60, 80
+
+Terminology, 29 sq.
+
+_Tippa-malku_, 129
+ husband, rights of, 132, 139
+
+=Tjingillie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Tjuka_ as suffix, 80
+
+Toda phratries, 10
+
+Totem and phratry, 9
+
+Totems and classes, 89
+ and phratry names, 60, 69
+
+Totemism, distribution of, 8
+
+"Totem kin," 31
+ sacrosanctity of, 16
+
+Totem kins, 5
+ and phratries, 89
+ arrangement of, 89
+ and _pirrauru_, 134
+
+Tribal brothers, rights of, 131 n., 141
+ kinship, 5
+ names, meaning of, 82
+ property, 2, 7, 18, 61
+ solidarity, 7
+
+"Tribe," 2, 7, 29
+ subdivisions of, 8
+
+Tully R., classes on, 45
+
+=Turribul= classes, 42
+
+
+_U_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Uku_ as suffix, 53, 60
+
+_Ula_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Um_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Umbaia= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+_Unawa_, 122
+
+Unconscious reformation, 116
+
+=Undekerebina= phratries, 51
+
+Undivided commune, 121, 143
+
+_Unga_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Unghi= classes, 42
+
+_Ungilla_, 84
+
+=Ungorri= classes, 44
+
+_Upala_, 83
+
+=Urabunna= customs, 142
+ marriage rules, 98
+ phratries, 49
+ polygamy, 135
+
+_Uru_ as suffix, 53, 60
+
+
+Victoria, occupation of, 27, 67
+ S.W., phratries in, 49
+
+
+=Wailwun= classes, 42
+ organisation, 89
+
+=Wakelbura= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45 51
+ polyandry, 133
+ rules of residence, 16
+
+=Walpari= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+Wanika phratries, 10
+
+=Warkeman= classes, 45
+
+=Warramunga= classes, Table I a, 47
+ marriage, 150
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Wathi-Wathi= kinship terms, 94
+ phratries, 49
+
+=Weedokarry= classes, 47, 48
+
+_Welu_, 54
+
+West Australia, classes in, 48
+ phratries in, 48
+
+Westermarck, E., on group marriage, 128
+ on marriage, 105
+
+Wide Bay, classes at, 43
+
+Widow, position of, 20, 134
+ removal of, 19
+
+Widower, 131
+
+Wife lending, 142
+ authority over, 19
+
+=Wiimbaio= customs, 143
+ phratries, 49
+ wife lending, 142
+
+_Wilpadrina_, 129 n.
+
+Wilson, T.B., 36
+
+=Wilya= phratries, 49
+
+=Wiradjeri=, chiefs among, 25
+ classes, 42, 51
+ marriage, 150
+ phratries, 42 b, 50
+
+=Wolgal= phratries, 49
+
+=Wollaroi= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 42
+
+=Wollongurma= classes, 45
+
+=Wonnaruah= classes, 42
+
+=Wonghibon= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 c, 50, 51
+
+=Woonamurra= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+=Worgaia= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Workoboongo= classes, 46, 72
+
+=Wulmala= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Wurunjerri= phratries, 48
+
+
+_Ya_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+=Yambeena= classes, 51
+ phratries, 51
+
+=Yandairunga= phratries, 49
+
+=Yandrawontha= phratries, 49
+
+=Yangarella= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Yelyuyendi= phratries, 51
+
+=Yerunthully= classes, 44, 72
+
+=Yookala= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Yoolanlanya= classes, 47
+
+=Yowerawarika= phratries, 49
+
+=Yuin= custom, 145
+
+=Yuipera= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+=Yukkabura= classes, 45
+
+_Yun_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Yungmunnie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+
+CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Note:
+
+The following inconsistencies have been maintained in the text:
+
+Misspellings and typographical errors
+
+Hawaian for Hawaiian
+Chapter IV, Table I, Section XV, the paragraph that begins with "Tribe"
+ is missing a ) at the end.
+
+Inconsistent hyphenation:
+
+bi-lateral / bilateral
+eight-fold / eightfold
+four-fold / fourfold
+Geawe-gal / Geawegal
+head-man / headman
+inter-tribal / intertribal
+matri-potestal / matripostestal
+Narrang-ga / Narrangga
+patri-potestal / patripotestal
+sacrosanctity / sacrosanctity
+sub-division / subdivision
+wide-spread / widespread
+
+Other inconsistencies:
+Archæologia / Archaeologia
+Eaglehawk-Crow / eaglehawk-crow
+Pirraurru / Pirrauru
+vice versâ / vice versa
+
+In list of abbreviations: Proc. R.G.S. Qn.
+ In text: Proc. R.G.S. Qu., Proc. R.S. Qu.
+In list of abbreviations: R.G.S. Qn.
+ In text: R.G.S. Qu.
+
+In Chapter IV, Table II, repeated column headings have been omitted.
+The numbering in this table jumps from 12 to 20 and then from 34 to 40.
+
+In Chapter IV, Table III, two symbols are used (‡ and §) which are
+not defined. Repeated column headings have been omitted.
+
+In Chapter VII, the abbreviation ib. in the Footnotes is not italicized.
+
+In Chapter X, Section B. Marriage
+ The roman numerals are followed by a comma, rather than a period as in
+ the preceding section.
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group
+Marriage in Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+***** This file should be named 17404-0.txt or 17404-0.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+ http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/4/0/17404/
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+ the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+ you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
+ owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+ has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+ Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
+ must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+ prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+ returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+ sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+ address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+ the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+ you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+ does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+ License. You must require such a user to return or
+ destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+ and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+ Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+ money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+ electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+ of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+ distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+ Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+ Chief Executive and Director
+ gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+ http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/17404-0.zip b/17404-0.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cd12b6a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-0.zip
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-8.txt b/17404-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e404c11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,8828 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in
+Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia
+
+Author: Northcote W. Thomas
+
+Release Date: December 28, 2005 [EBook #17404]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Transcriber's Note:
+
+This text has several characters which cannot be displayed in a text
+format file. The following codes have been substituted for these
+characters:
+
+[+] Dagger symbol
+[++] Double dagger symbol
+['] Open single quote, used within a word
+[=i] i with macron
+[=o] o with macron
+[s.] s with dot below
+[=u] u with macron
+[)u] u with breve
+[alpha] Greek letter alpha
+[beta] Greek letter beta
+
+This text has many tables, which are best viewed using a fixed-width
+font.
+
+Table I a and the _Arunta: Eight-class_ Table were printed on fold-out
+pages. These have been split into sections (3 and 2 sections,
+respectively) to fit within the display boundaries.
+
+The original book had a number of words with inconsistant hyphenation or
+spelling, as well as a small number of typographical errors. These have
+been maintained in this version. The inconsistencies and errors are
+detailed at the end of the present text.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+
+
+_The Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series is supervised by
+an Editorial Committee consisting of WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, M.A., F.B.A.,
+Disney Professor of Archaeology, A.C. HADDON, Sc.D., F.R.S., University
+Lecturer in Ethnology, M.R. JAMES, Litt. D., F.B.A., Provost of King's
+College and C. WALDSTEIN, Litt. D., Slade Professor of Fine Art._
+
+
+
+
+ KINSHIP ORGANISATIONS
+
+ AND
+
+ GROUP MARRIAGE
+
+ IN
+
+ AUSTRALIA
+
+
+
+ BY
+
+ NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS, M.A.
+ Diplom de l'cole des Hautes-tudes,
+Corresponding Member of the Socit d'Anthropologie de Paris, etc.
+
+
+ CAMBRIDGE:
+ at the University Press
+ 1906
+
+
+
+
+ CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
+ C.F. CLAY, MANAGER,
+
+ London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
+ Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ Leipzig: F.A. BROCKHAUS.
+ New York: G.P. PUTNAM'S SONS.
+ Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
+
+
+
+ [_All Rights reserved._]
+
+
+
+
+ DEDICATED
+ TO
+ MISS C.S. BURNE,
+ WHO FIRST GUIDED MY STEPS
+ INTO THE PATHS OF
+ ANTHROPOLOGY
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+It is becoming an axiom in anthropology that what is needed is not
+discursive treatment of large subjects but the minute discussion of
+special themes, not a ranging at large over the peoples of the earth
+past and present, but a detailed examination of limited areas. This work
+I am undertaking for Australia, and in the present volume I deal briefly
+with some of the aspects of Australian kinship organisations, in the
+hope that a survey of our present knowledge may stimulate further
+research on the spot and help to throw more light on many difficult
+problems of primitive sociology.
+
+We have still much to learn of the relations of the central tribes and
+their organisations to the less elaborately studied Anula and Mara. I
+have therefore passed over the questions discussed by Dr Durkheim. We
+have still more to learn as to the descent of the totem, the relation of
+totem-kin, class and phratry, and the like; totemism is therefore
+treated only incidentally in the present work, and lack of knowledge
+compels me to pass over many other interesting questions.
+
+The present volume owes much to Mr Andrew Lang. He has read twice over
+both my typescript MS, and my proofs; in the detection of ambiguities
+and the removal of obscurities he has rendered my readers a greater
+service than any bald statement will convey; for his aid in the matter
+of terminology, for his criticisms of ideas already put forward and for
+his many pregnant suggestions, but inadequately worked out in the
+present volume. I am under the deepest obligations to him; and no mere
+formal expression of thanks will meet the case. I have been more than
+fortunate in securing aid from Mr Lang in a subject which he has made
+his own.
+
+I do not for a moment suppose that the information here collected is
+exhaustive. If any one should be in a position to supplement or correct
+my facts or to enlighten me in any way as to the ideas and customs of
+the blacks I shall be obliged if he will tell me all he knows about them
+and their ways. Letters may be addressed to me c/o the Anthropological
+Institute, 3 Hanover Sq., W.
+
+NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS.
+
+BUNTINGFORD,
+ _Sept. 11th, 1906._
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+
+ PAGE
+PREFACE vii
+
+CONTENTS ix
+
+BIBLIOGRAPHY xii
+
+INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS xiv
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+INTRODUCTORY.
+
+Social Organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups: totem kins;
+phratries Pages =1-11=
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+DESCENT.
+
+Descent of Kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
+Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of descent;
+relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation =12-28=
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.
+
+Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
+"Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in Australia.
+General sketch =29-40=
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.
+
+TABLES I, I a. Class Names =42, 47=
+
+TABLE II. Phratry Names =48=
+
+TABLE III. Comparison of "blood" and phratry names =50=
+
+TABLE IV. Relations of Class and phratry organisations =51=
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+PHRATRY NAMES.
+
+The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
+Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts. Intercommunication.
+Tribal Migrations =52-62=
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.
+
+Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split
+groups. The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory
+of phratriac origin =63-70=
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CLASS NAMES.
+
+Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the Names:
+Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names =71-85=
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.
+
+Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
+totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory of
+classes =86-92=
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+KINSHIP TERMS.
+
+Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
+Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
+Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger =93-101=
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.
+
+Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types.
+Hypothetical and existing forms =102-109=
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.
+
+Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts
+ =110-118=
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.
+
+Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. _Noa._ Group Mothers.
+Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms express
+status. The savage view natural =119-126=
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+PIRRAURU.
+
+Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
+marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
+_pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
+Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
+_Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
+scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_; obscure
+points =127-141=
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+TEMPORARY UNIONS.
+
+Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for
+adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven
+ =142-149=
+
+
+APPENDIX.
+
+ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
+
+Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
+and "Castes" =150-152=
+
+INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES =153-157=
+INDEX OF SUBJECTS =158-163=
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+MAPS.
+
+ PAGE
+ I. Rule of Descent =40=
+ II. Class Organisations to follow =40=
+III. Phratry Organisations " =40=
+
+
+TABLE.
+
+Class Names of Eight-Class Tribes =between pp. 46= and =47=
+
+
+
+
+BIBLIOGRAPHY.
+
+
+ 1. _Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift._ Gutersloh, 1874 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 2. _American Anthropologist._ Washington, 1888 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 3. _Anne Sociologique._ Paris, 1898 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 4. _Archaeologia Americana._ Philadelphia, 1820 etc., 4^o.
+
+ 5. _Das Ausland._ Munich, 1828-1893, 4^o.
+
+ 6. _Bulletins of North Queensland Ethnography._ Brisbane, 1901 etc., fol.
+
+ 7. BUNCE, D., _Australasiatic Reminiscences of Twenty-three Years
+ Wanderings._ Melbourne, 1857, 8^o.
+
+ 8. _Colonial Magazine._ London, 1840-1842, 8^o.
+
+ 9. CUNOW, H., _Die Verwandtschaftsorganisationen der Australneger._
+ Leipzig, 1894, 8^o.
+
+10. CURR, E.M., _The Australian Race._ 4 vols., London, 1886, 8^o and fol.
+
+11. DAWSON, J., _Australian Aborigines._ Melbourne, 1881, 4^o.
+
+12. FISON, L. and HOWITT, A.W., _Kamilaroi and Kurnai._ Melbourne, 1880,
+ 8^o.
+
+13. _Folklore._ London, 1892 etc., 8^o.
+
+14. _Fortnightly Review._ London, 1865-1889, 8^o.
+
+15. FRAZER, J.G., _Totemism._ Edinburgh, 1887, 8^o.
+
+16. GERSTAECKER, F., _Reisen von F. Gerstaecker._ 5 vols., Stuttgart,
+ 1853-4, 8^o.
+
+17. _Globus._ Hildburghausen etc., 1863 etc., 4^o.
+
+18. GREY, Sir G., _Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in
+ North-West and West Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1841, 8^o.
+
+19. GRIBBLE, J.B., _Black but Comely._ London, 1874, 8^o.
+
+20. HODGSON, C.P., _Reminiscences of Australia._ London, 1846, 12^o.
+
+21. HOWITT, A.W., _Native Tribes of South-East Australia._ London, 1904,
+ 8^o.
+
+22. _Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie._ Leyden, 1888 etc., 4^o.
+
+23. _Journal of the Anthropological Institute._ London, 1871 sq., 8^o.
+
+24. _Journal of the Royal Geographical Society._ London, 1832-1880, 8^o.
+
+25. _Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales._ Sydney, 1877
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+26. _Journals of Several Expeditions in West Australia._ London, 1833,
+ 12^o.
+
+27. LAHONTAN, H. DE, _Voyages._ Amsterdam, 1705, 12^o.
+
+28. LANG, A. and ATKINSON, J., _Social Origins_; _Primal Law._ London,
+ 1903, 8^o.
+
+29. LANG, A., _Secret of the Totem._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+30. LEICHARDT, F.W.L., _Journal of an Overland Expedition in Australia._
+ London, 1848, 8^o.
+
+31. LUMHOLTZ, C., _Among Cannibals._ London, 1889, 8^o.
+
+32. MACLENNAN, J.F., _Studies in Ancient History._ 2nd Series, London,
+ 1886, 8^o.
+
+33. _Man._ London, 1901 sq., 8^o.
+
+34. MATHEW, J., _Eaglehawk and Crow._ London, 1898, 8^o.
+
+35. MATHEWS, R.H., _Ethnological Notes._ Sydney, 1905, 8^o.
+
+36. _Mitteilungen des Seminars fur orientalische Sprachen._ Berlin, 1898
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+37. _Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Erdkunde._ Halle, 1877-1892, 8^o.
+
+38. MOORE, G.F., _Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language in Common Use
+ among the Aborigines of Western Australia._ London, 1842, 8^o.
+
+39. MORGAN, Lewis H., _Ancient Society._ New York, 1877, 8^o.
+
+40. NEW, C., _Travels._ London, 1854, 8^o.
+
+41. OWEN, Mary A., _The Musquakie Indians._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+42. PARKER, K.L., _The Euahlayi Tribe._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+43. PETRIE, Tom, _Reminiscences._ Brisbane, 1905, 8^o.
+
+44. _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society._ Philadelphia,
+ 1840 etc., 8^o.
+
+45. _Proceedings of the Australian Association for the Advancement of
+ Science._ 1889 etc., 8^o.
+
+46. _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia,
+ Queensland Branch._ Brisbane, 1886 etc., 8^o.
+
+47. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland._ Brisbane, 1884
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+48. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria._ Melbourne, 1889
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+49. _Reports of the Cambridge University Expedition to Torres Straits._
+ Cambridge, 1903 etc., 4^o.
+
+50. ROTH, W.E., _Ethnological Studies._ Brisbane, 1898, 8^o.
+
+51. SCHRMANN, C.W., _Vocabulary of the Parnkalla Language._ Adelaide,
+ 1844, 8^o.
+
+52. _Science of Man._ Sydney, 1898 etc., 4^o.
+
+53. _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge._ Washington, 1848 etc. 4^o.
+
+54. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Native Tribes of Central
+ Australasia._ London, 1898, 8^o.
+
+55. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Northern Tribes of Central
+ Australia._ London, 1904, 8^o.
+
+56. STOKES, J.L., _Discoveries in Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1846, 8^o.
+
+57. TAPLIN, G., _Folklore, Manners, Customs and Language of the South
+ Australian Aborigines._ Adelaide, 1878, 8^o.
+
+58. _Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South
+ Australia._ Adelaide, 1878 etc., 8^o.
+
+59. VAN GENNEP, A., _Mythes et Lgendes._ Paris, 1906, 8^o.
+
+60. _West Australian._ Perth, 1886 etc., fol.
+
+61. WESTERMARCK, E., _History of Human Marriage._ 3rd Edition, London,
+ 1901, 8^o.
+
+62. _Wiener Medicinische Wochenschrift._ Vienna, 1851 etc., 4^o.
+
+63. WILSON, T.B., _Narrative of a Voyage round the World._ London, 1835,
+ 8^o.
+
+64. _Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft._ Stuttgart, 1878
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS.
+
+
+_Allg. Miss. Zts._, 1
+_Am. Anth._, 2
+_Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
+_Ann. Soc._, 3
+_Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._, 45
+_Col. Mag._, 8
+_C.T._, 54
+_Ethn. Notes_, 35
+_Fort. Rev._, 14
+_J.A.I._, 23
+_J.R.G.S._, 24
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._, 25
+_J.R.S. Vict._, 48
+_Nat. Tr._, 54
+_Nor. Tr._, 55
+_N.Q. Ethn. Bull._, 6
+_N.T._, 21
+_Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
+_Proc. R.G.S. Qn._, 46
+_Proc. R.S. Vict._, 48
+_R.G.S. Qn._, 47
+_Sci. Man_, 52
+_T.R.S.S.A._, 58
+_West. Aust._, 60
+_Zts. vgl. Rechtsw._, 64
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+INTRODUCTORY.
+
+Social organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+ Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups; totem kins;
+ phratries.
+
+
+The passage from what is commonly termed savagery through barbarism to
+civilisation is marked by a change in the character of the associations
+which are almost everywhere a feature of human society. In the lower
+stages of culture, save among peoples whose organisation has perished
+under the pressure of foreign invasion or other external influences, man
+is found grouped into totem kins, intermarrying classes and similar
+organised bodies, and one of their most important characteristics is
+that membership of them depends on birth, not on the choice of the
+individual. In modern society, on the other hand, associations of this
+sort have entirely disappeared and man is grouped in voluntary
+societies, membership of which depends on his own choice.
+
+It is true that the family, which exists in the lower stages of culture,
+though it is overshadowed by the other social phenomena, has persisted
+through all the manifold revolutions of society; especially in the stage
+of barbarism, its importance in some directions, such as the regulation
+of marriage, often forbidden within limits of consanguinity much wider
+than among ourselves, approaches the influence of the forms of natal
+association which it had supplanted. In the present day, however, if we
+set aside its economic and steadily diminishing ethical sides, it
+cannot be compared in importance with the territorial groupings on which
+state and municipal activities depend.
+
+If the family is a persistent type the tribe may also be compared to the
+modern state; it is, in most parts of the world, no less territorial in
+its nature; membership of it does not depend among the Australians on
+any supposed descent from a common ancestor; and though residence plus
+possession of a common speech is mentioned by Howitt as the test of
+tribe, it is possible in Australia, under certain conditions[1], to pass
+from one tribe to another in such a way that we seem reduced to
+residence as the test of membership. This change of tribe takes place
+almost exclusively where tribes are friendly, so far as is known; and we
+may doubt whether it would be possible for a stranger to settle, without
+any rite of adoption, in the midst of a hostile or even of an unknown
+tribe; but this is clearly a matter of minor importance, if adoption is
+not, as in North America, an invariable element of the change of tribe.
+Although membership of a tribe is thus loosely determined, tribesmen
+feel themselves bound by ties of some kind to their fellow-tribesmen, as
+we shall see below, but in this they do not differ from the members of
+any modern state.
+
+But in Australia the importance of the tribe, save from an economic
+point of view, as joint owner of the tribal land, is small compared with
+the part played in the lives of its members by the intratribal
+associations, whose influence is recognised without, as within the
+tribe. These associations are of two kinds in the lowest strata of human
+society; in each case membership is determined by birth and they may
+therefore be distinguished as _natal associations_. In the one case, the
+_kinship groups_ such as totem kins, phratries, etc., an individual
+remains permanently in the association into which he is born, special
+cases apart, in which by adoption he passes out of it and joins another
+by means of a legal fiction[2]. The other kind of association, to which
+the name _age-grades_ is applied, is composed of a series of grades,
+through which, concomitantly with the performance of the rites of
+initiation obligatory on every male member of the community, each man
+passes in succession, until he attains the highest. In the rare cases
+where an individual fails to qualify for the grade into which his
+coevals pass, and remains in the grade of "youth" or even lower grades,
+he is by birth a member of one class and does not remain outside the
+age-grades altogether.
+
+In the element of voluntary action lies the distinction between
+age-grades and _secret societies_, which are organised on identical or
+similar lines but depend for membership on ceremonies of initiation,
+alike in the lowest as in the highest grade. Such societies may be
+termed voluntary. The differentia between the natal and the voluntary
+association lies in the fact that in the former all are members of one
+or other grade, in the latter only such as have taken steps to gain
+admission, all others being simply non-members.
+
+Although _prim facie_ all these forms of association are equally
+entitled to be classed as social organisations, the use of this term is
+limited in practice, at any rate as regards Australia, and is the
+accepted designation of the kinship form of natal associations only; for
+this limitation there is so far justification, that though they perhaps
+play a smaller part in the daily life of the people than the secret
+societies of some areas, with their club-houses and other features which
+determine the whole form of life, the kinship associations are normally
+regulative of marriage and thus exercise an influence in a field of
+their own.
+
+Marriage prohibitions in the various races of mankind show an almost
+endless diversity of form; but all are based on considerations either of
+consanguinity or kinship or on a combination of the two. The distinction
+between _consanguinity_ and _kinship_ first demands attention; the
+former depends on birth, the latter on the law or custom of the
+community, and this distinction is all-important, especially in dealing
+with primitive peoples. With ourselves the two usually coincide, though
+even in civilised communities there are variations in this respect.
+Thus, according to the law of England, the father of an illegitimate
+child is not akin to it, though _ex hypothesi_ there is a tie of blood
+between them. In England nothing short of an Act of Parliament can make
+them akin; but in Scotland the subsequent marriage of the father with
+the mother of the child changes the legal status of the latter and makes
+it of kin with its father. These two examples make it abundantly evident
+that kinship is with us a matter of law.
+
+Among primitive peoples kinship occupies a similar position but with
+important differences. As with us, it is a sociological fact; custom,
+which has among them far more power than law among us, determines
+whether a man is of kin to his mother and her relatives alone, or to his
+father and father's relatives, or whether both sets of relatives are
+alike of kin to him. In the latter case, where parental kinship
+prevails, the limits of the kin are often determined by the facts of
+consanguinity. In the two former cases, where kinship is reckoned
+through males alone or through females alone, consanguinity has little
+or nothing to do with kinship, as will be shown more in detail below.
+
+Kinship is sociological, consanguinity physiological; in thus stating
+the case we are concerned only with broad principles. In practice the
+idea of consanguinity is modified in two ways and a sociological element
+is introduced, which has gone far to obscure the difference between
+these two systems of laying the foundations of human society. In the
+first place, custom determines the limits within which consanguinity is
+supposed to exist; or, in other words, at what point the descendants of
+a given ancestor cease to be blood relations. In the second place
+erroneous physiological ideas modify the ideas held as to actually
+existing consanguine relations, as we conceive them. The latter
+peculiarity does not affect the enquiry to any extent; it merely limits
+the sphere within which consanguinity plays a part, side by side with
+kinship, in moulding social institutions. If an Australian tribe, for
+example, distinguishes the actual mother of a child from the other women
+who go by the same kinship name, they may or may not develop on parallel
+lines their ideas as to the relation of the child and his real father.
+Some relation will almost certainly be found to exist between them; but
+it by no means follows that it arises from any idea of consanguinity. In
+other communities potestas and not consanguinity is held to determine
+the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring; and it is a
+matter for careful enquiry how far the same holds good in Australia,
+where the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be
+unrecognised by the natives. In speaking of consanguinity therefore, it
+must be made quite clear whether consanguinity according to native ideas
+or according to our own ideas is meant.
+
+The customary limitations and extensions of consanguinity, on the other
+hand, cause more inconvenience. They are of course sometimes combined
+with the other kind, which we may term quasi-physiological, but with
+this combination we need not deal, as we are concerned to analyse only
+on broad lines the nature of these elements. Just as, with us, kinship
+and consanguinity largely coincide, so with primitive peoples are the
+kinship organisations immense, if one-sided, extensions of blood
+relationship, at all events in theory. In many parts of the world a
+totem kin traces its descent to a single male or female ancestor; and
+even where, as in Australia, this is not the case, blood brotherhood is
+expressly asserted of the totem kin[3].
+
+Entry into the totem kin may often be gained by adoption, though not
+apparently in Australia, and the blood relationship thus becomes an
+artificial one and partakes, even if the initial assumption be accepted
+as true, far more of the nature of kinship than of consanguinity. In
+Australia, and possibly in other parts of the world, there is a further
+extension of natal kinship. Although the tribe is not regarded as
+descended from a single pair, its members are certainly reckoned as of
+kin to each other in some way; the situation may be summarised by saying
+that under one of the systems of kinship organisation (the two-phratry),
+half of the members of the tribe in a given generation are related to a
+given man, A, and the other half to his wife. More than one observer
+assures us that there is a solidarity about the tribe, which regards
+some, if not all other tribes as "wild blacks," though it may be on
+terms of friendship and alliance with certain neighbours, and feel
+itself united to them by a bond analogous to, though weaker than, that
+which holds its own members together.
+
+If however a homonymous totem kin exists even in a hostile or absolutely
+unknown tribe, a member of it will be regarded, as we learn from Dr
+Howitt, as a brother. How this view is reconciled with the belief that
+the tribe in question is alien and in no way akin to that in which the
+other totem kin is found, is a question of some interest for which there
+appears to be no answer in the literature concerning the Australian
+aborigines.
+
+Even if, therefore, we had reason to believe that all totem kins in a
+given tribe or group of tribes could make out a good case for their
+descent from single male or female ancestors, which is far from being
+the case, we should still have to recognise that kinship and not
+consanguinity is the proper term to apply to the relationship between
+members of the same group. For, as we have seen, it may be recruited
+from without in some cases, while in others, persons who are
+demonstrably not of the same blood, are regarded as totem-brethren by
+virtue of the common name.
+
+Enough has now been said to make clear the difference between
+consanguinity and kinship and to exemplify the nature of some of the
+transitional forms. As we have seen, it is on considerations of either
+consanguinity or kinship that many marriage prohibitions are based.
+
+Marriage prohibitions depend broadly on three kinds of considerations:
+(1) Kinship, intermarriage being forbidden to members of the same
+kinship group; a brief introductory sketch of the nature and
+distribution of kinship groups will be found below. (2) Locality. In New
+Guinea, parts of Australia, Melanesia, Africa, and possibly elsewhere,
+_local exogamy_ is found. By this is meant that the resident in one
+place is bound to go outside his own group for a mate, and may perhaps
+be bound to seek a spouse in a specified locality. This kind of
+organisation is in Australia almost certainly an offshoot of kinship
+organisation (see p. 10), and is _prim facie_ due to the same cause in
+other areas. (3) (_a_) consanguinity, and (_b_) affinity. The first of
+these considerations is regulative of marriage even in Australia, where
+the influence of kinship organisations is in the main supreme in these
+matters. We learn from Roth and other authorities that blood cousins,
+children of own brother and sister, may not marry in North-West Central
+Queensland, although the kinship regulations designate them as the
+proper spouses one for the other. (_b_) Considerations of affinity, the
+relations set up by marriage, do not affect the status of the parties,
+so far as the legality of marriage is concerned, till a somewhat higher
+stage is reached.
+
+In the present work we are concerned with kinship groups and the
+marriage regulations based on them. A kinship group, whether it be a
+totem kin, phratry, class, or other form of association, is a fraction
+of a tribe; and before we proceed to deal with kinship organisations, it
+will be necessary to say a few words on the nature of the tribe and the
+family. In Australia the tribe is a local aggregate, composed of
+friendly groups speaking the same language and owning corporately or
+individually the land to which the tribe lays claim. A change of tribe
+is effected by marriage plus removal, and possibly by simple residence;
+children belong to the tribe among which their parents reside. In the
+ordinary tribe each member seems to apply to every other member one or
+other of the kinship terms; and this no doubt accounts for the feeling
+of tribal solidarity already mentioned. There are however certain tribes
+in which the marriage regulations, as with the Urabunna, so split the
+intermarrying fractions, that the tribe is, as it were, divided into
+water-tight compartments; how far kinship terms are applied under these
+circumstances our information does not say.
+
+The tribe is defined by American anthropologists as a union of hordes or
+clans for common defence under a chief. The American tribe differs in
+two respects, at least, from the Australian tribe; in the first place,
+marriage outside the tribe is exceptional in America and common in
+Australia; in the second place, the stranger gains entrance to the
+American tribe only by adoption; and we may probably add, thirdly, that
+the American tribe does not invariably lay claim to landed property or
+hunting rights.
+
+The tribe is subdivided in various ways. In addition to the various
+forms of natal and other associations, there is, at any rate in
+Australia, a local organisation; the local group is often the owner of a
+portion of the tribal area. This local group again falls into a number
+of families (in the European sense), and the land is parcelled out among
+them in some cases, in others it may be the property of individuals. But
+there is a great lack of clearness with regard to the bodies or persons
+in whom landed property is vested. The composition of the local group
+varies according to the customs of residence after marriage, and the
+rules by which membership of the kinship organisation is determined.
+These two forces acting together may produce two types of local group:
+(1) the mixed group, in which persons of various kinship organisations
+are scattered at random; (2) the kin group, in which either all the
+males or all the females together with the children are members of one
+kinship organisation.
+
+Save in the rare instances of non-exogamous kinship groups, the family
+necessarily contains one member, at least, whose kin is not the same as
+that of the remainder; this is either the husband or the wife, according
+as descent is reckoned in the female or the male line; where polygyny is
+practised, this unity may go no further than the phratry or the class,
+each wife being of a different totem kin.
+
+Although it frequently happens that the children belong to the kin which
+through one of the parents or otherwise exercises the supreme authority
+in the family, it is far from being the case that there is invariable
+agreement between the principles on which kinship and authority are
+determined. Three main types of family may be distinguished: (1)
+patripotestal, (2) matripotestal, (_a_) direct, and (_b_) indirect, in
+which the authority is wielded by the father, mother, and mother's
+relatives, in particular her brothers, respectively. Innumerable
+transitional forms are found, some of which will be mentioned in the
+next chapter, which deals with the rule of descent by which membership
+of natal groups is determined.
+
+Turning now to kinship organisations, we find that the most widely
+distributed type is the totem kin, in fact, if we except the Hottentots
+and a few other peoples among whom no trace of it is found, it is
+difficult to say where totemism has not at one time or another
+prevailed. It is found as a living cult to-day among the greater part of
+the aborigines of North and South America, in Australia, and among some
+of the Bantu populations of the southern half of Africa. In more or less
+recognisable forms it is found in other parts of Africa, New Guinea,
+India, and other parts of the world. In the ancient world its existence
+has been maintained for Rome (clan Valeria etc.), Greece, and Egypt, but
+the absence of information as to details of the social structure renders
+these theories uncertain.
+
+Aberrant cases apart, totemism is understood to involve (1) the
+existence of a body of persons claiming kinship, who (2) stand in a
+certain relation to some object, usually an animal, and (3) do not marry
+within the kin.
+
+Passing over the classes, which are peculiar to Australia and will be
+fully dealt with below, we come to a more comprehensive form of kinship
+organisation in the phratries. These are a grouping of the community in
+two or more exogamous divisions, between which the totem kins, where
+they exist, are distributed. The essential feature of a phratry is that
+it is exogamous; its members cannot ordinarily marry within it, and,
+where there are more than two phratries, there may exist rules limiting
+their choice to certain phratries.[4]
+
+This dual or other grouping of the kins is widely found in North
+America, the number of phratries ranging from two among the Tlinkits,
+Cayugas, Choctaws, and others, to ten among the Moquis of Arizona. As in
+Australia, the totem kins bearing the same eponymous animal as the
+phratry are usually, e.g. among the Tlinkits, found in the phratry in
+question. Exceptions to this rule are found among the Haida, where both
+eagle and raven are in the eagle phratry.
+
+The Mohegan and Kutchin phratries call for special notice. The kins of
+the former are arranged in three groups: wolf, turtle, and turkey; and
+the first phratry includes quadrupeds, the second turtles of various
+kinds and the yellow eel, and the third birds. We find a parallel to
+these phratries in the groups of the Kutchin, but in the latter case
+our lack of knowledge of the tribe precludes us from saying whether
+totem kins exist among them, and, if so, how far the grouping is
+systematic; the Kutchin groups, according to one authority, are known by
+the generic names of birds, beasts, and fish. As a rule, however, no
+classification of kins is found, nor are the phratry names specially
+significant.
+
+Dual grouping of the kins is also found in New Guinea, the Torres
+Straits Islands, and possibly among the ancient Arabs[5]; but evidence
+in the latter case has not been systematically dealt with.
+
+Other peoples have a similar dichotomous organisation; but it is either
+not based on the totem kins or they have fallen into the background.
+
+In various parts of Melanesia we find the people divided into two
+groups, each associated with a single totem or mythological personage,
+and sexual intercourse, whether marital or otherwise, is strictly
+forbidden between those of the same phratry[6]. In India the Todas have
+a similar organisation[7], and the Wanika in East Africa[8].
+
+Customs of residence and descent affect the distribution of the
+phratries within the tribe, no less than the composition of the local
+group. With patrilineal descent they tend to occupy the tribal territory
+in such a way that each phratry becomes a local group. With the
+disappearance of phratry names this would be transformed into a local
+exogamous group, which is, however, indistinguishable from the local
+group of the same nature which is the result of the development of a
+totem kin under similar conditions.
+
+As a rule kinship organisations descend in a given tribe either in the
+male line or in the female. Among the Ova-Herero, however, and other
+Bantu tribes, there are two kinds of organisation, one--the
+_eanda_--descending in female line and regulative of marriage, is
+clearly the totem kin; property remains in the _eanda_, and
+consequently descends to the sister's son. The other--the
+_oruzo_--descends in the male line; it is concerned with chieftainship
+and priesthood, which remain in the same _oruzo_, and the heir is the
+brother's son.[9]
+
+This dual rule of descent brings us face to face with the question of
+how membership of kinship groups is determined.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] Howitt, _N.T._, p. 225.
+
+[2] Cf. Owen, _Musquakie Indians_, p. 122; Lahontan, _Voyages_, II,
+203-4; Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 81.
+
+[3] Two kinds of kinship are recognised in Australian tribes--(_a_)
+totem and (_b_) phratry or class--but the precise relationship of one to
+the other is far from clear. Nor is there much information as to what
+terms of kinship are used within the totem kin. It is certain that
+neither set of terms includes the other, for the totem kin extends
+beyond the tribe or may do so, and there is more than one in each
+phratry.
+
+[4] For the facts see Frazer, _Totemism_, and cf. p. 31 _infra_.
+
+[5] MS. note from Dr Seligmann's unpublished _Report of Cook-Daniels
+Expedition; Camb. Univ. Torres Sts Exped._, V, 172; _Man_, 1904, no. 18.
+
+[6] _J.A.I._ XVIII, 282.
+
+[7] _Man_, 1903, no. 97.
+
+[8] New, _Travels_, p. 274.
+
+[9] _Ausland_, 1856, p. 45, 1882, p. 834; _Allg. Miss. Zts._ V, 354;
+_Zts. Vgl. Rechtswiss._ XIV, 295; _Mitt. Orient. Seminar_, III, 73, V,
+109. The recent work of Irle is inaccurate and confused.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+DESCENT.
+
+Descent of kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
+ Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of
+ descent; relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation.
+
+
+In discussions of the origin and evolution of kinship organisations, we
+are necessarily concerned not only with their forms but also with the
+rules of descent which regulate membership of them. Until recently the
+main questions at issue were twofold: (1) the priority or otherwise of
+female descent; (2) the causes of the transition from one form of
+descent to another. Of late the question has been raised whether in the
+beginning hereditary kinship groups existed at all, or whether
+membership was not rather determined by considerations of an entirely
+different order. Dr Frazer, who has enunciated this view, maintains that
+totemism rests on a primitive theory of conception, due to savage
+ignorance of the facts of procreation.[10] But his theory is based
+exclusively on the foundation of the beliefs of the Central Australians
+and seems to neglect more than one important point which goes to show
+that the Arunta have evolved their totemic system from the more ordinary
+hereditary form. Whether this be so or not, it is difficult to see how
+any idea of kinship could arise from such a condition of nescience. If
+we take the analogous case of the nagual or "individual totem" there
+seems to be no trace of any belief in the kinship of those who have the
+same animal as their nagual, but are otherwise bound by no tie of
+relationship. Yet if Dr Frazer's theory were correct, this is precisely
+what we ought to find.
+
+This is, however, no reason for rejecting the general proposition that
+kinship, at its origin, was not hereditary; or, more exactly, that the
+beginnings of the kinship groups found at the present day may be traced
+back to a point at which the hereditary principle virtually disappears,
+although the bond of union and perhaps the totem name already existed.
+If, as suggested by Mr Lang, man was originally distributed in small
+communities, known by names which ultimately came to be those of the
+totem kins, we may suppose that daily association would not fail to
+bring about that sense of solidarity in its members which it is found to
+produce in more advanced communities. In the case of the tribe an even
+feebler bond, the possession of a common language, seems to give the
+tribesmen a sense of the unity of the tribe, though perhaps other
+explanations may be suggested, such as the possession in common of the
+tribal land, or the origin of the tribe from a single blood-related
+group. However this may be, it seems reasonable to look for one factor
+of the first bond of union in the influence of the daily and hourly
+association of group-mates. On the other hand, if, as Mr Lang supposes,
+the original group was a consanguine one, the claims of the factor of
+consanguinity and perhaps of foster brotherhood and motherhood cannot be
+neglected. It may be true, as Dr Frazer argues, that man was originally
+and still is in some cases ignorant of physiological facts. But all
+races of man and a great part of the rest of the animal kingdom show us
+the phenomena of parental affection, of care for offspring and sometimes
+of union for their defence. This does not, it may be noted, imply any
+predominance of the mother.[11]
+
+We may suppose that the idea of kinship or the recognition of
+consanguinity, whichever be the more correct term to apply to these
+far-off developments of the factors of human society, extended only by
+degrees beyond the limits of the group. First, perhaps, came the naming
+of the group, already, it may be, exogamous; then came the recognition
+of the fact that those members of it, viz. the women, who passed to
+community B after being born and having resided for years in community
+A, were in reality, in spite of their change of residence, still in fact
+the kin of community A; finally came the step of assigning to their
+children the group names which were retained by their mothers from the
+original natal groups. This brings us face to face with the first of the
+fundamental questions of descent, to which allusion has been made.
+
+It is commonly assumed by students of primitive social organisation that
+matrilineal descent is the earlier and that it has everywhere preceded
+patrilineal descent; but the questions involved are highly complicated
+and it can hardly be said that the subject has been fully discussed.
+
+Much of what has been said on the point has been vitiated by the
+introduction of foreign factors. Thus, the child belongs to the tribe of
+the father where the wife removes to the husband's local group or tribe.
+But though it may be taken as a mark of matrilineal institutions, often
+associated with matria potestas or its analogue the rule of the mother's
+brother, that the husband should remove and live with the wife, we are
+by no means entitled to say that the removal of the wife to the husband
+implies a different state of things. Customs of residence are no guide
+to the principles on which descent is regulated. Consequently it is
+entirely erroneous to import into the discussion with which we are
+concerned, viz. the rules by which _kinship_ is determined, any
+considerations based on the rules by which membership of a _tribe_ is
+settled.
+
+Similarly, no proof of the existence of paternal authority in the family
+throws any light on the question of whether the children belong to the
+kin of the father rather than of the mother. Where the mother or
+mother's brother is the guardian, we are usually safe in assuming that
+descent is or has been until recently matrilineal. But from the
+undisputed existence of patria potestas no similar inference can be
+drawn.
+
+Again, as will be shown below, not even the tie of blood between parent
+and child, confined though it may be in the opinion of the people whose
+institutions are in question, to a single parent, is an index to the way
+in which is determined the kinship organisation to which the child
+belongs.
+
+It is therefore clear that the utmost discrimination is necessary in
+dealing with these questions; rules of descent must be kept apart from
+matters which indeed influence the evolution of the rules but are in no
+way decisive as to their form at any given moment.
+
+Returning now to the alleged priority of matrilineal descent in
+determining the kinship organisation into which a child passes, it may
+be said that whereas evidences of the passage from female to male
+reckoning may be observed,[12] there is virtually none of a change in
+the opposite direction. In other words, where kinship is reckoned in the
+female line, there is no ground for supposing that it was ever
+hereditary in any other way. On the other hand, where kinship is
+reckoned in the male line, it is frequently not only legitimate but
+necessary to conclude that it has succeeded a system of female kinship.
+But this clearly does not mean that female descent has in _all_ cases
+preceded the reckoning of kinship through males. Patrilineal descent may
+have been directly evolved without the intermediate stage of reckoning
+through females.
+
+The problem is probably insoluble. No decisive data are available, for
+the mere absence of traces of matrilineal descent does not necessarily
+prove more than that it had long been superseded by reckoning of kinship
+through males. All that can be said is that in the kinship organisations
+known to us female descent seems to have prevailed in the vast majority
+of cases and probably existed in the residual class of indeterminable
+examples.
+
+With patria potestas it is, of course, different. There can be little
+doubt that it might and probably did develop in the absence of kinship
+organisations and in a state of society where consanguinity is no real
+bond after the children have reached puberty. If therefore under such
+circumstances a kinship organisation were to come into existence, either
+independently or by transmission, it might well be that patrilineal
+principles prevailed from the first. But of such a case we have no
+knowledge. It may perhaps be questioned whether the actually existing
+peoples who appear to have no kinship organisations, such as the
+Hottentots, the Bushmen, the Veddahs and perhaps the Fuegians, are not
+in this state rather as a result of the break-up of their former
+organisation than because they have never evolved kinship groups. But
+our knowledge in these matters is lamentably small and the problem is
+not one which calls for discussion here.
+
+The second fundamental problem relating to rules of descent is that of
+the cause of the transition from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. The
+subject needs to be discussed in detail for each particular area before
+general conclusions can be formulated; it is quite possible that the
+causes will be found to differ widely; for no general rule can be laid
+down as to the relations between matrilineal descent and other cultural
+conditions.
+
+All that can be attempted here is an examination of the various elements
+in the problem so far as it affects Australia. To this may be prefixed a
+further discussion of the origin of matrilineal descent with especial
+reference to Australian conditions.
+
+It is commonly assumed that in a pure matrilineal community, the husband
+removes to the wife's local group (matrilocal marriage), or if not that,
+that at any rate the authority in the family rests in the hands of the
+mother's brothers, who are also the heirs to the exclusion of the
+children. But of any such custom of removal there is but the very
+slenderest evidence in Australia. According to Howitt it occurs
+occasionally in Victoria and among the Dieri; among the Wakelbura it is
+done only if a man elopes with a betrothed woman and the man to whom she
+was betrothed dies; among the Kuinmurbura it seems to have been a
+recognised thing for a man who married a woman of another tribe to
+remove, but in this case he took no part in intertribal warfare[13]. In
+all these cases, the Kurnai excepted, descent is reckoned in the female
+line.
+
+If however Dr Howitt's informant, who does not seem to have been
+particularly accurate in many cases, is to be relied on, the removal of
+the husband to the wife's group is also found among the patrilineal
+Maryborough tribes, though only if the woman belonged to a distant
+tribelet, whatever that may be[14]. To this information is added the
+statement that in such cases the husband joined his wife's tribe for
+purposes of hostilities also and that it has happened that a son has
+come into conflict with his father under these circumstances and
+endangered his life with full knowledge of what he was doing. There is,
+it is true, no definite statement to the effect that children in these
+tribes take their totems from the father, but we may assume that it is
+the case. If therefore the statement in question is accurate, it is a
+pretty clear proof of the break-up of the social system; for under no
+circumstances does the totem-kinsman, as a rule, violate the
+sacro-sanctity of his own flesh. It cannot therefore be argued that the
+fact of removal in the Maryborough tribes is any very strong evidence of
+the primitive nature of the custom. In the other tribes, on the other
+hand, it is distinctly stated that the practice prevails only when
+marriage takes place between members of two different tribes, and among
+the Wakelbura only exceptionally even when the wife is of an alien folk.
+Whatever else the custom proves in these cases, it certainly evidences
+the existence of friendly relations between the tribes in question; for
+if it were otherwise the man would hardly be disposed to give up the
+security of his own people for the perils of a strange community; on the
+other hand it is hardly likely that the man's tribe would allow him to
+pass over to the ranks of the strangers, nor would they view with
+equanimity the loss of effective fighting strength which would result
+from the fact that his children too would be numbered against them, not
+for them, if it came to hostilities. The custom is therefore clear
+evidence of fairly permanent friendly relations in the district in
+question; and it is plain that we cannot assume these to have existed in
+more primitive times. It is therefore difficult to see in what way the
+present day practices lend support to the theory that the original usage
+was for the husband to remove to his wife's group. For, be it noted,
+there is not a single case, unless we include the anomalous Kurnai, in
+which the husband removes to his wife's group within his own tribe; but
+clearly this is the custom to which the removal theory applies. So far,
+therefore, as Australia is concerned, the removal theory falls to the
+ground; it cannot of course be disproved, but we are not justified in
+assuming that matrilineal descent and matria potestas are due to a
+custom of removal.
+
+Inasmuch as patrilocal[15] marriage involves descent of group and tribal
+property rights in the male line, it might appear that in rejecting the
+hypothesis of a prior stage of matrilocal marriage, we are involving
+ourselves in difficulties; for it is clearly not easy to see how descent
+could come to be reckoned through the mother, while property descended
+through the father. But it is obviously unnecessary in the first place
+to regard the individual rights of property as originating
+simultaneously or under the same conditions as the rules as to kinship
+or even communal property; there is nothing to show how long the present
+system of land tenure in Australia has held good, and it is clearly one
+which points to a certain growth of population; for if the local group
+were remote from their neighbours, there would be little need to
+encroach; moreover, the exact delimitation of territory now in practice
+is a thing of long growth.
+
+Further consideration however shows that it is only by a confusion of
+thought that we can speak of land descending in the male line (that is,
+of course, in respect of group rights, not private property, to which we
+return later); strictly speaking the descent of landed property is
+neither in the male nor the female line but local. A man who removes to
+his wife's tribe is, so far as we can see, as truly part owner of the
+tribal land as if he were himself a member of the tribe by birth within
+its limits. The suggested difficulty, therefore, does not exist, and the
+conclusion as to removal customs holds good.
+
+We may now examine the relation of matriliny to the seat of authority in
+the family. Questions of potestas naturally range themselves under more
+than one head. We have (1) the relation of the husband (_a_) to the wife
+and (_b_) to the children; (2) the relation of the mother to the
+children, and closely connected with this the influence of the mother's
+brother; finally (3) we have the position of the widow, a matter indeed
+more intimately connected with inheritance from a legal point of view
+but in Australia more closely connected with potestas than in countries
+where slavery is a recognised institution.
+
+Small as is our information on Australian jurisprudence, it is certain
+that the husband enjoys practically unrestricted rights over the person
+of his wife, _pirrauru_ and similar customs apart. He may at will lend
+her or hire her out to strangers; he may punish her infidelity,
+disobedience or awkwardness by chastisement, not stopping short of the
+infliction of spear or club wounds; he may even, according to Roth[16],
+go so far as to kill her and yet get off scot free, his only duty in
+such a case being to provide a sister for the brothers of his dead wife
+to kill in retaliation.
+
+This custom suggests that the kin to which the woman belongs claim a
+certain property in her even after she is married, and this partial
+proprietorship naturally implies a slight protecting influence; for it
+would clearly not be in every case easy for the homicidal male to find a
+sister ready to go out and be killed as a set-off to his murdered wife.
+We should not, it is true, overlook the fact that the customs of the
+Pitta-Pitta differ from those of many of the Australian tribes, in that
+exchange of sisters is not practised. Otherwise it would be tempting to
+argue that this proprietorship in the women of their kin may go back to
+the time of Mr Lang's connubial groups and help to explain the reckoning
+of descent through females. For clearly, if a woman still belongs in a
+sense to the group she has left, so may her children belong to the same
+group, inasmuch as their relationship to her is, to us at any rate,
+unmistakeable. If any evidence could be produced for the widespread
+existence of the custom (found in various parts of the globe, though
+not, up to the present, in Australia), according to which the widow and
+her children remove to her own district, some probability would be
+imparted to this hypothesis.
+
+The ordinary rule as regards punishment inflicted by the husband on the
+wife seems to be that he may go any length short of doing her a mortal
+injury, without being liable to be called to account. The punishment of
+death however may only be inflicted for adultery and certain specified
+offences without incurring a blood-feud with the woman's relatives.
+
+It is by no means improbable that under the influence of the custom of
+exchanging sisters there may be a tendency for the control of the kin in
+this respect to diminish; in fact the Boulia example is only explicable
+on this hypothesis. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that
+elopement, or real marriage by capture, as distinguished from formal
+abduction, would, so far as we can see, have a similar effect, and the
+rise of the custom of exchange of sisters would in that case tend to
+re-establish rather than weaken the power of the woman's kin, at any
+rate in the first instance.
+
+However this may be, the woman's kin exercises, _prim facie_, some kind
+of protectorship. At the present day the kinship may be matrilineal or
+patrilineal without affecting their right. But if, before kinship was
+reckoned at all, this protectorship were exercised for the benefit of
+the children, we clearly have a possible cause of matriliny.
+
+For a discussion of the question of the inheritance of the deceased's
+wife by his brother we have more facts at our disposal. As a matter of
+fact it is a not infrequent custom in Australia for the widow to pass to
+the deceased husband's brother[17]; or if she does not become his wife,
+he decides to whom she shall be allotted[18]. In no case do the woman's
+kin seem to have a voice in the selection of her new husband. On the
+whole therefore the proprietary rights found in the Boulia district seem
+to be the product of exceptional local conditions. If this is so, it is
+clear that in the matter of potestas the rights of the woman's kin are
+now absolutely restricted to protecting her from a death which she has
+not according to native law deserved and to avenging such a death when
+it is inflicted by the husband.
+
+The so-called levirate, or right of succession to the widow, is clearly
+of much importance, so far as questions of dominion are concerned; but
+as regards the problems of descent the evidence is less easily
+interpreted. It has sometimes been assumed that the succession of the
+brother and not the son is a mark of matriliny; but it is clear that
+where the right of appropriating the widow is concerned, this is very
+far from being the case, for the simple reason that the real matria
+potestas would put her at the disposal of the kin from whom she
+originally came; on the other hand, inasmuch as the son is naturally
+debarred from marrying his own mother or his tribal mother, who commonly
+belongs to a class into which he does not marry, there might easily
+arise in a purely patripotestal and patrilineal tribe a custom of
+handing over the widow to the father's brother.
+
+On the whole however it seems simplest to regard the matter as one in
+which the rights are determined by no considerations of inheritance or
+descent but simply by the rule that the property in the woman remains
+vested in the body of purchasers. For it must be remembered that not
+only an own but also a tribal sister may be given in exchange for a
+wife. From this it follows that, theoretically at any rate, the
+contracting parties are corporations rather than individuals, and in
+this case the death of the individual on whose behalf the transaction
+has been effected does not extinguish the proprietary rights acquired by
+handing over a woman, standing in the relation of sister to the one
+corporation, in exchange for another woman standing in the relation of
+sister to the other corporation.
+
+If this solution is correct, it is unnecessary to go into the
+complicated question of the relation of brother-inheritance to matriliny
+and patriliny. For it is by no means clear that it is an exemplification
+of the former rather than the latter principle. It may, of course, be
+argued that brothers succeed as children of the same mother; but against
+this must be set the fact that they are also children of the same
+father; for uncertain paternity can only be a _vera causa_ where
+_pirrauru_ and similar customs are found; and even here the pre-eminence
+of the primary husband might well be held to determine the legal
+paternity of the children, which is, of course, especially in Africa, a
+matter of potestas rather than procreation. However this may be, the
+position of the widow does not appear to invalidate the guardianship
+origin of matriliny.
+
+We now turn to the question of why male tends to take the place of
+female descent. The possible factors are (1) authority in the family,
+(2) the rise of chieftainship and inheritance generally, and (3) the
+organisation of the family group. Of the authority of father or mother
+over the children, there is not much trace in Australia except in the
+most youthful period of the pre-adult life. It is for example
+exceptional for a parent to correct a child. As to who decides in cases
+of infanticide we have unfortunately too little information to be able
+to generalise. Only in one important step--that of betrothal--have we
+anything like adequate information, and the interrelations between rule
+of descent and potestas are found to be in this case sufficiently clear,
+though it is not clear on what principle it is decided _who_ shall
+exercise the right.
+
+Taking first tribes with matrilineal descent, we find that the Barkinji,
+the Wakelbura, the Dieri, and in some cases the Wollaroi, assign the
+right of betrothal to the mother or mother's brother[19]. In other
+cases, transitional forms, the father, his elder brother, or the girl's
+brothers decide, or else the parents or two of these persons
+jointly[20]. Among the Mukjarawaint the betrothal rested in part with
+the paternal grandparents[21]; it may be noted that the grandfather had
+to decide also whether a child should be brought up or killed. Among the
+Kuinmurbura it falls to the mother's brother's son or the father's
+sister's son, who is, apparently, entitled to marry the girl
+himself[22].
+
+Turning now to tribes with male descent, we find that the father, his
+brother, or the parents, almost invariably make the decision[23]. Among
+the eight-class tribes, Spencer and Gillen assert in one place[24] that
+the mother's brother betroths a girl; but this is contradicted in two
+other passages[25], and cannot be regarded as reliable.
+
+On the whole therefore it appears that while there are some survivals of
+matria potestas into patrilineal descent, and in the matrilineal stage
+transitional forms are found, the right of betrothal tends to pass from
+the mother's to the father's side, when the rule of descent changes; but
+there is little to show how far a change in the right of betrothal tends
+to cause a change in the rule of descent.
+
+A curious fact may be noted here, which goes far to demonstrate the
+absolutely heterogeneous nature of kinship and consanguinity, and
+suggests that descent is not reckoned in the female line on account of
+any supposed specially close connection between the mother and her
+offspring. Of the four tribes among which, according to Howitt, the
+child is regarded as the offspring of the father alone[26], the mother
+being only its nurse, two, the Yuin and Kulin, have male descent; two,
+however, the Wolgal and Tatathi, have female descent, and among the
+latter, in addition, the right of betrothal lies with the mother or
+mother's brother.
+
+On the whole, therefore, it may be said that no questions of potestas
+seem to have exercised any influence in bringing about the transition
+from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. It does not appear necessary,
+therefore, to do more than allude in passing to a fact which may well
+have had something to do with the decay of matria potestas, at any rate,
+so far as the mother's brother is concerned, even if it did not actively
+hasten the coming of patria potestas. This fact is the considerable size
+of the area over which, with the rise of the so-called nations, it is
+possible to select a wife. The more remote geographically the mother's
+relatives, the less their influence. Allowance must of course be made
+for the opportunities of discussion afforded by the great gatherings of
+the tribes; but the wider area of bride-choice must have shaken the
+authority of the brother.
+
+It has been remarked above that there is no well-established case of the
+right of betrothal being assigned on patrilineal principles in a
+matrilineal tribe. The influence of the father's brother is not
+necessarily a mark of patrilineal tendencies, except in so far as all
+patria potestas is such. That the elder brother has authority in this
+case is no more decisive than that the elder brother has authority in
+cases of betrothal; it is no more an exemplification of the simple
+patria potestas, which has already been shown to be universal and under
+but slight limitations so far as the wife is concerned. From the point
+of view of potestas, it is a great advance that the father should be
+able to dispose of his own daughter in marriage; but if we may judge by
+the survival of matria potestas into patriliny, the cases of patria
+potestas under matriliny cannot have exercised an important influence in
+bringing about a change in the rule of descent.
+
+The case of the power of the girl's own brother is somewhat different.
+_Prim facie_ it appears to owe its origin to the fact that it is the
+brothers who are mainly interested in the transaction, inasmuch as it is
+to them that wives come in exchange for the sisters given in marriage.
+Consequently we cannot, as has already been the case with the so-called
+levirate, assign the practice definitely either to matripotestal or
+patripotestal customs, for father's and mother's authority are alike
+overruled.
+
+It has already been stated that we have but few data for estimating the
+influence of the right of betrothal on the rule of descent. Clearly the
+father has little to gain from the fact that his daughter follows him
+rather than the mother, when the inevitable effect of the marriage
+regulations is to make her children of the phratry and totem of her
+husband, and consequently to make them of a different phratry and totem
+from her father. Under matriliny on the other hand there is nothing to
+prevent the grandchildren from being of the same totem as the
+grandfather, and they are necessarily of the same class in a four-class
+tribe. If considerations with regard to the phratry and totem of the
+grandchildren played any part in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent, this must have been based on a review of the changes that would
+be brought about in the position of the son's and not the daughter's
+offspring. But this is unlikely.
+
+But on the other hand the father's disposal of the daughter's hand is
+indirectly a means of increasing his influence both with his son and in
+general. If the son gains his wife by an exchange of sisters, the
+father's authority is obviously increased. But we do not know how far
+this factor of the right of betrothal has operated.
+
+Turning now to questions of inheritance, we find that properly speaking
+the hereditary chief is unknown in Australia. There is a tendency for
+the son of the tribal headman to succeed his father, but it is subject
+to exceptions. Moreover, it is by no means a universal rule for the
+tribe to have an over-headman; it may be ruled by the council of
+district headmen. In any case the influence of the quasi-hereditary
+character of the over-headmanship upon the rule of descent cannot but
+have been comparatively slight.
+
+It is, on the other hand, usual for the local group and the totem kin to
+have headmen. In the case of the latter, age is often the qualification,
+as among the Dieri[27]; in such cases there is no possible effect on the
+rule of succession. But among some of the Victorian tribes with
+matrilineal descent the rule is for the son to follow the father in the
+headmanship[28]; and the same is the case, as we should expect, among
+the patrilineal eight-class tribes[29]. The most important tribe in
+which hereditary headmanship is combined with female descent is the
+Wiradjeri[30]; their neighbours, the Kamilaroi, showed marked respect to
+the son of a headman, if he possessed ability, though they did not,
+apparently, make him his father's successor[31].
+
+On the whole, then, we cannot assign much weight to this element in the
+list of possible causes of the transition.
+
+Of inheritance of chattels or land and fixtures we know little. From
+Spencer and Gillen we learn that among the Warramunga the mother's
+brother, or daughter's husband, succeeds to the boomerangs, and other
+moveable property[32]. Among the Kulin and the Kurnai inheritance in the
+male line seems to have been the rule. In the Adelaide district, as we
+learn from Gerstaecker[33], individual property in land was known; it
+descended in the male line. Among the Turribul there was individual
+property in _bunya-bunya_ trees; these too devolved from father to
+son[34].
+
+On the other hand on the Bloomfield property in zamia nut grounds has
+vested in women and descends from mother to daughter[35]; but in this
+remarkable variant we see, of course, not the influence of the mother's
+kin, but female influence or rather the right of females to the produce
+of their labour. In respect of other property, inheritance in North
+Queensland is in the male line, for it descends to blood brothers and
+remains in the same exogamous group from generation to generation.
+
+This brings us to the question of the part played by the local group in
+causing the change from female to male descent. Under ordinary
+circumstances, with female descent, the local group is made up of
+persons of different phratries and totems; in any case, just as the
+phratry and totem of the members of the individual family change from
+generation to generation, the complexion of the local group is liable to
+be completely changed; though in practice the changes in one direction
+are no doubt counterbalanced by changes in the other, so that the net
+result may be nil, when the original differences were small. But we
+cannot suppose that the group was often evenly balanced; and a change in
+the rule of descent would in that case have important results for the
+local group and in any case for the individual family.
+
+The importance of the difference in the constitution of the local group
+under descent in the male line is seen when we reflect that in the
+normal tribe the totem kin is practically the unit for many purposes.
+If, for example, an emu man has killed, let us say, an iguana man, it is
+the duty of the iguana men to avenge the death of their kinsman. Their
+vengeance need not, however, fall on the original perpetrator of the
+deed; according to the rules of savage justice all the emu men are
+equally responsible with the culprit; consequently it suffices to kill
+the first emu person whom they can find. Conversely, those to whom an
+emu man looks for defence, when he is attacked, or assistance, when he
+wishes to abduct a wife or anything of that sort, are his fellow emu
+men. It is therefore clear that the rule of male descent gives far
+greater security to the members of a local group; for they are
+surrounded by kinsmen. Under the rule of female descent, on the other
+hand, they probably have some kinsmen in the same group but equally a
+considerable number of members of other totem kins.
+
+Self-interest therefore, no less than the natural sympathy between
+fathers and children, as well as between members of the same group
+(quite apart from forays and fighting), must have tended to bring about
+a change in the laws of descent.
+
+The late Major J.W. Powell has already described the transition from
+matria potestas to patria potestas among the Pueblo peoples. He put it
+down to economic conditions, which lead the groups to scatter, each
+under the headship of a male, who is also the husband; this naturally
+resulted in a weakening of the influence of the mother's brother. It is,
+however, less clear that it would bring about the decay of the power of
+the mother herself, which in Australian tribes, at any rate, seems to be
+independent of the support she obtains from her male relatives.
+
+In Australia, as we have seen, the change from matria to patria potestas
+had but little influence in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent. Here, too, the change in the rule of descent may be put down in
+the main to economic causes also in a broad sense. Dumping was not in
+those days a question of practical politics; the problem was to prevent
+the neighbours from pursuing the policy of the free and open port. The
+necessity of protecting tribal and group property in land and game would
+naturally tend to bind men closer and closer, in proportion as the
+pressure from without became greater. It is perhaps hardly accidental
+that the main area of male descent is that which has also developed the
+Intichiuma ceremonies.
+
+If Prof. Gregory's view[36] that the occupation of Victoria by the
+natives dates back no more than 300 years is correct, we may perhaps see
+in the migration one cause of the rise of patriliny. Anything which
+tended to shake the influence of the mother's kin would increase the
+father's power; and the need of protecting newly established groups
+from the incursions of their neighbours would be more urgent than in
+older districts. As we have seen, the first mentioned cause has
+elsewhere had little direct effect; but it may well have played a larger
+part under the novel conditions of migration and occupation of fresh
+territory.
+
+In South Queensland the fractionation of tribes seems to have gone
+further than elsewhere, unless we suppose that we have here an area,
+where, as in California, pressure from without has crowded together the
+remnants of many tribes. Although it is not obvious how the
+multiplication of distinct tribes has favoured patrilineal descent, we
+may, at any rate, say that the conditions in the area are exceptional;
+possibly it was more fruitful than the greater part of the continent; if
+so personal property in the shape of trees, etc., which we have already
+seen in existence in this area, would play a more important _rle_ here,
+and may well have determined the transition to patrilineal descent.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[10] _Fortn. Rev._ Sept. 1905, cf. van Gennep, _Mythes et Lgendes_.
+
+[11] It cannot be said that the ordinary theory of the development of
+kinship in the female line is satisfactory. The consanguine relation of
+mother and child does not appear to be a complete answer to the question
+why kinship--an entirely different thing--was reckoned through the
+mother; the alleged uncertainty of fatherhood is in the first place
+closely connected with an unproven stage of promiscuity and consequently
+hardly a _vera causa_, until further evidence of such a stage has been
+produced; and again among the Arunta, it is rather potestas than
+physical fatherhood which, on their theory, determines the kinship of
+the child so far as the class is concerned. For the primitive group
+therefore we cannot assert any predominant interest of the mother in the
+children nor yet admit that it would necessarily be important if it were
+shown to exist.
+
+[12] _Anne Sociologique_ V, 104 sq.; VIII, 132 sq.; Tylor in _J.A.I._
+XVIII, 245-272.
+
+[13] Howitt, pp. 220, 225, 234, 248; cf. 159, 269.
+
+[14] _ib._ p. 234.
+
+[15] P. 30 _infra_.
+
+[16] _Ethnological Studies_, p. 141.
+
+[17] Howitt, pp. 193, 224, 227, 236.
+
+[18] _ib._ p. 248, cf. 227.
+
+[19] Howitt, pp. 195, 221, 177, 217.
+
+[20] _ib._ pp. 210, 227, 252, 216, 177, 260.
+
+[21] _ib._ p. 243.
+
+[22] _ib._ p. 219.
+
+[23] _ib._ pp. 232, 257, 236.
+
+[24] _Nor. Tr._ p. 603.
+
+[25] _ib._ pp. 77 n., 114.
+
+[26] Howitt, pp. 263, 255, 198, 195.
+
+[27] Howitt, p. 298.
+
+[28] _ib._ pp. 306, 308 sq.
+
+[29] _Nor. Tr._ p. 23.
+
+[30] Howitt, p. 303.
+
+[31] _ib._ p. 302.
+
+[32] _Nor. Tr._ p. 524.
+
+[33] _Reisen._ IV, 347.
+
+[34] _Petrie's Reminiscences_, p. 117.
+
+[35] _N.Q. Ethn. Bull._ VIII.
+
+[36] _Proc. R.S. Vict._ XVII, 120.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.
+
+Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
+ "Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in
+ Australia. General sketch.
+
+
+Before proceeding to deal with the Australian facts it will be well to
+define the terminology to be employed, and give a brief survey of a
+typical organisation. Looking at the population from the territorial
+point of view in the first place, we find aggregates of tribes; these
+may be termed _nations_. The component tribes are friendly, one with
+another; they may and often do hold initiation ceremonies and other
+ceremonials in common; although the language is usually syntactically
+the same, and though they contain many words in common, the vocabularies
+differ to such an extent that members of different tribes are not
+mutually intelligible. How far the occurrence of identical kinship
+organisation and nomenclature should be taken as indicating a still
+larger unity than the nation is a difficult question. _Prim facie_ the
+nation is a relatively late phenomenon; but the distribution of the
+names of kinship organisations, as will be shown later, indicates that
+communication, if not alliance, existed over a wide area at some
+periods, which it is difficult to suppose were anything but remote.
+
+The idea of the _tribe_ has already been defined. It is a community
+which occupies a definite area, recognises its solidarity and possesses
+a common speech or dialects of the same.
+
+Between the tribe and the family occur various subdivisions, known as
+sub-tribes, hordes, local groups, etc., but without any very clear
+definition of their nature. It appears, however, that the tribal area is
+sometimes so parcelled out that property in it is vested, not in the
+tribe as a whole, but in the _local group_, which welcomes
+fellow-tribesmen in times of plenty, but has the right of punishing
+intruders of the same tribe who seek for food without permission; for a
+non-tribesman the penalty is death. In some cases the local group is
+little more than an undivided family including three generations; it may
+then occupy and own an area of some ten miles radius. In other cases the
+term is applied to a larger aggregate, the nature and rights of which
+are not strictly defined; it may number some hundreds of persons and
+form one-third of the whole tribe; it seems best to denominate such an
+aggregate by the name of _sub-tribe_.
+
+The term _family_ may be retained in its ordinary sense.
+
+Superposed on the tribal organisation are the kinship organisations,
+which, in the case of most Australian tribes, are independent of
+locality. Leaving out of account certain anomalous tribes, it may be
+said broadly that an Australian tribe is divided into two sets, called
+phratries, primary classes, moieties, etc. by various authors; the term
+used in the present work for these divisions is _phratry_. Membership of
+a phratry depends on birth and is taken _directly_ from the mother
+(_matrilineal descent_) or father (_patrilineal descent_).
+
+In Queensland and part of N.S. Wales the phratry is again subdivided,
+and four _intermarrying classes_ (sometimes called sub-phratries) are
+formed, two of which make up each phratry. In North Australia and
+Queensland a further subdivision of each of these classes is found,
+making eight in all. Descent in the classes is _indirect_ matrilineal or
+indirect[37] patrilineal, the child belonging to the mother's or
+father's phratry as before, but being assigned to the class of that
+phratry to which the mother or father does not belong. The classes of
+father and son together are called a _couple_. The parent from whom the
+phratry and class name are thus derived is said to be the _determinant
+spouse_.
+
+These phratries and classes regulate marriage. It is forbidden to marry
+within one's own phratry. This custom is termed _exogamy_. When the
+husband removes and lives in his wife's group the marriage is
+_matrilocal_; if the wife removes it is _patrilocal_.
+
+In addition to the division into classes each phratry is further divided
+into a number of _totem kins_. A _totem_ is usually a species of animals
+or plants; a body of human beings stands in a certain peculiar relation
+to the totem species and is termed the totem kin; each member of a totem
+kin is termed a _kinsman_. Membership of the totem kin usually descends
+directly from parent to child.
+
+The existence of these kinship organisations is universally recognised.
+Mr R.H. Mathews has recently asserted the existence of yet another form
+and at the same time controverted the accepted views as to the operation
+and meaning of those described above. He distinguishes in certain tribes
+of New South Wales kinship organisations running across the phratries;
+these are of two kinds, according to the author, but they do not seem to
+differ in function. They are termed by Mr Mathews "_blood_" and
+"_shade_" divisions, and are held by him to be the names of the really
+exogamous groups. The subject is discussed in detail below.
+
+In order to make the working of these regulations plain, let us take as
+an example the Kamilaroi tribe of N.S. Wales, with two phratries, four
+classes and various totem kins. The phratries are named Dilbi and
+Kupathin; Dilbi is divided into two classes, Muri and Kubi; Kupathin
+into Kumbo and Ipai. The Dilbi totems, which may belong to either of the
+classes, are kangaroo, opossum and iguana; those of Kupathin are emu,
+bandicoot and black snake. Every member of the tribe has his own
+phratry, class and totem; these all come to him by descent.
+
+We have little or no information as to the local grouping of the
+Kamilaroi tribes, but it was possibly not unlike that of some of the
+tribes to the north-west. In the case of the latter the tribal area was
+some 3000 sq. miles in extent, it was split up into smaller areas,
+thirty or more in number, which were the property of the local groups; a
+local group consisted frequently of three generations of relatives. When
+we come to deal below with marriage regulations it will be shown that
+husband, wife and child under the four-class system all belong to
+different classes; there were therefore in each group at least three
+classes, if not four, and consequently members of two phratries. If we
+assume that the same conditions prevailed among the Kamilaroi, the local
+groups would then be made up of members of both the Dilbi and Kupathin
+phratries; and probably all four classes, Muri, Kubi, Ipai and Kumbo,
+would be found in each group, which in Australia varied in size
+according to local conditions from 20 or 30 to 200; under special
+conditions, such as prevailed in the neighbourhood of Lake Alexandrina,
+the number might run up to 600 or more, but this was exceptional.
+
+From the fact that the totems are divided between the phratries it is
+clear that the local group may also have members of all the six totem
+kins mentioned above, among its members.
+
+The rules by which marriage and descent are regulated are apparently
+very complicated but practically very simple. Taking the Kamilaroi tribe
+again, the rule is that Muri marries Butha (a female Kumbo) and their
+children are Ipai and Ipatha: Kubi marries Ipatha and their children are
+Kumbo and Butha; in each case the children belong to the same phratry as
+the mother but to the other class in that phratry. This is termed
+indirect matrilineal descent.
+
+The rule of descent for the totem among the Kamilaroi was simpler;
+membership of a totem kin descends directly from a mother to her child.
+The combined effect of these rules is that if, for example, a male Dilbi
+of the Muri class and iguana totem wants to marry, he must choose a wife
+of the Kupathin phratry, the Kumbo class, and either the emu, bandicoot,
+or black snake totems; suppose he marries an emu woman; then his
+children are of the Kupathin phratry, the Ipai (or Ipatha) class, and
+the emu totem. These regulations are naturally more complicated among
+the eight-class tribes; on the other hand, where only phratries and
+totems are found, but no classes, descent is much simpler; for in each
+case the child takes the phratry and totem of its mother, where
+matrilineal descent prevails, or of its father, where patrilineal
+descent is found.
+
+The general rule in Australia is that the wife goes to live with her
+husband; in other words, she leaves the local group in which she was
+born and becomes a member of her husband's local group. The effect of
+this is very different according as descent is reckoned through the
+mother or through the father. Taking the Kamilaroi again, the
+Muri-iguana man brings into his group a Butha-emu woman; their children
+are Ipatha-emu. If, therefore, a local group is made up of the
+descendants of a single family, the phratry, class, and totem names vary
+from generation to generation; for the girls go to other groups, and the
+men bring in wives of a phratry, class, and totem different, as a rule,
+from their own; the children of the next generation take their kinship
+names directly or indirectly from the mother.
+
+If, on the other hand, descent is reckoned through the father, the
+phratry and totem names are always the same from generation to
+generation; from this it follows that the phratry of the wife, who comes
+from without, is also the same from generation to generation, though her
+totem name does not of necessity remain the same. The class name
+alternates both in the case of the family and of the wives in successive
+generations. It has already been pointed out that reckoning of descent
+in the male line tends to bring about local grouping of the kinship
+organisations. In the eight-class tribes, and in parts of Victoria, the
+phratries, elsewhere the totem kins, tend to be or are actually limited
+to certain portions of the tribal area.
+
+Our knowledge of these matters has not, of course, been gained at a
+bound. Before indicating the present extent of our information, it may
+be well to give an historical sketch of early discoveries in this field.
+
+Some seventy years ago the attention of students of primitive social
+institutions was drawn to the marriage regulations of the Indian tribes
+of North America by an article in _Archaeologia Americana_[38]; in which
+the author, drawing his conclusions partly from earlier writers, partly
+from his own investigations, showed that the totem kin was an exogamous
+group, while in some cases the kin bearing the name of a given totem
+were not only exogamous, but not even permitted to choose their wives
+from any of the other kins at will, being restricted in their choice to
+certain groups or, in many cases, to a single group of totem kins,
+according as the tribe was arranged in two or more phratries.
+
+At least two observers had detected the existence of Australian
+organisations of the same nature as the American phratries, so far as
+our scanty information from West Australia goes, even before the
+publication of _Archaeologia Americana_. The honour of being the first
+to publish information on the subject belongs to Nind, who had spent
+some time in the neighbourhood of King George's Sound in 1829, and
+published his observations on native customs in the _Journal of the
+Royal Geographical Society_[39] for 1832. Close on his heels came the
+authors of _Journals of Explorations in West Australia_, which appeared
+in 1833, and described journeys undertaken between 1829 and 1832.
+
+The phratries were discovered in South Australia by the Rev. C.W.
+Schrmann, whose Vocabulary[40], published in 1844, contains a mention
+of the Parnkalla phratries, without, however, any indication of their
+connection with marriage customs and exogamy. Five years earlier,
+however, Lieutenant, afterwards Sir George Grey, had observed
+institutions of the nature of totem kins, phratries, or intermarrying
+classes in West Australia, and had detected their connection with the
+marriage laws of the natives[41].
+
+In 1841 and 1842, G.F. Moore[42] called attention to the grouping of the
+native divisions or kins, and anticipated Schrmann, as will be shown
+later. Grey, before the publication of his _Journal_, had read the
+_Archaeologia_; but though he mentions the naming of "families" after
+animals, he makes no mention of any grouping, but merely distinguishes
+between "families" and "local names." Some of the names which he gives
+seem to be those of phratries, and if he had been led by his study of
+_Archaeologia Americana_ to the discovery of exogamic regulations
+dealing with the relations of individual totem kins to one another, it
+seems on the whole probable that he would not have overlooked the
+grouping of the kins which is, with certain exceptions, of a more or
+less local character, common to the whole of Australia, so far as our
+information goes. Singularly enough this information, very full,
+relatively, for the eastern and central tribes, has, so far as
+South-West Australia is concerned, only just been completed, although
+more than sixty years have elapsed since Grey wrote, the last twenty of
+which have seen much additional light thrown on the organisation of the
+tribes of the remainder of the continent.
+
+The American tribes, where simple totemic exogamy is not the rule, are
+organised in two and sometimes three or more, up to ten, phratries. It
+is possible that Grey, in spite of his attention having been drawn to
+the bi- or trichotomous organisation of American totem kins, failed to
+understand the Australian system owing to the presence of an element,
+discovered a few years later at a point remote from the scene of Grey's
+researches, to which no American analogue exists. In addition to the
+grouping of the kins into phratries, the Australian tribes over a large
+part of the continent subdivide each phratry into two or four classes or
+"castes," as they were frequently termed by the early investigators. The
+effect of the class system is to further limit the choice of a given
+individual, restricted to one-half of the women of the tribe under the
+simple phratry system, to one-fourth of them or one-eighth, as the case
+may be. Probably the first person to publish the fact of the existence
+of these classes, which he regarded as differing in rank, was C.P.
+Hodgson[43], who found them in 1846 among the blacks of Wide Bay. From a
+letter of Leichardt's however it appears that the discovery must have
+been made nearly simultaneously by several observers. Writing in
+1847[44], he says that the castes are the most interesting and most
+obscure feature among the tribes to the northward, and mentions F.N.
+Isaacs as having noticed the existence of the classes among the natives
+of Darling Downs, adding that Capt. Macarthur had also found them among
+the Monobar tribes of the Coburg Peninsula. "These castes," he adds,
+"are probably intimately connected with the laws of intermarriage."
+
+If Leichardt's words mean, as apparently they do, that the Monobar
+classes are regulative of marriage, and if his information was correct,
+the first mention of classes in Australia is found, not in Hodgson's
+work, but in Wilson's account[45]. Neither he, however, nor Stokes[46],
+who mentions them as existing among the Limba Karadjee, makes any
+mention of their connection with marriage regulations. And Earl, at a
+later period, omits in like manner to say what constituted membership of
+a caste, though he states that they differed in rank. The
+names--Manjarojally (fire people), Manjarwuli (land people), and
+Mambulgit (makers of nets, perhaps, therefore, water people), as well as
+the anomalous number of the classes, seem to indicate that they are of a
+somewhat different nature to the real intermarrying classes found
+elsewhere[47]. It is of course well known that the initiation ceremonies
+and totemic system of the northern tribes on both sides of the Gulf of
+Carpentaria differ somewhat widely from the normal Australian form.
+
+None of the observers hitherto mentioned can be said however to have
+applied himself to the scientific study of the questions raised by the
+facts which they recorded. Anthropology was in those days in its
+infancy. The first to make a really serious effort to clear up the many
+difficult questions, some of them still matters of controversy, which a
+closer study of the native marriage customs brought to the surface, was
+a missionary anthropologist, a class of which England has produced all
+too few. In 1853 the Rev. William Ridley published the first of many
+studies of the Kamilaroi speaking tribes, and, thanks to the impetus
+given to the investigation of systems of relationship and allied
+questions by Lewis Morgan, was the pioneer of a series of efforts which
+have rescued for us at the nick of time a record of the social
+organisation of many tribes which under European influence are now
+rapidly losing or have already lost all traces of their primitive
+customs, if indeed they have not, like the tribes formerly resident at
+Adelaide and other centres of population, been absolutely exterminated
+by contact with the white man with his vices and his civilisation, or by
+the less gentle method euphemistically termed "dispersion," which, if
+other nations were the offenders, we should term massacre.
+
+After Mr Ridley, Messrs Fison and Howitt turned their attention to the
+Kamilaroi group of tribes. The progress of these investigations is
+traced, historically and controversially, in the second series of
+Maclennan's _Studies in Ancient History_, and it is unnecessary to deal
+with it in detail. More and more light was thrown on totemism, marriage
+regulations, and intermarrying classes by the persistent efforts of Mr
+Howitt, by Dr Frazer's little work on Totemism, and by other students,
+until it seemed that the main features of Australian social organisation
+had been clearly established, when in 1898 the researches of Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen seemed to do much to overthrow all recognised
+principles, so far as the totemic regulation of marriage was concerned.
+How far this is actually the case it is unnecessary to consider here. It
+may be said however that the work of these two investigators and the
+enquiries of Dr Roth in North Queensland make it more than ever a matter
+for regret that the British Empire, the greatest colonial power that the
+world has ever seen, will not afford the few thousand pounds needed to
+put such researches on a firm basis.
+
+Having defined the various terms, and shown the actual working of the
+system by the aid of the best known example, we may now pass, after this
+brief historical sketch of the development of our knowledge, to the task
+of giving the broad outlines of the phratry and class organisations.
+
+If our knowledge of Australian phratries and classes is far from
+exhaustive, we have at any rate a fair knowledge of the distribution of
+the various types whose existence is generally recognised; that is to
+say, we can delimit the greater part of the continent according to
+whether the tribes show two phratries only, or two phratries, which may
+be anonymous, with the further subdivision into four classes, or into
+eight classes. We also know approximately the limits of the matrilineal
+and patrilineal systems. New South Wales, Victoria, the southern portion
+of Queensland and Northern Territory, the eastern part of South
+Australia, and the coastal regions of West Australia, are now known
+with more or less accuracy from the point of view of kinship
+organisations. On the other hand, from the Cape York Peninsula, and the
+part of Northern Territory north of Lat. 15, we have little if any
+information. The south coast and its hinterland from 135 westwards, as
+far as King George's Sound, is virtually a terra incognita; in fact
+beyond the south-western corner and the fringe which lies along the
+coast we know little of the West Australian blacks, and the frontiers
+between the various systems must in these areas be regarded as purely
+provisional.
+
+Broadly speaking, the tribes of the whole of the known area of
+Australia, certain coast regions of comparatively small extent excepted,
+have a dichotomous kinship organisation. The accompanying map (Map II)
+shows how the various forms are distributed. Along most of the south
+coast, and up a belt broken perhaps in the northern portion, running
+through the centre of the continent in Lat. 137, are found two
+phratries without intermarrying classes; for the area west of Lat. 130
+we have, it is true, only one datum, which gives no information as to
+the area to which it applies; this portion of the field therefore is
+assigned only provisionally to the two-phratry system. On the Bloomfield
+River, which runs into Weary Bay, associated with the name of Captain
+Cook, is an isolated two-phratry organisation, unless indeed we may
+assume that the class names have either been overlooked or have passed
+out of use.
+
+The four-class system extends over the greater part of New South Wales,
+and Queensland; a narrow belt runs through the north of South Australia
+and broadens till it embraces the whole coastline of West Australia, the
+north-eastern area excluded. An isolated four-class system, which does
+not regulate marriage, is found in the Yorke Peninsula of South
+Australia.
+
+The eight-class system forms a compact mass, between the Gulf of
+Carpentaria and Roebuck Bay, extending south as far as Lat. 25 in the
+centre of Australia.
+
+In reality the rule of the eight-class system extends considerably
+further south, but the classes are nameless or altogether non-existent.
+Thus, the southern Arunta have nominally four classes, but each of these
+has two sections, so that the final result is as though they were an
+eight-class tribe. In the same way the marriage regulations of the
+two-phratry Dieri are such that choice is limited among them precisely
+as it would be if they had eight classes. The same may be true of the
+remainder of the western branch of the four-class system, which is
+closely allied in name to the Arunta type; the boundary between the
+related sets of names is unknown.
+
+Among the Narrinyeri and the Yuin the kinship organisation, which is
+confined to totemic groups, takes a local form; here the regulation of
+marriage depends on considerations of the residence of the pair. Local
+exogamy also prevails among the unorganised Kurnai. The Chepara appear
+to have had no organisation, and among the Narrangga ties of
+consanguinity constituted the sole bar to marriage. We are not however
+concerned with the problems presented by these aberrant types of
+organisation, to which no further reference is made in the present work.
+
+The area covered by the dichotomous organisations is divided almost
+equally between matrilineal and patrilineal tribes. The latter occupy
+the region north of Lat. 30 and west of an irregular line running from
+Long. 137 to 140 or thereabouts. In addition a portion of Victoria and
+the region west of Brisbane form isolated patrilineal groups. The
+problem presented by these anomalous areas has already been discussed in
+the chapter on the Rule of Descent. Where local exogamy is the rule,
+kinship is also virtually patrilineal.
+
+In the remainder of Australia, non-organised tribes of course excepted,
+the rule of descent is matrilineal, save that in North Queensland a
+small tribe on the Annan River prefers paternal descent. The
+accompanying map shows the distribution of the two forms.
+
+[Illustration: MAP I. RULE OF DESCENT.]
+
+[Illustration: MAP II. CLASS ORGANISATIONS.]
+
+[Illustration: MAP III. PHRATRY ORGANISATIONS.]
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[37] Save in the Anula and Mara tribes.
+
+[38] Vol. II.
+
+[39] Vol. I, p. 38.
+
+[40] _Vocabulary_, _s.v._ Kararu.
+
+[41] Grey, _Journals_, II, 228.
+
+[42] _Descriptive Vocabulary_, p. 3 etc.; _Colonial Mag._ V, 222.
+
+[43] _Australian Reminiscences_, p. 212.
+
+[44] Bunce, _23 Years Wanderings_, p. 116.
+
+[45] _J.R.G.S._ IV, 171, p. 88, _Narrative of a Voyage round the World_
+p. 88.
+
+[46] _Discoveries_ (1846), I, 393; cf. _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 64.
+
+[47] Cf. the local groups of the Yuin, the Wiradjeri and other tribes,
+Howitt, _passim_.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.
+
+
+In order to facilitate reference and to diminish the necessity for
+footnotes a survey of classes and phratries is here given. It will be
+well to explain how they are arranged.
+
+In the two-phratry system the rule of intermarriage is clear; a man of
+phratry _A_ marries a woman of phratry _B_ and _vice versa_. The direct
+descent of the kinship name is obviously the rule.
+
+The four classes are arranged according to the phratries; the normal
+rule is that a man _A1_ marries _B1_, _A2_ marries _B2_; their children
+are in matrilineal tribes _A2_ and _B2_, in patrilineal _B2_ and _A2_.
+In the patrilineal Mara and Anula, by exception, the rule of descent is
+direct; it will be remembered that a dichotomy of the classes prevails,
+so that they really belong to the eight-class system.
+
+In the eight-class system and among the nominally four-class southern
+Arunta the intermarriage and descent is as follows, according to Spencer
+and Gillen;
+
+ _A1_ _B1_
+ ------ = _A4_, ------ = _B3_,
+ _B1_ _A1_
+
+ _A_2 _B2_
+ ------ = _A3_, ------ = _B4_,
+ _B2_ _A2_
+
+ _A3_ _B3_
+ ------ = _A2_, ------ = _B1_,
+ _B3_ _A3_
+
+ _A4_ _B4_
+ ------ = _B4_, ------ = _B2_.
+ _B4_ _A4_
+
+In each case the male is the numerator, the woman the denominator, and
+the = shows the child.
+
+Tribes with conterminous territories usually know what phratries and
+classes are equivalent in their systems. In the tables which follow the
+phratries and the classes of matrilineal tribes are arranged to show
+this correspondence so far as it is known. A * shows that no information
+on the point is to hand. A rearrangement of patrilineal classes is
+necessary to make them equivalent to the organisations of matrilineal
+tribes; this cannot be shown in the tables; but full details will be
+found in the works of Spencer and Gillen. A [+] indicates patrilineal
+descent.
+
+Where the names of phratries and classes are translated, the meanings
+are shown in the tables; where the authorities do not give the
+translation but a word of the same form is in use in the tribe or group
+of tribes the meanings are given in round brackets; words in use in
+neighbouring tribes are put in square brackets.
+
+
+TABLE I.
+
+_The Class Names._
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_ _Meaning_
+ I. Muri (Bya)[48] Matha (Red kangaroo)
+ Kubi Kubitha (Opossum)
+ Kumbo (W[=o]mbee)[49] Butha
+ Ipai Ipatha (Eaglehawk)
+
+These class names are found in the following tribes:
+
+Kamilaroi (Howitt, p. 107); Wiradjeri (_ib._ 107); Wonghi (_ib._ 108);
+Euahlayi (Mrs L. Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 13); Ngeumba (Mathews in
+_Eth. Notes_, p. 5); Murawari (_id._ in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, 1906, 55);
+Moree (_R.G.S. Qu._ X, 20); Turribul (_R.S. Vict._ I, 102); Wollaroi
+(Howitt, 109); on Narran R. (Curr, I, 117); Pikumbul (_ib._); Unghi
+(Howitt, 217); Peechera (Curr, III, 271); Wailwun (_ib._ I, 116);
+Wonnaruah (_Sci. Man_, I, 180); Geawegal (Howitt, 266).
+
+Associated with these class names are the following phratry names:
+
+(_a_) Kamilaroi, etc. Dilbi Kupathin
+(_b_) Wiradjeri to N. of Budthurung Mukula
+ Lachlan
+(_c_) Wonghibon Ngielbumurra Mukumurra (Howitt)
+(_d_) " & Ngeumba {Ngumbun Ngurrawan (Mathews)
+ {Numbun
+(_e_) Euahlayi Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen
+(_f_) Murawari Girrana Merugulli
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_
+ II. Kurbo Kooran
+ Marro Kurgan
+ Wombo Wirrikin
+ Wirro Wongan
+
+The proper arrangement of these names is unknown.
+
+_Tribe_: Kombinegherry (_J.A.I._ XIII, 304; Howitt, 105).
+
+_Science of Man_ (IV, 8) gives:
+
+ Carribo Gooroona
+ Maroongah Carrigan
+ Womboongah Werrican
+ Weiro Warganbah
+
+For the Anaywan, Thangatty, etc., R.H. Mathews gives (_J.R.S.N.S.W._
+XXXI, 169):
+
+ Irpoong Matyang
+ Marroong Arrakan
+ Imboong Irrakadena
+ Irroong Palyang
+
+ _Class name (Fem. termination, -an or -gan)_ _Meaning_
+III[+][50]. Parang (Moroon) (Black wallaby. Emu)
+ Bunda [Kangaroo]
+ Balgoin (Banjoor, (Red wallaby. Native
+ Pandur) bear)
+ Theirwain (Kangaroo)
+
+_Tribes_: Maryborough tribes (Howitt, 117); Kabi (Curr, III, 163):
+Kiabara (_J.A.I._ XIII, 305); ? (Hodgson, 212; Mathew, _Eaglehawk_,
+100); Wide Bay (Curr, I, 117).
+
+For the Emon, Howitt (p. 109) gives:
+
+ Barah
+ Bondan
+ Bondurr
+ Taran
+
+With these classes are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) The Maryborough tribes Dilbi Kupathin.
+ and the Kiabara
+(_b_) Dippil Deeajee Karpeun
+
+are the forms given by Mathews (_Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXVIII, 329).
+
+ _Class names (Fem. termination, -an)_ _Meaning_
+ IV. Karilbura Barrimundi
+ Munal Hawk
+ Kurpal Good water
+ Kuialla (Koodala) Iguana
+
+_Tribes_: Kuinmurbura (_J.A.I._ XIII, 341; Howitt, 111). The Taroombul
+have the form Koodala (_Proc. R.S. Qu._ XIII, 41).
+
+For the Kangulu, Mathews (_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 111) gives:
+
+ Banniar[51]
+ Banjoor
+ Koorpal
+ Kearra
+
+With these may be compared Howitt's (p. 111):
+
+ Kairawa
+ Bunjur
+ Bunya
+ Jarbain (? Tarbain)
+
+The phratries associated with these are:
+
+ _Tribe_
+(_a_) Kuinmurbura Witteru Yungaru
+(_b_) Kangulu Wutthuru Yungnuru
+
+ _Class names_ _Fem. termination_ _Meaning_
+ V. Wongo
+ Kubaru (Ubur, Obu) -an (Gidea tree)
+ Bunburi (Anbeir, Unburri,
+ Bunbai)
+ Koorgilla (Urgilla)
+
+_Tribes_: Ungorri (Howitt, 109); Kogai (Curr, I, 117; _J.A.I._ XIII,
+337); Yuipera etc. (Curr, III, 45, 64; _J.A.I._ XIII, 302); Akulbura,
+Bathalibura (Howitt, 113, 141); Wakelbura (Howitt, 112); on Belyando
+(Curr, III, 26); Dalebura (Howitt, 113), Buntamurra (Howitt, 113, 226);
+Purgoma (Roth, 66); Jouon (_ib._ 67); Pitta-Pitta, Goa, Miorli (Roth,
+56-7); Ringa-Ringa (_J.A.I._ XIII, 337); Mittakoodi (Roth, 56-7);
+Woonamurra (_ib._); Yerunthully (Mathews in _R.G.S. Qu._ X, 30); Badieri
+(_id. ib._ 1905, 55).
+
+With these class names are associated the phratries
+
+(_a_) Kogai, Wakelbura etc. Wuthera Mallera
+(_b_) Yuipera, Bathalibura Wootaroo Yungaroo
+(_c_) Purgoma Naka Tunna
+(_d_) Jouon Chepa Junna
+(_e_) Pitta-Pitta etc., Ootaroo Pakoota
+ Mittakoodi, Woonamura
+(_f_) Badieri Wootaroo Yungo
+
+Aberrant forms, probably inaccurate, are given by Curr (II, 424) for
+Halifax Bay: Korkoro, Korkeen, Wongo, Wotero; by Lumholtz (p. 199) for
+the Herbert R.: Gorilla, Gorgero, Gorgorilla, Otero, by Curr (II, 468)
+for the Yukkaburra: Utheroo, Multheroo, Yungaroo, Goorgilla.
+
+On the Tully R. Roth (_Ethn. Bull._ V, 20) found the following:
+
+ _Class names_
+ VI. Karavangi
+ Chikun
+ Kurongon
+ Kurkilla
+
+With these may be compared the names given by Mathews for the Warkeman
+(_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXII, 109, 251):
+
+ Karpungie
+ Cheekungie
+ Kellungie
+ Koopungie
+
+On the Annan R. we find (Howitt, 118) with male descent:
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ VII. Wandi Eaglehawk
+ Walar Bee
+ Jorro Bee
+ Kutchal Saltwater Eaglehawk
+
+With these are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Walar Murla
+
+VIII. Ranya (Arenia)
+ Rara (Arara)
+ Loora
+ Awunga (Arawongo)
+
+_Tribes_: Wollongurma (Roth, 68); Goothanto (Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._
+XXXIII, 109).
+
+Connected with these forms are:
+
+ _Class names_
+ Barry (Ahjereena)
+ Ararey (Arrenynung)
+ Jury [? Loory] (Perrynung)
+ Mungilly (Mahngal) [diamond snake][52]
+
+_Tribes_: Koogobathy (_J.A.I._ XIII, 303); Koonjan etc. (Mathews in
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 110, XXXIV, 135). Probably Perrynung and
+Ahjereenya should be transposed.
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_
+ IX. Jimmilingo Carburungo
+ Badingo Ngarrangungo
+ Maringo[53] Munjungo
+ Youingo (Kapoodungo) Goothamungo
+
+_Tribes_: Miappe (Roth, 56-7); Mycoolon (_J.A.I._ XIII, 302);
+Workoboongo (Roth, _ib._).
+
+For the Kalkadoon, Roth (_ib._) gives:
+
+ Kunggilungo
+ Patingo
+ Toonbeungo
+ Marinungo[53]
+
+With these are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Kalkadoon Ootaroo Mullara
+(_b_) Miappe Woodaroo Pakutta
+
+ _Class names_
+ X. Murungun
+ Mumbali
+ Purdal
+ Kuial
+
+_Tribe_: Mara (_Northern Tribes_, 119).
+
+With these the phratry names:
+
+(_a_) Urku Ua
+
+In this tribe is male descent, and, as in the S. Arunta, the classes are
+themselves divided; for equivalence the numbers of the eight-class
+system are arranged (_Nor. Tr._ 123), 1, 4; 3, 2; 5, 7; 6, 8.
+
+Leichardt (_Journal_, 447) reports from the Roper R., Gnangball, Odall,
+Nurumball, which from their form seem to be class names and identifiable
+with some of the Mara names.
+
+ _Class names_
+ XI. Awukaria
+ Roumburia
+ Urtalia
+ Wialia
+
+_Tribe_: Anula (_Nor. Tr._ 119).
+
+XII. For the eight-class system see Table I a; in which it is assumed
+that patrilineal descent prevails in all the tribes.
+
+With these are associated the following phratries:
+
+(_a_) Umbaia, Gnanji Illitchi Liaritchi
+(_b_) Warramunga, Walpari, Uluuru Kingilli
+ Wulmala
+(_c_) Worgaia " Bimgaru
+(_d_) Bingongina Wiliuku Liaraku
+
+Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ pp. 100-102, 119. On p. 102 is a
+statement about the Bingongina inconsistent with that on the following
+page; according to the former the phratry names are Illitchi, Liaritchi,
+as among the Umbaia.
+
+ _Class names_
+XIII. Panunga
+ Bulthara
+ Purula
+ Kumara
+
+_Tribe_: S. Arunta (_Nat. Tr._ 90).
+
+XIII_a_. Deringara
+ Gubilla
+ Koomara
+ Belthara
+
+_Tribe_: Yoolanlanya etc. (_R.G.S. Qu._ XVI, 75).
+
+The arrangement suggests that matrilineal descent prevails, but there is
+probably some error.
+
+ _Class names_
+XIII_b_. Burong (Parungo)
+ Ballieri (Parajerri; Butcharrie)
+ Banaka (Boogarloo)
+ Kymerra (Kaiamba)
+
+_Tribes_: Gnamo, Gnalluma (_Int. Arch._ XVI, 12); Nickol Bay and
+Kimberley have the alternative forms of 1, 2, and 4 (Curr, I, 296;
+_Kamilaroi_, 36, Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXV, 220), Weedokarry (_id._
+in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89) have third form of 2; at Murchison
+R. Boorgarloo comes into use (_West Australian_, Ap. 7, 1906).
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ XIV. Tondarup (Namyungo) Fish hawk
+ Didaruk Sea
+ Ballaruk (Yangor) (Opossum)
+ Naganok (Fish)
+
+_Tribes_: S.W. Australia, Tarderick etc. (_West. Aust._, _loc. cit._;
+Moore, _Desc. Voc._, _Col. Mag._ V, 422.
+
+The phratries are
+
+(_a_) Wartungmat Munichmat
+
+The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Class names_
+ XV. Langenam
+ Namegor
+ Packwicky
+ Pamarung
+
+_Tribe_: Joongoongie of N. Queensland (Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._
+XXXIX, 93).
+
+Associated with them the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Jamagunda Gamanutta
+
+The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ XVI. Kari Emu
+ Waui Red kangaroo
+ Wiltu Eaglehawk
+ Wilthuthu Shark
+
+_Tribe_: Narrangga of Yorke Peninsula (Howitt, p. 130).
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[48] The Darkinung have Bya for Muri (_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 170).
+
+[49] Some of the Wiradjeri have W[=o]mbee for Kumbo (Gribble, 113).
+
+[50] Male descent.
+
+[51] Some of the names given by Howitt and Mathews seem to be identical
+with those of the Kiabara, but there is a difficulty about the
+arrangement, for Koorpal-Keeara=Yungnuru=Bunya-Jarbain; but Banniar,
+which seems to be the same as Bunya, falls in the other moiety.
+
+[52] Curr, II, 478.
+
+[53] Marinungo seems to be the same as Maringo but is not equivalent.
+
+
+TABLE I a: XII. CLASS NAMES OF EIGHT-CLASS TRIBES.
+
+ +---------------------+ +-------------------------------------------------+
+-|----------+----------|-+-|----------+-----------+------------+-------------|-+
+ Oolawunga | Bingongina | Umbaia[56] | Yookala | Binbinga |Gnanji[59] |
+ [54] etc. | [55] | | [57] etc. | [58] | |
+------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+---------------+
+ Janna | Thama } | Tjinum |Jinagoo |Tjuanaku |Uanuku |
+ _Nanakoo_ | Tchana} | _Ninum_ | |_Niriuma_ |_Nuanakurna_ |
+ | _Nana_ | | | | |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jimidya | Tjimita | Tjulum |Joolanjegoo|Tjulantjuka |Tjulantjuka |
+ _Namaja_ | _Namita_ | _Nulum_ | | _Nurlum_ |_Nurlanjukurna_|
+ | | | | | |
+ Dhalyeree | Thalirri | Paliarinji |Bullaranjee|Paliarinji |Paliarinji |
+ | _Nalirri_ | _Paliarina_| |_Paliarina_ |_Paliarina_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Dhongaree | Thungarie | Pungarinji |Bungaranjee|Pungarinji |Pungarinji |
+ | _Nungari_ |_Pungarinia_| |_Pungarina_ |_Pungarinia_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Joolama | Tjurla | Tjurulum |Jooralagoo |Tjurulum |Uralaku |
+ _Nowala_ | _Nala_ | _Nurulum_ | | _Nurulum_ |_Nuralakurna_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jungalla | Thungalla | Thungallum |Jungalagoo |Thungallum |Thungallaku |
+ | _Nungalla_ | _Nungallum_| | _Nungallum_|_Nungallakurna_|
+ | | | | | |
+ Jeemara | Tjimara | Tjamerum |Jameragoo |Tjamerum |Tjameraku |
+ | _Nunalla_ |_Niameragun_| | _Niamerum_ |_Niamaku_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jambijana | Tjambitjina| Yakomari |Yukamurra |Yakomari |Yakomari |
+ _Nambean_ |_Nambitjina_| _Yakomarin_| |_Yakomarina_|_Yakomarina_ |
+------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+---------------+
+
+
+ +--------------------------------------+
+-|----------+--------------+------------|-+-------------+-----------------+
+ Worgaia[60]| Yangarella | Inchalachie | Yungmunnie | Tjingillie[64] |
+ | [61] | [62] | [63] | |
+------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+
+ Wairgu | Narrabalangie|{Narrabalangie| Unwannee | Thamininja |
+ | _Neonammer_ |{Warkie | _Imbannee_ | _Namininja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Blaingunjhu| Bolangie | Bolangie | Eemitch | Tjimininja |
+ | _Nolangmer_ | | _Immadena_ | _Truminginja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Biliarinthu| Bulleringie | Belyeringie | Uwallaree | Thalaringinja |
+ | _Nulyarammer_| | _Imballaree_| _Nalaringinja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ | | | | |
+ Pungarinju | Bongaringie | Beneringie | Uwungaree | Thungaringinta |
+ | _Nongarimmer_| | _Imbongaree_| _Namaringinta_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Warrithu | Burralangie |{Burralangie | Urwalla | Tjurulinginja |
+ | _Nurralammer_|{Narechie | _Imbawalla_ | _Nalinginja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Kingelunju | Kunuller | Kungilla | Yungalla | Thungallininja |
+ | _Nungalermer_| | _Inkagalla_ | _Nalangininja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Tjameramu | Kommerangie |{Kommerangie | Unmarra | Thamaringinja |
+ | _Nemurammer_ |{Boonongoona | _Inganmarra_| _Namaringinja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Ikamaru | Yakomari |{Akamaroo | Tabachin | Tjapatjinginja |
+ | _Jumeyunyie_ |{Thimmermill | _Tabadenna_ | _Nambitjinginja_|
+------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+
+
+
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+ {Ilpirra[65] |{Warramunga[66] | Meening[67] | Mayoo[68] | Koorangie |
+ {Arunta |{Walpari | | | [69] etc.|
+ {Kaitish |{Wulmala | | | |
+ {Iliaura | | | | |
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+ Panunga | Thapanunga | Chowan | Chinuma | Janna |
+ | _Napanunga_ | _Nowana_ | _Nanagoo_ | _Nanakoo_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Uknaria | Tjinguri | Choongoora | Choongoora | Jamada |
+ | _Namigili_ | _Nangili_ | _Narbeeta_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ {Bulthara | Tjapeltjeri | Chavalya | Chavalya | Dhalyeree |
+ {Kabidgi | _Naltjeri_ | _Nanajerry_ | _Nabajerry_| |
+ _Appitchana_ | | | | |
+ | | | | |
+ Appungerta | Thapungarti | Chowarding | Changary | Dhungaree |
+ | _Napungerta_ | _Nabungati_ | _Nhermana_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Purula | Tjupila | Chooara | Choolima | Joolam |
+ | _Naralu_ | _Nooara_ | _Naola_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Ungalla | Thungalla | Changally | Chungalla | Jungalla |
+ | _Nungalla_ | _Nangally_ | _Nungalla_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Kumara | Thakomara | Chagarra | Chapota | Jameram |
+ |_Nakomara_ | _Nagarra_ | _Nemira_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Umbitchana | Tjambin | Chambeen | Chambijana | Jummiunga |
+ | _Nambin_ | _Nambeen_ | _Nambjana_ | |
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[54] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, X, 72.
+
+[55] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[56] _Ib._, 100, cf. _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIV, 121; XXXIX, 105.
+
+[57] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._, XXXVIII, 77.
+
+[58] _Northern Tribes_, 111.
+
+[59] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[60] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[61] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXII, 251.
+
+[62] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIII, 111.
+
+[63] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIV, 130.
+
+[64] _Northern Tribes_, 100; cf. _Am. Anth._, N.S. II, 495; _Proc.
+R.G.S. Qu._, XVI, 72, 73.
+
+[65] _Native Tribes_, 90; cf. _Proc. R.S. Vict._, N.S. X, 19;
+_T.R.S.S.A._, XIV, 224; _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXII, 72.
+
+[66] _Northern Tribes_, 100; cf. _J.A.I._, XVIII, 44; _J.R.S.N.S.W._,
+XXXII, 73.
+
+[67] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIII, 112; XXXV, 217.
+
+[68] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, XVI, 70.
+
+[69] Mathews in _Am. Phil. Soc._, XXXVIII, 78.
+
+
+TABLE II.
+
+_Phratry Names._
+
+ _Phratries_ _Meanings_ _Name of Tribe_
+ 1. [+]Waa(ng) Crow Wurunjerri[70]
+ Bunjil or Wrepil Eaglehawk
+ 2. Yuckembruk " Ngarrego[71]
+ Merung
+ 3. Umbe Crow Wolgal[72] etc.
+ Malian or Multa Eaglehawk
+ 4. Muquara " Berriait[73], Tatathi[74],
+ Kilpara Wathi-Wathi[74], Keramin[75],
+ Waimbio[76], Barkinji[77],
+ Milpulko[78], Wilya[78],
+ Itchumundi[79]
+ 5. Kumit (Gamutch, Black cockatoo
+ Kaputch, Kulitch)
+ Kroki (Krokitch, White cockatoo Booandik[80], Wotjoballuk[81],
+ Krokage) Gournditchmara[82] etc.
+
+The feminine terminations are -egor, -gurk or -jarr.
+
+For South-West Victoria Dawson (_Aborigines_, p. 26) gives two groups
+and an odd totem kin (?):
+
+ _Phratries_ _Meaning_ _Name of Tribe_
+
+ 6. Kuurokeetch Longbilled cockatoo
+ Kartpoerappa Pelican
+ Kappatch Banksia cockatoo
+ Kirtuuk Boa snake
+ Kuunamit Quail
+ 7. Kararu (Kiraru, Dieri[83], Parnkalla & Nauo[84],
+ Kararawa) Yandairunga[85], Urabunna[86]
+ Matteri
+ 8. Tinewa Yandrawontha, Yowerawarika[87]
+ Koolpuru (? Emu)
+ 9. Yungo (? Kangaroo)
+ Mattera Kurnandaburi[88]
+10. Kookoojeeba
+ Koocheebinga Geebera[89]
+
+The equivalence is not known.
+
+11. Koorabunna
+ Kooragula Goonganji[90]
+
+ _Phratry_
+
+12. Darboo* Bloomfield River[91]
+ Tooar
+
+*The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Phratry names._ _Four-class system_ _Meaning_
+20. Dilbi Kupathin Ia, IIIa[+]
+21. Budthurung(1) Mukula Ib (1)=black duck
+22. Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen Ie Light blood; dark blood
+23. Ngielbumurra Mukumurra Ic
+24. Ngumbun Ngurrawan Id
+25. Girana Merugulli If
+26. Deeajee Karpeun IIIb
+27. Witteru Yungaru IVa, b; Vb (? Kangaroo; ? emu)
+27_a_. " Yungo Vf
+28. " Mallera Va, IXa
+29. " Pakoota Ve, IXb
+30. Naka Tunna Vc
+31. Walar Murla* VIIa Bee; bee
+32. Cheepa Junna Vd
+33. Jamagunda Gamanutta* XIa
+34. Wartungmat Munichmat* XIVa Crow; white cockatoo
+
+ _Eight-class system_[+]
+40. Illitchi Liaritchi XIIa
+41. Uluuru Biingaru XIIc (? Curlew)
+42. " Kingilli XIIb (? Curlew)
+43. Wiliuku Liaraku XIId
+44. Urku Ua Xa
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[70] Howitt, p. 126.
+
+[71] _Id._ p. 101.
+
+[72] _Id._ p. 102, Lang, _Secret_, p. 163.
+
+[73] Curr, II, 165.
+
+[74] _J.A.I._ XIII, 338; Howitt, p. 195.
+
+[75] _J.A.I._ XIV, 349.
+
+[76] Taplin, p. 17; Howitt, p. 100.
+
+[77] _J.A.I._ XIV, 348; Curr, II, 188, 195.
+
+[78] Howitt, p. 98.
+
+[79] _Id._ p. 106 n. For the Kurnai, Bunjil and Ngarregal were perhaps
+phratry names (Howitt, p. 135).
+
+[80] Curr, III, 461; Howitt, p. 123.
+
+[81] _Id._ p. 121.
+
+[82] _Id._ p. 124.
+
+[83] Howitt, p. 91.
+
+[84] Woods, p. 222.
+
+[85] Howitt, p. 187.
+
+[86] _Nor. Tr._ p. 60.
+
+[87] Howitt, p. 97.
+
+[88] Howitt, p. 92; Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 108.
+
+[89] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 187.
+
+[90] _Sci. Man_, I. 84; Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89; in
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._ he reports a third name in certain
+districts--Koorameenya.
+
+[91] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89.
+
+
+TABLE III.
+
+Allusion has been made in Chapter III to kinship organisations
+denominated "bloods" and "shades" by Mr R.H. Mathews. Whether it is that
+some observers have mistaken these for phratries or _vice vers_, it
+seems that the names of the two classes of organisation are at present
+inextricably intermingled, as the following table shows:
+
+ _Tribe_ _Phratry_ _Blood_ _Meaning_
+Itchmundi[92] Kilpara-Muquara {Mukulo-Ngielpuru [+]Sluggish and
+ " {Muggula-Ngipuru[+] swift blood
+Wiradjeri[93] Mukula-Budthurung
+Wonghibon[94] Mukumura-Ngiel-
+ bumura
+Wonghi- }[95]
+ bon and } Ngumbun- Gwaigullimba- [++]Swift and sluggish
+ Ngneumba} Ngurrawan Gwaimudhan[++] blood
+Euahlayi[96] Gwaigullean- Light and dark
+ Gwaimudthen blooded
+Murawari[97] Girrana-Merugulli Muggulu-Bumbirra Sluggish and
+ swift blood
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[92] Howitt, p. 106 n.; Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIX, 118.
+
+[93] _Id._ p. 107.
+
+[94] _Id._ p. 108.
+
+
+TABLE IV.
+
+The areas covered by the different class and phratry names are not
+co-extensive, that is to say a class is associated with more than one
+phratry and _vice vers_. The Undekerebina[98] and Yelyuyendi[99] have
+phratries (No. 29) which are usually associated with classes but in
+their case none have been noted. On the other hand it is not uncommon to
+find classes without the corresponding phratry names; this is the case
+in the eight class area, among the tribes of N.S. Wales, S. Queensland,
+etc.; but no special significance attaches to it unless we are certain
+that it is not the negligence of the observer nor the disuse of the
+names which has produced this state of things. On the other hand the
+relation of phratry and class areas is of the highest importance, as is
+shown in Chapter V. The following table shows the anomalies:
+
+ _Tribe_ _Phratry_ _Class_
+Wiradjeri 21 I
+Euahlayi 22 I
+Ngeumba, Wonghi 23, or 24 I
+Murawari 25 I
+Kiabara, etc. 20 III
+Dippil 26 III
+Kuinmurbura, Kongulu 27 IV
+Yuipera, Badieri, Yambeena, etc. 27 V
+Kogai, Wakelbura, etc. 28 V
+Woonamura, Mittakoodi, Miorli, etc. 29 V
+Purgoma 30 V
+Jouon 32 V
+Miappe 29 VIII
+Kalkadoon 28 VIII
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[95] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ xxxix, 116. _Eth. Notes_, p. 5.
+
+[96] Mrs Langloh Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 11.
+
+[97] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, 1905, 52.
+
+[98] Rota, p. 56.
+
+[99] Howitt, p. 192.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+PHRATRY NAMES.
+
+The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
+ Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts.
+ Intercommunication. Tribal Migrations.
+
+
+It has been shown in Chapter III that from the point of view of kinship
+organisations Australia falls into three main areas--occupied by the
+classless two-phratry, the four-class and the eight-class organisations.
+The total number of phratry names, thirty-three pairs in all, does not
+of course fall solely to the count of the two-phratry tribes, but is
+divided between the three kinds of organisation, the two-phratry having
+twelve pairs with one anomalous area, the four-class sixteen, and the
+eight-class five such sets. As regards the relative size of the areas
+thus organised, the largest seems to be that occupied by the
+Matteri-Kiraru system, though the Muquara-Kilpara (5) probably runs it
+close, especially if we take into account the names of like meaning
+(1-4) in the East Victorian area. The remainder of the two-phratry
+systems do not range over a wide extent of country, so far as is known;
+but 10, 11, and 33 are of unknown extent.
+
+In the four-class area are two extensive systems, ranking next after
+those of South Australia and N.S. Wales; these are Mallera-Wuthera (27)
+and Pakoota-Wootaro (29); they have a single phratry name in common,
+which is also found in two other systems; if we add these together, as
+we may perhaps do on this evidence of a common basis, we have by far the
+largest phratric system in Australia as the result. Almost equal in
+extent to either of the two areas occupied by 27 and 29 is that claimed
+by the better known Kamilaroi system--Dilbi-Kupathin, which spreads over
+a long, comparatively narrow region, but had possibly at one time a
+wider field from which at the present time only the corresponding class
+names can be recovered. Of the remaining thirteen in the two-class
+region, only 28, one of the Wuthera systems already mentioned, has more
+than a restricted field of influence. Of moderate size are the four
+areas in the eight-class system proper, that of the Mara being small in
+comparison.
+
+Taking now the native names, we find that, in addition to the Wuthera
+(Ootaroo) sets already mentioned, the Dieri and Kurnandaburi have
+Matteri (Mattera) in common, while the latter have in the Baddieri tribe
+a neighbour which shares the Yungo phratry name with them. The fact, if
+correct, that with the Badieri Yungo is associated with Wutheru, and
+takes the place of the more usual Yungaru, suggests that we may equate
+the latter with Yungo. In the eight-class area Uluuru is common to two
+systems, while a third has Wiliuku, and the fourth Illitchi, all of
+which seem to be allied, if we may take it that uru, uku, and tchi are
+suffixes; that they are is borne out by the corresponding names
+Liaritchi and Liaraku. Other possible equations are Mukula--Mukumurra,
+and Cheepa--Koocheebinga, but in the latter case, even if koo is a
+prefix, the distance of the two systems makes any such correspondence
+improbable. In Victoria the Malian-Multa equation is indisputable; it is
+interesting to note that the former is found in N.S. Wales as the name
+of the bird, while Multa belongs to Yorke Peninsula.
+
+As regards the meaning of these names, we find that of the fifty-eight
+names which remain after deducting those which occur in more than one
+system, nineteen can be translated with certainty, and we can guess at
+the meaning of some half dozen more. Of translateable names the most
+widely spread are various titles of Eaglehawk and Crow, which appear in
+five different systems in Victoria and New South Wales[100]. Crow
+reappears in West Australia under the name of Wartung, with white
+cockatoo, also a Victorian phratry name, as its fellow. In North
+Queensland, as a parallel to the black and white cockatoo of the south,
+we find on the Annan River two species of bee giving their names to
+phratries; and the Black Duck phratry of the Waradjeri suggests that
+here too might be found another contrasting pair, if we could translate
+the other name. For the Euahlayi phratry names, on which more will be
+said in discussing the "blood" organisations, Mrs Parker gives the
+translation "Light-blooded" and "Dark-blooded," which comes near that
+suggested by Mr Mathews--slow and quick blooded. In the Ulu, Illi, and
+Wili of Northern Territory we seem to recognise Welu (curlew). Koolpuru
+(emu), Yungaru and Yungo (kangaroo), and Wutheroo (emu) are also
+possible meanings.
+
+The problems raised by the phratriac nomenclature are complex and
+probably insoluble. They are in part bound up with the problem of the
+origin of the organisation itself; of this nature, for example, is the
+question whether the names correspond to anything existing in the
+pre-phratriac stage, or whether the organisation was borrowed and the
+names taken over translated or untranslated into the idiom of the
+borrowers. If the latter be the solution, we have a simple explanation
+of the wide-spread Eaglehawk-Crow system as well as of other facts, to
+which reference is made below.
+
+If on the other hand the names have not been much spread by
+borrowing,--and the increasing number of small phratry areas known to us
+tells in favour of this, though it also suggests that the widely-found
+systems have gained ground at the expense of their neighbours,--then we
+obviously need some theory as to the origin of the organisation, before
+we can frame any hypothesis as to the origin of the names.
+
+The prominent part, however, played by the Eaglehawk among phratry names
+raises some questions which can be discussed on their merits. One of
+these is the age of phratry names. Some of the earliest records of
+initiation ceremonies in New South Wales mention that the eaglehawk
+figured in them[101]. In West Australia this bird is the demiurge, and
+the progenitors of the phratries, of which crow is one, are his nephews.
+This is not the only case in which these birds figure in mythology.
+
+As the Rev. John Mathew has pointed out in his work, _Eaglehawk and
+Crow_, there are found in Australia, especially in the south-eastern
+portion, a number of myths relating to the conflicts of these birds.
+These myths he interprets as echoes of a long-past conflict between the
+aboriginal Negrito race and the invading Papuans, and traces the origin
+of the phratries to the same racial strife. As an explanation of exogamy
+the hypothesis is clearly insufficient, but it is evident that no theory
+of the origin of the phratries can leave exogamy out of the question.
+The point, however, with which we are immediately concerned is the myth
+on which in the main Mr Mathew based his theory. Unfortunately, he did
+not think it necessary to attempt to define either the area covered by
+the different phratry names--an omission which is remedied by the
+present work--nor yet the limits within which the myth in question or
+its analogues are part of the native mythology. These analogues to the
+story of the battle of Eaglehawk and Crow, ended in the Darling area
+according to tradition by a treaty between the contending birds, are
+myths in which birds are said to have destroyed the human race, or a
+large portion of it, to have contended with Baiame, or one of the other
+gods, or to have figured in some other conflict[102]. The bird of this
+myth--the bird conflict myth, as it may be termed--is the Eaglehawk.
+Possibly, as I have pointed out in the note in _Man_, both bird conflict
+myths and Eaglehawk-Crow myths--they may be termed collectively bird
+myths--may go back to a common origin. So far as Mr Mathew's evidence
+goes, bird myths do not seem to be told outside the colony of Victoria
+and the Darling area of New South Wales.
+
+A little research, however, shows that this idea is altogether
+erroneous. There are unfortunately large areas in Australia, as to the
+mythology of which we know absolutely nothing. Therefore it must not be
+supposed that the bird conflict myth is confined to the districts in
+which we have evidence of its existence. We may rather infer that a myth
+so widely distributed--it ranges from the head of the Bight, 129 E., to
+the coast north of Sydney, and probably as far as Moreton Bay; to the
+north it is found among the Urabunna, and probably elsewhere--is common
+property of the Australian Tribes.
+
+A glance at the map will show that the eaglehawk and crow myth covers
+but a small portion of the area in which the bird conflict myth is
+found. On the other hand we find within the eaglehawk-crow myth district
+the phratry names Cockatoo, three names of unknown meaning, and the
+doubtful Kiraru--Kirarawa. Now if a racial conflict is indicated by the
+names eaglehawk and crow, this must be either because the contending
+races were already known by these names, or because the two birds in
+question are proverbially hostile to each other. In either case we are
+left without any explanation of the two cockatoo phratries. It may
+indeed be argued that the locality in which the eaglehawk-crow phratry
+names are found tells strongly in favour of the racial conflict
+hypothesis; for it is precisely in this area that the last stand of the
+aborigines against the invaders may, on the theory put forward by Mr
+Mathew and accepted by some anthropologists[103], be supposed to have
+taken place. But against this must be set the fact that in this area
+also we find two cockatoos, and on the Annan River two bees, arrayed
+against one another; unless it can be shown that these two birds are
+also proverbial foes, or that the Australian native had reached a point
+in his biological investigations at which he recognised that the
+presence of two closely allied species in a district involves a
+particularly keen struggle for existence (which they would, however,
+regard in such an advanced stage of knowledge as appropriate to the
+designation of intra-racial rather than inter-racial feuds), the two
+sets of facts balance one another, and leave us still engaged in a vain
+quest for a conclusion.
+
+Putting theories as to racial conflicts aside, and dealing with the
+facts as we find them, we seem to have a choice of two hypotheses.
+Either the eaglehawk-crow myths were told before the phratry names came
+into existence, or they were invented to explain the existence of the
+phratry names. Let us assume that none of the unknown names mean
+eaglehawk or crow, and that the eaglehawk-crow area has remained
+approximately the same size, or has, at any rate, not diminished
+(excluding, of course, those cases where it seems to have lost ground
+owing to the disappearance of phratry names altogether, as among the
+Kurnai); we must then, on the second theory, assume that the story of
+the combat spread to tribes with completely different phratry names like
+the Urabunna, and got mixed up with their ceremonies of initiation (the
+most sacred part of the mythology of the Australian natives, and one not
+likely to be much influenced by chance intruders); and that it came even
+in some cases to be told of Baiame, the creator and institutor of the
+rites of initiation, who is represented as himself taking part in the
+conflict and gaining a victory over the foes of mankind[104]. On the
+whole, therefore, this view of the case appears improbable.
+
+To the theory that the Eaglehawk-Crow story was originally independent
+of the phratry names no such objections apply. We are indefinitely
+remote from the period at which the anthropologist will be able to do
+for Australia what Franz Boas has done for the North-West of
+America--draw up a table showing the resemblances and differences
+between the stock of folktales of the different tribes, or, which is
+more important for our present purpose, of the main divisions, eastern,
+central, and western, which the analysis of initiation ceremonies gives
+us--a tripartite division which Curr also makes on the linguistic side,
+though Mathew's map shows considerable intermixture in this respect.
+Until we know to what extent the Urabunna or the Ikula have folktales in
+common with the Victorian area, or,--which is perhaps more important,
+though we do not seem to hear of any communication on this line,--how
+far there is a stock of folktales common to the Darling district and the
+central area, it is obviously idle to speculate as to how it comes that
+an Eaglehawk myth is told in both areas. The physical anthropology of
+the Australian natives is at present a little-worked field, in which,
+singularly enough, the French have done more than the English, to our
+shame be it said. Possibly a somatological survey might disclose to what
+extent the central tribes are distinct from the eastern group, and how
+far we may assume movements of population, subsequent to the original
+peopling of the country by the stocks in question, in either or both
+directions. In the absence of such data, and until an Australian Grimm
+has arisen to bring order into the present linguistic chaos, the
+evidence from folktales seems to promise most light on the question of
+migrations.
+
+We are, of course, confronted by the difficulty that this evidence may
+simply disclose the lines along which tribal intercommunication has been
+most easy, whether in the way of simple interchange of commodities,
+evidence of which we have over considerable areas in Australia, or in
+the way of intermarriage, which, as we see by the example of the
+Urabunna and the Arunta, is found in spite of fundamental differences of
+tribal organisation. A common stock of folktales due to this cause would
+leave unexplained the prominence of the bird myth in the sacred rites,
+and leave the present hypothesis, in this regard, on a par with that of
+post-phratriac dissemination, in respect of probability. On the other
+hand we have the Scylla of tribal property in land, an idea so firmly
+rooted in our own day in the minds of the Australians as to make wars of
+conquest unthinkable to them, and to transform the practical part of
+their intertribal feuds into mere raids. If, therefore, investigation
+showed that the central and eastern tribes are in possession of a stock
+of folktales with many items in common, we should always have to take
+into consideration the possibility that these tales antedate the
+complete occupation of Australia, and go back to a period when the
+eastern and central divisions were in close relation. The probability of
+this view would, of course, depend on the extent of the resemblance
+between the two stocks of tales, or, perhaps, rather on the extent of
+the resemblance between those tales which they have in common; for it is
+clear that a close resemblance between comparatively few items would be
+more effective proof of intercommunication than a less marked general
+resemblance between the tale-stocks as a whole.
+
+In spite of the deficiencies of our evidence we may perhaps incline to
+the view that the bird myth dates back to a very early period. Until it
+has been shown that intrusive elements are not only taken up into the
+tribal stock of tales, but also incorporated in the more sacred portion
+of those tales, which are told at the tribal mysteries, it will always
+remain more probable that the myth belongs to the two divisions as a
+result of lineal and not lateral transmission. If this is so the
+differences between the initiation ceremonies, no less than the
+anthropomorphic form of the myth in the eastern division, as compared
+with the purely theriomorphic story of the central division and the
+mixed form of the Ikula, will enable us to say that the period when the
+separation of the divisions took place must be very remote.
+
+There is, therefore, no inherent improbability in supposing that the
+bird myth was told before the phratry names were invented or adopted,
+and that the latter were in some cases taken from the principal
+characters in the myth. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
+the phratry names seem to be subsequent to the present grouping, if we
+may take as our guide the fact that the frontiers of the phratry names
+correspond with the boundaries between the central and eastern
+divisions. The fact that there is a cross division, if we base our
+reasoning on the class organisation, need not of course be taken into
+account, for we have every reason to believe that the classes are
+subsequent to the phratries.
+
+In favour of the derivation of the phratry names from the myth tells
+also the five-fold division of the eaglehawk-crow groups into Muquara
+and Kilpara, Bunjil and Waa, Merung and Yuckembruk, Multa or Malian and
+Umbe. For it is clearly more probable that the names should have been
+taken from a common object than that they should have been in their
+origin identical in form and subsequently differentiated, as the
+languages changed; we have in fact direct evidence of a tendency to
+preserve the old names, which we may perhaps regard as the sacred names,
+after the bird has been rebaptised in the terminology of daily life.
+Over and above this we have of course the fact that the sacred language
+has, generally speaking, both in Australia and elsewhere, this
+unchanging character. But this simple name-borrowing theory, it is
+clear, is equally valid as an explanation of the facts.
+
+Although we cannot determine the meaning of the names the quadripartite
+division of the Mallera-Wuthera[105] and allied phratries in the north is
+evidence of a similar tendency. It is by no means impossible that
+Mallera, Yungaroo, and Pakoota all mean the same thing. (This ignorance
+of the meaning of the phratry and class names is _prim facie_ evidence
+of their high antiquity.) In the newly-discovered phratry names of the
+eight-class tribes we have yet another instance of tripartite division.
+If we may assume that Illitchi, Uluuru, and Wiliuku are from the same
+root (which, as we have seen, is probably _welu_, the terminations
+_-uku_, _-itchi_, and _-uru_ (=_-aree_) being formative suffixes), we
+have here too a single phratry name on the one side and three sister
+names on the other. While it is clear that the names cannot be in any
+sense of the term recent, from the fact that linguistic differentiation
+had already gone some distance in what we may call, for want of a better
+term, groups speaking a stock language (in proof of which we have only
+to look at the formative suffixes), it seems equally clear that the
+present phratry names must be considerably later than the final
+settlement of the country. At the same time it must not be forgotten
+that the existence of numerous small phratries, the number of which may
+yet be largely increased by more exact research, is _prim facie_ a
+proof that the groups which adopted them had not reached the stage at
+which anything like that tribal (still less national) organisation was
+known, which is at the present day characteristic of the Arunta, and,
+perhaps, we may say, of all groups organised on a class system with
+class names known and used over an area far beyond that over which the
+(in a restricted sense) tribal language extends.
+
+The recurrence of crow in the phratry name of the far west lends further
+support to the view that the phratry names were selected in some way,
+and were not due to some accident of savage wit. The view has been taken
+that the phratry animals were originally totems, or animals that became
+totems at a later stage. In view of the large number of totems found in
+many tribes, or even restricting their number to six or eight in each
+phratry, it is not difficult to estimate the probability that cockatoo
+and crow would recur in different areas, and that an opposition of
+characters should be found in other cases. The hypothesis needs at any
+rate to be combined with a theory, firstly, of borrowing of phratry
+names, a process which must indeed have played a large part in the
+development of the present system, but which does not necessarily
+involve the supposition that the borrowed names replaced previously
+existing home-made names; and, secondly, of selection of such names as
+were not borrowed.
+
+It has been mentioned that the principle of tribal property in land or,
+to be strictly accurate, in hunting grounds, is, at the present day, a
+fundamental one in native Australian jurisprudence. But, as is shown by
+the map, in some cases the phratries are split into two or more
+segments[106], more or less remote from one another, geographically
+speaking. Now this apparent segmentation must be due to migration; it
+can hardly arise from the chance adoption of identical names; for the
+groups in which the names occur are, though separated by a considerable
+distance, not so remote as, on the theory of chance selection, we should
+expect them to be, in other words the probability is in favour of the
+segmentation of an original group or its cleavage by an intrusive
+element. Of the causes of this drift of population, which on a large
+scale, and under pressure of any kind, might well overrule even the
+rights of property, we have naturally no idea. In a homogeneous mass
+like the population of Australia, and especially in a mass whose level
+of culture is so low as to leave no remains behind which we could use
+for the purposes of chronology, it is hopeless to expect any solution of
+any of the problems connected with drift of population. One thing only
+seems clear, and on this point we may hope for some light from the data
+of philology, namely that the migration was long subsequent to the
+original _Volkerwanderung_; for this must have preceded the rise of
+phratry names, which again must have preceded the migration of which the
+segmentation of groups, evidenced by the names themselves, is at
+present, and in default of the aid of philology, our only proof.
+
+The migrations of which we are speaking must, if the possession of one
+phratry name in common be worth anything as evidence of a closer
+connection between the groups, have been internal to a group or, if the
+term be preferred, to a nation occupying the south of Queensland. For in
+the absence of evidence that phratry names are to be found outside their
+own linguistic groups, we cannot but infer from the quadripartite
+division of the Wuthera phratries both the linguistic unity (and
+language must be in Australia the ultimate test of racial relationship
+on a large scale) and the internal movements of the group in which they
+occur.
+
+In favour of the primitive unity of the Wuthera groups, is the fact that
+with small exceptions, and those on the outskirts of the district, the
+area occupied by the assumed homogeneous pre-phratry group has the same
+class names throughout--which is at the same time a proof that the class
+names are posterior to the phratry names; for the later the date, the
+more extensive the group, may be taken to be the rule in savage
+communities; if the phratry names came later than the class names we
+should expect them to be identical, and the class names different
+instead of the reverse. But to the relative age of classes and phratries
+we return at another point of our argument.
+
+The available data being few, it could hardly be expected that a
+discussion of them would be very fruitful. In the present chapter we
+have, however, shown that the phratry names and organisation are
+probably of very early date, that considerable movements of population
+took place within the linguistic groups subsequent to the adoption of
+the phratry names, and that these names have been selected for some
+explicit reason and not adopted at haphazard.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[100] For references, meanings, etc. see chap. IV.
+
+[101] See _Man_ 1905, no. 28.
+
+[102] Cf. _Man_, 1905, no. 28.
+
+[103] But see _J.R.S. Vict._ XVII, 120.
+
+[104] See _Man_, 1905, no. 28, where I show that in the Wellington
+Valley was current a myth of the conflict between Baiame and Mudgegong
+(=Eaglehawk).
+
+[105] Chap. IV, phratries, nos. 27-29.
+
+[106] See Map III, phratry no. 28.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.
+
+Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split groups.
+ The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory of
+ phratriac origin.
+
+
+If a pre-phratry organisation developed into the system as we find it,
+it is a little difficult to see how selection can have operated, unless,
+indeed, as Mr Lang suggests, the phratries are _transformed_ connubial
+groups, in which case they may have received new names. It is perhaps
+simpler to suppose that the cases of selection of phratry names cited
+above are those in which the organisation has been borrowed with full
+knowledge of its meaning. If this view is correct, no criticism of
+theories of the origin of phratries is possible from the point of view
+of the names actually existing, for we cannot say which, if any, are
+those which were evolved in the organisation which served as a model to
+the remainder.
+
+Broadly speaking the theories of origin at present in the field may be
+reduced to two: in the first place, the conscious reformation theory,
+which supposes that man discovered the evils of in-and-in breeding, a
+point on which some discussion will be found in a later portion of this
+work. In the second place, there is the unconscious evolution theory put
+forward by Mr Lang, whose criticism of the opposing view makes it
+unnecessary to deal with the objections here[107].
+
+Mr Lang's original theory took for its basis the hypothesis, put forward
+by the late Mr J.J. Atkinson, in _Primal Law_, of the origin of
+exogamy. His starting-point was mankind in the brute stage. At the point
+in the evolution of the human race at which Mr Atkinson takes up his
+tale, man, or rather Eoanthropos, was, according to his conjecture,
+organised, if that term can be applied to the grouping of the lower
+animals, in bodies consisting of one adult male, an attendant horde of
+adult females, including, probably, at any rate after a certain lapse of
+time, his own progeny, together with the immature offspring of both
+sexes. As the young males came to maturity, they would be expelled from
+the herd, as is actually the case with cattle and other mammals, by
+their sire, now become their foe. They probably wandered about, as do
+the young males of some existing species, in droves of a dozen or more,
+and at certain seasons of the year, one or more of them would, as they
+felt their powers mature, engage the lord of their own or of another
+herd in single combat, until with the lapse of time the latter either
+succumbed or was driven from the herd to end his days in solitary
+ferocity, his hand against everyone, just as we see the rogue elephant
+wage war indiscriminately on all who approach him.
+
+In process of time, so Mr Atkinson suggests, with the lengthening
+childhood conditioned by the progress of the race, maternal love of a
+more enduring kind developed, than is found among the non-human species
+of the present day. This led eventually to the presence of a young male,
+perhaps the youngest born of a given mother, being permitted to remain,
+on conditions, in the herd after he had attained maturity. The original
+lord and master of the herd retained, Mr Atkinson supposes, his full
+sovereignty over the females born in the herd as well as over those whom
+his prowess had perhaps added to it from time to time. The young male on
+the other hand was not condemned to a life of celibacy as a condition of
+his non-enforcement of the traditional decree of banishment. He was
+permitted to find a mate, but she must be a mate not born in the herd,
+nor one of the harem of his sire; he had, if he wished to wed, to
+capture a spouse for himself from another herd. For the detailed working
+out of this ingenious theory we must refer our readers to Mr Atkinson's
+work, _Primal Law_. Here it suffices to state the primal law which
+resulted from the process sketched above. This primal law was "thou
+shalt not marry within the group." This law, at first enforced by the
+superior strength of the sire, came in the process of time to be a
+traditional rule of conduct, almost an instinct. And with this we reach
+the theory put forward in _Social Origins_ by Mr Andrew Lang, according
+to which local groups received animal names, perhaps from their
+neighbours. These local groups being exogamous for the reason just
+given, and the group name being eventually[108] given, not only to the
+actual members of the group, but also to the women, captured or
+otherwise, who became the mates of the men of the adjoining groups, it
+necessarily resulted that the men of a group, so long as the mother's
+group name did not descend to her children, were of one name, while
+their wives were of another, or more probably of many other names. The
+group became definitely heterogeneous when the maternal group name
+descended to the children born in the alien group, and in process of
+time these maternal group names became totem names.
+
+Meanwhile the original group names had been retained and applied, along
+with the totem or quasi-totem names, to the members of the group; the
+name being probably, in the first place, that of the group in which they
+were born, but, with the rise of the matrilineal descent, which has been
+discussed above, eventually taken from the group to which the mother
+belonged.
+
+During these processes the custom had sprung up to select a wife, not at
+random from any of the probably more or less hostile surrounding groups,
+but from one particular group with which the group of the candidate for
+matrimony had in the course of time come to be on friendly terms.
+
+The names of these two groups, which drew in other smaller groups,
+became the phratry names of the newly-formed aggregate, the largest unit
+known to primitive society at that stage of its evolution, and
+corresponding roughly to what we have defined as a tribe; for it was
+united by bonds of friendship, and in the course of time the language,
+originally very different no doubt, how different we can, indeed, hardly
+say, must have so far coalesced, owing to the interchange of wives (in
+so far as a distinct woman's language, traces of which are found among
+some savage tribes, was not developed), as to produce a single tongue.
+
+This theory Mr Lang has now fortified and elaborated in _The Secret of
+the Totem_, the most important new point being the demonstration of the
+fact that totem kins which bear names of the same significance as the
+phratry names are almost invariably in the eponymous phratries--a clear
+proof that law and not chance has determined their position.
+
+As an explanation of the distribution of phratry names Mr Lang adopts a
+theory which combines the hypotheses of evolution and borrowing, and
+thus explains both the wide area covered by some systems, and the
+increasing multitude of organisations confined to small districts, which
+more minute research reveals. This does not, it is true, explain the
+geographical remoteness of different parts of the same system or of
+allied systems, shown to be so by the identity of phratry animal or
+name. Not only is Wuthera-Mallera split into two sections; but a portion
+of Wuthera-Yungaru seems to be in the same position; if we may take the
+Badieri Yungo as equivalent to Yungaru, dispersion alone suffices to
+explain the case; but if Yungo is derived from the Kurnandaburi, who
+have Mattera as the sister phratry, then we have the Badieri phratry
+names borrowed each from a different tribe, at any rate in appearance.
+
+In reality this state of things affords the strongest possible support
+to Mr Lang's hypothesis, if only we can suppose that the formation of
+tribes is subsequent to the elaboration of the phratriac system. For it
+might well happen that an original Yungo local group divided, from
+economic causes, but that each half retained its original name. Under
+these circumstances the two portions formed connubial alliances with
+other groups; and in the tribes as we see the names of these split
+groups are found as phratry names, combined in each case with a
+different sister phratry name. We find for example Wuthera-Yungo,
+Yungo-Mattera, Matteri-Kiraru in the central area. The same theory will
+explain the appearance of Wuthera beside three other sister names,
+though here we must call in the borrowing and migration theories as
+well, to explain the wide area over which the names are found. We have
+seen that in the northern tribes one of the phratry names appears to be
+in each case from the same root; if this is so, we can apply to them too
+the split-group hypothesis.
+
+The case of Eaglehawk-Crow is less simple. Separated from the Darling
+area by a considerable space lie four systems of the same name in the
+east of Victoria. Here it is hardly possible to assume that the latter
+systems have migrated; on the other hand the area covered by the Darling
+group suggests that it is unlikely to have been forced from its original
+home by pressure from outside. Perhaps it is simplest to suppose that
+the Wiradjeri have gradually forced their way in, wedge fashion, between
+the different sections, and either swallowed up the intervening members
+or driven them before them; this would account for the existence of the
+anomalous groups to the south-west.
+
+In this area, too, we seem to have a case of the split group; but the
+identity of meaning of the other phratry names (Malian and Multa both
+mean Eaglehawk) makes it clear that it is simply a case of
+translation--a possibility which must be kept in mind in the other cases
+also. It is a common phenomenon for two tribes to have the name of one
+animal in common, while for that of another entirely different words are
+in use. The four Victorian groups appear to have borrowed the phratry
+names, but the centre from which they took them must remain uncertain.
+
+It may be noted in passing that the view of Prof. Gregory, who holds
+that the occupation of Victoria by the blacks dates back no more than
+300 years, is hardly borne out by the distribution of the phratriac
+systems. It is clearly improbable that they were developed _in situ_,
+for this would make the organisation of very much more recent date than
+we have any warrant for supposing. On the other hand it is improbable
+that four tribes, all with the same phratriac names, should have taken
+their course in the same direction, and settled in proximity to one
+another, at any rate, unless the natural features of the country made
+this course the only possible one.
+
+To return to Mr Lang's theory, it obviously suggests, if it does not
+demand, that such phratries as are spread over wide areas should in the
+main follow the lines of linguistic or cultural areas. Our knowledge of
+these is hardly sufficient to enable us to say at present how far the
+presumption of coincidence is fulfilled; but it is certain that in more
+than one large area the facts are as Mr Lang's theory requires them to
+be.
+
+On the other hand in New South Wales we find an area in which we fail to
+discern the lines on which the phratriac systems are distributed. Here,
+however, we are at a disadvantage in consequence of the uncertainty
+introduced by the unsettled question of "blood" organisations[109].
+Further research may show that the supposed phratriac areas, which are
+apparently only portions of the Wiradjeri territory, are in reality to
+be assigned to the "blood" organisations, which we may probably assign
+to a later date than the phratries and classes.
+
+Perhaps Mr Lang's theory hardly accounts for the fact that eaglehawk and
+crow figure not only as phratry names but also in the myths and rites.
+It is not apparent why eaglehawk and crow groups should take the lead
+and give their names to the phratries unless it was as contrasted
+colours; on the other hand, if they were selected as the names from
+among a number of others this difficulty vanishes, but then we do not
+see why these names are not more widely found, unless indeed the
+untranslated names mean eaglehawk and crow; but possibly all express a
+contrast of some sort.
+
+On the whole, however, it may be said that Mr Lang's theory holds the
+field. Not only is it internally consistent, which cannot be affirmed of
+the reformation theory, but it colligates the facts far better. This may
+be illustrated by a single point.
+
+On the reformation theory, unaccompanied, as it is, by any hypothesis of
+borrowing of phratry names, we should _prim facie_ find the latter,
+where they are translateable, to be those of the animals which are most
+frequently found as totems. Now in the area covered by Dr Howitt's
+recent work, omitting those tribes for which our lists of totems are
+admittedly not complete, we find that emu, kangaroo, snake, eaglehawk,
+and iguana are found as totems in about two-thirds of the cases; then,
+after a long interval, come wallaby and crow, less than half as often,
+with opossum rather more frequently, in half the total number. But it is
+clearly outside the bounds of probability that four of the commonest
+totems should not give their names, so far as is known, to phratries,
+while eaglehawk recurs five, crow six, and cockatoo three times, the two
+latter in one case in a remote area. Not only so, but the opposition
+between the phratry names--black and white or the like--is
+unintelligible, if, as on Dr Durkheim's theory, the phratries are simply
+the elementary totem groups which intermarried and threw off secondary
+totem kins. But criticism of other theories opens a wide field, into
+which it is best not to diverge.
+
+On the development theory the phratries came into existence perhaps as
+the result of the persistence of an old custom of exogamy, non-moral in
+its inception, or, it may be, as a result of the rise of totemic tabus.
+The reformation theory, on the other hand, makes the conscious
+attainment of a better state of society the object of the institution of
+a dichotomous organisation. It will therefore be well to see what
+results in practice from the phratriac organisation.
+
+In the two-phratry area (other rules, which usually exist, apart) it is
+impossible for children of the same mother or father, or of sisters or
+of brothers, to marry, nor can one of the parents, either mother or
+father, according to the rule of descent, take her or his own child in
+marriage. Now if the object of the reformation was to prevent parents
+from marrying children, it was clearly not attained. If, on the other
+hand, it was intended to prevent children of the same mother or father
+from intermarrying, the result could have been attained far more simply,
+either by direct prohibition, such as is found in other cases, or by the
+institution of totemic exogamy, which, in the view of some authorities,
+already existed, and consequently made the phratry superfluous.
+
+According to Dr Frazer's 1905 theory, phratries were introduced to
+prevent brother and sister marriage and exogamous bars began in the
+female line[110]. Against this hypothesis may be urged not only the
+objections first stated but also the fact that for Dr Frazer the Arunta
+are primitive and yet reckon descent (of the class) in the _male_ line.
+If, as he conceives, conceptional totemism was transformed in the
+central tribes into patrilineal totemism, I fail to see why the
+phratries or classes should descend in the female line.
+
+If in the third place, it was proposed to prevent children of sisters or
+of brothers from intermarrying, it is completely mysterious why children
+of brothers and sisters should not only not have been prevented in the
+same way, but absolutely be regarded as the proper mates for each other.
+Even if a single community reformed itself on these lines, it is hardly
+conceivable that many should have done so, even if we suppose that the
+advantages of prohibition were preached from tribe to tribe by
+missionaries of the new order of things. _Ex hypothesi_, cousin marriage
+was not regarded as harmful; and it is highly improbable that any people
+in the lower stages of culture should have discovered that in-and-in
+breeding is harmful, for the results, especially in a people which
+contained no degenerates, would not appear at once, even if they
+appeared at all.
+
+On this point therefore the probabilities are wholly on the side of
+development as against reformation.
+
+An additional reason against the reformation theory is found in the fact
+that phratries, on this theory, would never exceed two in number, but in
+practice there are, as shown in Chapter II, wide variations.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[107] _Secret of the Totem_, pp. 31, 91 sq.
+
+[108] Mr Lang's view is that the women from the first retained their
+original group names wherever they went. _Letter of July 27th_, 1906.
+
+[109] See pp. 31, 50.
+
+[110] _Fortn. Rev._ LXXVIII, 459.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CLASS NAMES.
+
+Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+ Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+ Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the
+ Names: Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names.
+
+
+The priority of phratries over classes is commonly admitted and it is
+unnecessary to argue the question at length. The main grounds for the
+assumption are: (1) that it is _a priori_ probable that the fourfold
+division succeeded the twofold division, exactly as the eightfold
+division has succeeded, and apparently is still gaining ground, at the
+expense of the four-class system. (2) Over a considerable and compact
+area phratries alone are found without a trace of named classes, if we
+except the anomalous organisation recorded by Dawson in S.W. Victoria.
+On the other hand, while we find certain tribes among whom no phratry
+names have yet been discovered, it is inherently probable that this is
+due to their having been forgotten and not to their never having
+existed. It is possible that the encroachments of an alien class system
+have in some cases helped on the extinction of the phratry names. (3) We
+find classes without phratry names, not in a compact group, but
+scattered up and down more or less at random, suggesting that chance and
+not law has been at work to produce this result. (4) Where class names
+are found without corresponding phratry names, they are invariably
+arranged in what may be termed anonymous phratries; that is to say, in
+pairs or fours, so that the member of one class is under normal
+circumstances not at liberty to select a wife at will from the other
+three, but is usually limited to one of the other classes. This state of
+things clearly points to a time when the phratries were recognised by
+the tribes in question.
+
+(5) While the classes are arranged in pairs or fours, according to
+whether the system is four- or eight-class, the totems, on the other
+hand, are distributed phratry fashion; in other words, one group of
+totems belongs to each pair or quadruplet of classes. This divergent
+organisation of the classes (four or eight for the whole tribe) and
+totems (two groups for the whole tribe) can only be explained on the
+supposition that the phratry everywhere preceded the class organisation.
+
+The spatial relations of the phratries and classes are sufficiently
+clear from the map; and a table shows how far cross divisions are found.
+
+The main area of disturbance of the normal relations is, as shown in
+Table IV (p. 51), the district occupied by the Koorgilla class-system
+and its immediate neighbourhood. The Yungaroo-Witteru group has three
+representatives in the Koorgilla class and one in the Kurpal class. The
+Pakoota-Wootaroo phratry has likewise three in the Koorgilla class, a
+fourth being in the Yowingo organisation. A large area is occupied by
+the Mallera-Witteru phratry in the Koorgilla class, and one tribe is
+again found in the Yowingo group. No class names are recorded for the
+Undekerebina in the Pakoota group, and no phratry names for the Mycoolon
+and Workobongo in the Yowingo group, nor for the Yerunthully in the
+Koorgilla group, which in addition to tribes belonging to the three
+Wuthera phratries also embraces within its limits the small Purgoma and
+Jouon tribes.
+
+The only other anomaly recorded in addition to those mentioned is among
+the tribes on the south and south-east of the area just dealt with,
+which have the Barang class names with the Kamilaroi phratry names, or
+the Kamilaroi class names with tribal phratry names. In four cases
+therefore the phratry is found outside the limits of the class usually
+associated with it, or, in other words, it is associated with a strange
+class system. In one case, that of the Kalkadoon, this is sufficiently
+explained by the fact that the tribe is itself now remote geographically
+speaking from its fellows, owing to the interposition of Pitta-Pitta
+and allied tribes. In the other three cases the facts seem to point to a
+change in the intertribal relationships in the period intervening
+between the adoption of phratry names and the introduction of the class
+system. If the lines of intercourse and intermarriage had suffered a
+revolution in the interval, the names, the origin of which we have yet
+to consider, would naturally show a different grouping of the tribes;
+for it is on the grouping of the tribes that the spread of the names,
+whether of phratries or classes, must have depended.
+
+The main mass of the tribes organised on the four-class system lies in
+Queensland and New South Wales, and whereas only two sets of names are
+found in the latter colony, no less than fifteen (some of which are,
+however, of more than doubtful authenticity) are reported from various
+parts of Queensland. From Northern Territory two (Anula and Mara) of
+small extent are reported[111]; a considerable area of this colony, as
+well as of South and West Australia, is occupied by the Arunta system,
+and the closely allied classes to the north-west of them. The only other
+four-class system in West Australia of which we have definite
+information is that west and north of King George's Sound and eastwards
+for an unknown distance.
+
+Covering nearly the whole of New South Wales outside the area occupied
+by the two-phratry tribes of the Darling country, and extending far up
+into Queensland, we find the well-known Muri-Kubbi, Ippai-Kumbo classes
+(1) of the Kamilaroi nation[112]. The Kamilaroi system appears to have
+touched the sea in the neighbourhood of Sydney. According to Mr Mathews,
+the Darkinung, who inhabited this part of New South Wales, substituted
+Bya for Muri. (1_a_) In like manner the Wiradjeri are stated by Gribble
+to have replaced Kumbo by Wombee; this may however be no more than a
+dialectical variant.
+
+Lying along the sea coast north-east of the Darkinung and east of the
+main mass of Kamilaroi tribe were the Kombinegherry and other tribes,
+whom Mr Mathews denominates the Anaywan. Their classes are given by him
+as Irrpoong, Marroong, Imboong, and Irrong; but an earlier authority
+gives the forms Kurbo, Marro, Wombo, and Wirro (2); at Wide Bay we find
+Baran, Balkun, Derwen, and Bundar (3) with an alternative form Banjoor.
+
+North of them, still on the coast, we find the Kuinmurbura with Kurpal,
+Kuialla, Karilbura, and Munal (4); for the Taroombul, which I am unable
+to locate, Mr Mathews gives Koodala in place of Kuialla and Karalbara
+for Karilbura. For the Kangoollo, lying inland from this group, Mr
+Mathews gives Kearra, Banjoor, Banniar, and Koorpal. This suggests that
+there is some confusion, for the names include two from 4, and one or
+two from 3.
+
+A very large area is occupied by tribes with the classes (5) Koorgila,
+Bunburi, Wunggo, and Obur (and variants). They include the Yuipera and
+allied tribes, the Kogai, the Wakelbura and allied tribes, the Yambeena,
+the Yerunthully, the Woonamurra, the Mittakoodi, the Pitta-Pitta, etc.,
+together with the Purgoma of the Palm Islands and the neighbouring
+Jouon, whose headquarters are at Cooktown. In the southern portion of
+this group a correspondent of Curr's has reported the classes Nullum,
+Yoolgo, Bungumbura, and Teilling. We have class names analogous in form
+to the third of these names, it is true, but it resembles tribal names
+so closely as to suggest that the observer in question was really
+referring to a tribe and not to a class. If this is so we may perhaps
+identify Teilling with the Toolginbura. There seems to be no reason for
+admitting these four names to a place among the other groups of class
+names. In like manner we may dismiss the class names assigned to the
+Yukkaburra by an inaccurate correspondent of Curr's, who gives Utheroo,
+Multheroo, Yungaroo, and Goorgilla. It seems clear that the first and
+third of these are really phratry names; possibly the second is a
+dialectical form for Utheroo.
+
+From Halifax Bay and Hinchinbrook Island are reported the names Korkoro,
+Korkeen, Wongo, and Wotero (with variants). Among the Joongoongie of
+North Queensland we find Langenam, Namegoor, Packewicky, and Pamarung
+(15); and among the Karandee Curr gives an anomalous and probably
+defective set, Moorob, Heyanbo, Lenai, Roanga, and Yelet.
+
+The Goothanto and Wollungurma have Ranya, Rara, Loora, and Awunga (8);
+allied to these perhaps are the Jury, Ararey, Barry, and Mungilly of the
+Koogobathy; the Ahjeerena, Arrenynung, Perrynung, and Mahngal of the
+Koonjan are clearly variants of the latter set. East of the Koogobathy
+lie the Warkeman with Koopungie, Kellungie, Chukungie, and Karpungie
+(6), with an allied tribe on the Tully River with classes, Kurongon,
+Kurkulla, Chikun, Karavangie, the two latter obviously corresponding to
+Warkeman classes, the second to Koorgilla.
+
+The Miappe, Mycoolon, Kalkadoon, and Workoboongo have Youingo, Maringo,
+Badingo, and Jimmilingo (9), with alternatives Kapoodingo, Kungilingo,
+and Toonbeungo.
+
+The Yoolanlanya and others have Deringara, Gubilla, Koomara, and
+Belthara, possibly a defective list, for Mr Mathews adds to these for
+the Ullayilinya Lookwara and Ungella (probably a defective set) in
+another communication. Two of these are obviously identical with the
+Arunta Koomara and Bulthara, with which are associated Purula and
+Panungka (13), while Ungilla and Gubilla are taken from the eight-class
+system to which we may probably assign the tribe. North-west of the
+Arunta, outside the eight-class area, the class names are almost
+identical with, though they differ widely in form from the Arunta names.
+They are Burong, Ballieri, Baniker, and Caiemurra (13). The form
+Boorgarloo is given as a variant. Mrs Bates has found a system (14) in
+S.W. Australia.
+
+On the western shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria we find the Mara with
+Purdal, Murungun, Mumbali, and Kuial (10); and the Anula with Awukaria,
+Roumburia, Urtalia, and Wialia (11).
+
+The only two remaining four-class systems of which the names are known
+are on the Annan River with Wandi, Walar, Jorro, and Kutchal (7)--the
+Ngarranga of Yorke Peninsula, with Kari, Wani, Wilthi, and Wilthuthu.
+
+Attention has been called in the course of the above exposition to
+various cases in which the class names found among one group of tribes
+are in part if not entirely identical with those found among their
+neighbours. A close examination discloses other possible though hardly
+probable points of contact besides those already enumerated. The variant
+form Banjoora in 3 seems to be the same as the Banjoor of the Kangulu,
+which again has Koorpal in common with 4, and also Kearra, if we may
+equate the latter with Kuialla. This again is perhaps the Kuial of the
+Mara tribe (9).
+
+The Marroong of 2 seems to be the Maringo of 9, and we may perhaps also
+equate the Kurbo of this group with the Kurpal of 4. Irroong resembles
+the roanga of the Karandee which is probably the Arawongo of the
+Goothanto.
+
+In 5 Wongo suggests the Youingo of 9; it reappears in the Halifax Bay
+list, as also does Koorgilla in one of the variants. Again Kubi (1)
+corresponds to Koobaroo (5), and Kumbo (Wombee) to Bunburi (Unburi), but
+we can hardly regard them as the same words. Koodalla and Koorpal (4)
+may be the same as Kellungie and Koopungie (6); the other pair shows no
+resemblance.
+
+Possibly the Wiradjeri Wombee is the Kombinegherry Wombo; it is at any
+rate significant that the name is found in the portion of the tribe
+nearest the Kombinegherry.
+
+We have seen that the Arunta and their north-western neighbours have a
+four-class system, the component names of which are found with little
+variation over a range of nearly 25 of longitude. In the forms
+Kiemarra, Palyeri, Burong, and Baniker, the class names in vogue among
+the southern Arunta meet us again near the North-West Cape, thus
+covering a larger area than even the widespread Koorgila-Bunburi class
+names of Queensland, and forming a striking contrast to the narrow
+limits of the majority of the four-class system. This peculiarity is
+reproduced in the compact area of the central eight-class tribes, north
+and north-east of the Koomara four-class area, though with much greater
+variations in the names. Bulthara however in the form Palyeri is found
+in more or less disguised shapes in the whole of the eighteen tribes,
+whose class names are shown in Table I a; Koomara is found in shapes
+which are on the whole harder to recognise, and Panunga and Purula in
+two or three cases, either replaced by another word or so changed as to
+be unrecognisable. Of the supplementary names belonging to the
+eight-class Arunta, Uknaria, Ungalla, Appungerta, Umbitchana, Ungalla is
+found in the whole of the tribes under consideration, and Appungerta
+undergoes on the whole but little change; Uknaria is practically not
+found outside the Arunta area, and Umbitchana is in six cases replaced
+by Yacomary, which seems to be a form of Koomara (to this point we recur
+later).
+
+Although this suggests that the names were in the first case taken from
+the Arunta a comparison of them shows that it is not among this tribe
+that the greatest number of forms common to the whole group and the
+greatest general resemblance of the names is to be found, as is shown by
+the comparative tables below. Judged by the standard of resemblance the
+Oolawunga of the north-west, on the Victoria River, have preserved the
+names nearest their original forms. Judged by the standard of least
+deviation from the common stock of names and basing the comparison, not
+on resemblances but on differences, the Koorangie of the upper waters of
+the same river take the first place, with the Oolawunga not far behind.
+In each case the Inchalachee, the most easterly of the group, take the
+last place, followed in the table of resemblances by the Walpari and the
+Worgaia; and in the table of differences by the Worgaia and, though at a
+considerable distance, the Mayoo and the Walpari.
+
+_Figure of Resemblance_[113].
+
+Oolawunga 55
+Bingongina 54
+Umbaia 51
+Koorangie 50
+Yookala, Binbinga 48
+Gnanji 47
+Meening 43
+Warramunga, Yungmunni 41
+Arunta, Mayoo 40
+Kaitish, Yungarella, Tjingilli 39
+Worgaia 37
+Walpari 31
+Inchalachee 28
+
+_Figure of Difference_[114].
+
+Koorangie 31
+Oolawunga 33
+Umbaia 35
+Bingongina 37
+Yungmunni 42
+Gnanji, Tjingilli 44
+Warramunga 45
+Arunta 46
+Binbinga 49
+Yookala 50
+Meening 52
+Kaitish 54
+Yungarella, Walpari 56
+Mayoo 57
+Worgaia 69
+Inchalachee 84
+
+Attention has already been drawn to the resemblance between the Arunta
+four-class names and the names of the eight-class group. It is clearly
+of high importance to determine whether the resemblance is on the whole
+between the names of the western group and the eight-class names, or
+whether the latter can more readily be derived from those of the Arunta.
+In the latter case it is obvious that the position of the Oolawunga and
+Koorangie in the comparative tables is due, not to their having been the
+tribes from which all the others derived their names, but rather to
+movements of population subsequent to the adoption of the class names.
+If on the other hand it appears that the names came in the first
+instance from the more western portion of the Koomara group, we have
+some grounds for supposing that the names and the system reached the
+eight-class area from the west and not from the south.
+
+We have already seen that in the case of Palyeri-Bulthara all the
+evidence points to the name having come from the west. In the case of
+Panunga the evidence is weaker, certain of the forms being derivable
+from either Baniker or Panunga, but with the exception of the
+Warramunga, and possibly the Tjingili, there are no tribes of whom we
+can definitely say that they took the name from the Arunta, whereas
+there are at least four cases where the resemblance is distinctly with
+the western class names, and several more in which it can more readily
+be derived from them. The resemblance between Koomarra and Kiemarra or
+Kiamba is already considerable, and makes it difficult to estimate the
+probabilities in most cases; the problem is complicated by the question
+of prefixes, which will come up for discussion later, and on the whole
+there appears to be no certain solution of the problem, though the Mayoo
+seem to have taken over and varied the western form. In the case of
+Purula-Burong there appear to be indeterminate cases; six seem to tell
+in favour of a southern origin; three suggest a western origin; and one
+word Chupil (f. Namilpa) seems to be from a different root.
+
+The problem is further complicated by the anomalous class name Yakomari,
+to which allusion has already been made. As will be seen later, _cha_ or
+_ja_ seem to be prefixes, and if that is so we can hardly avoid the
+conclusion that Yakomari is Koomara or Kiemara. But in the table it
+takes the place of Umbitchana, with which it is not even remotely
+connected philologically; Jamara and its various forms take the place in
+the table occupied by Koomara among the Arunta when Yakomari holds the
+eighth place as well as in other cases. If therefore _ku_, _ja_, and
+_ya_ are simply prefixes, as seems to be the case, we have this class
+name duplicated among five of the tribe--the Umbaia, Yookala, Binbinga,
+Worgaia, Yangarella, and Inchalachee, of which one comes near the top,
+and two fairly high in the comparative table. It is however worthy of
+notice that these six tribes form the eastern group, and are
+consequently precisely those among which we should, on the hypothesis
+that the class names originated in the western portion of the area,
+expect to find the greatest amount of variation and the most numerous
+anomalies. Dividing the six tribes into two groups, western and eastern,
+each of three tribes, we find that the cumulative resemblance of the
+western group to the Arunta is 132, to the Oolawunga 186; the same
+figures for the eastern group, more remote from the Oolawunga, but
+practically equidistant with the western group from the Arunta, are 91
+and 112. This again seems to lend support to the hypothesis of a western
+origin. It is perhaps simplest to suppose that the majority of the names
+came from the west; but that Yakomari, travelling upwards from the
+south-west, displaced the more usual eighth class name, or perhaps we
+should say, replaced it, when the eight-class system was adopted, for a
+name is not likely to have gone out of use when it had once been applied
+as a designation.
+
+Attention has been called in connection with the phratries to the
+suffixes such as _um_, _itch_, _aku_[115], etc. Their precise meaning is
+usually uncertain. An attentive consideration of the class names seems
+to show that similar suffixes have been used in forming them. If we
+compare Panunga and Baniker, it seems a fair conclusion that the _ban_
+or _pan_ is compounded with _iker_ (_aku_) or _unga_, for among the
+Yookala, the nearest neighbours of the Bingongina, who have it as a
+phratriac suffix, the _-agoo_ of the class names is unmistakeably
+independent of the root word, whatever that may be. In addition to
+_unga_ we find _inginja_, _angie_, _inja_, _itch_ (recalling the _itji_
+of the phratries), _itchana_, and the form _anjegoo_ which seems to have
+a double suffix. _Ara_, _yeri_, _aree_, _um_, _ana_, _ula_ (as we see by
+comparing Purula with Burong), _ta_, and the possibly double form
+_tjuka_, seem to be further examples.
+
+The feminine forms Nalyirri for Thalirri (=Palyeri), Nala for Chula,
+Ninum for Tjinum, Nana for Tjana or Thama, etc. suggest that prefixes
+are also to be distinguished. They seem to be _choo_, _joo_, _ja_, _ya_,
+_n-_, _yun_, _u-_, _ku_, _pu_, _bu_, _nu_, etc. We are however on very
+uncertain ground here, for the feminine forms may be deliberate
+creations. Allowance has to be made too for the personal equation of the
+observer, which is by no means inconsiderable. Possibly this factor,
+together with ordinary laws of phonetic change, the most elementary
+principles of which have yet to be established for the Australian
+languages, will suffice to account for the variations in the names as
+recorded. Otherwise the words are in most cases reduced to monosyllabic
+roots from which it seems hopeless to attempt to extract a meaning.
+
+These questions of suffixes and prefixes are intimately connected with
+the very difficult problem of the origin of the classes. The languages
+of these tribes are at present, if not distinct linguistic stocks, at
+any rate very far from being mere dialectical variations of a common
+tongue, for the members of two tribes appear to be mutually
+unintelligible, unless, contrary to the custom of the American Indians,
+they are bilingual. But if each tribe added a suffix, and thus adopted
+into their own language words which, from the general agreement among
+the class names of this group, seem to have come to them from outside,
+it is a reasonable hypothesis that the word which they adopted had some
+meaning for them. Of course we may suppose that the class names were all
+adopted in the far off time when all spoke a common language. But apart
+from the difficulty that this presupposes the existence of an
+eight-class system at that early period, it is clear from the Queensland
+evidence that class names have been handed on from tribe to tribe, and
+it is reasonable to suppose this to have been the case with the northern
+tribes. This conclusion is borne out by the forms of the suffixes, which
+do not appear to have been developed from one root determinative, as
+must have been the case if we suppose that the names originated when the
+language spoken by these tribes was undifferentiated; and by the facts
+as to the apparent duplication of Koomara, to which allusion has already
+been made.
+
+The important point about the class, as distinguished from the phratry
+systems, is the great extent covered by the former. The north-west area
+of male descent is virtually one from the point of view of class names;
+two other areas are very large, six are of medium size, three are small,
+and the remaining one is probably medium.
+
+Although the question of the meaning of the class names is closely bound
+up with that of their origin, the problem is closely bound up with some
+of the points discussed in this chapter. The meaning of the eight-class
+names is connected with the area of origin of the system, and linguistic
+questions, such as those relating to suffixes, come in. We may therefore
+briefly discuss at this point the meaning of the class names.
+
+On the whole it may be said that we know the meaning of the class names
+only in exceptional cases. The Kiabara, Kamilaroi, Annan River,
+Kuinmurbura, Narrang-ga, and two of the West Australian names can be
+translated (see Table I). But with these exceptions we have no certain
+knowledge of the meaning of the single class names.
+
+Conjectures are of comparatively little value. For in the first place
+the number of words recorded from any given tribe is as a rule very
+small, and little or no indication of the pronunciation is given even in
+the latest works on Australian ethnography. The variations, evidently
+purely arbitrary and due to the want of training in phonetics, are
+frequently very considerable. And finally the area over which the names
+prevail is sufficiently great to give us our choice from half a dozen or
+more different tribal languages, which combined with the variation in
+the form of the words, adds very considerably to the probability that
+there will be found somewhere within the area a word or words bearing a
+deceptively close resemblance to the class names. How far this is the
+case may be made clear by one or two instances of chance resemblances
+between animal names (it seems on the whole probable that if the names
+are translateable they will turn out to be animal names) in the same or
+neighbouring tribes. The meaning of Arunta seems to be white
+cockatoo[116], but we also find a word almost indistinguishable from it
+in sound--eranta--with the meaning of pelican[117]. Kulbara means emu
+and koolbirra kangaroo[118]. Malu (=kangaroo), mala (=mouse), and male
+(=swan) are found in tribes of West Australia, though not of tribes
+living in immediate proximity one to another[119]. But perhaps the best
+example is that of Derroein, which, as we have seen, means kangaroo. In
+addition to durween (young male kangaroo) we find at no great distance
+the words dirrawong (=iguana) and deerooyn (=whip snake), either of
+which bears a sufficiently close resemblance to the class name to be
+accepted as a translation for it in the absence of other
+competitors[120].
+
+With these facts in mind such suggestions as an attentive study of
+vocabularies has disclosed are naturally put forward with a full sense
+of their uncertainty, they are of a purely tentative nature.
+
+For the Koobaroo (var. Obur) of the Goorgilla set I find in the same
+group the homophone _obur_ (gidea tree), which is also a totem of the
+group of tribes in question[121]. The Wotero of Halifax Bay suggests
+Wutheru, for which I am unable to find a meaning, unless it be emu, as
+given by one observer, who however on another occasion gave a different
+translation. Korkoro in the same set may be the same as korkoren
+(opossum) of a tribe some 150 miles away[122]. The muri[123] and kubbi
+of the Kamilaroi and Turribul (?) mean kangaroo and opossum in the
+latter language, and ibbai means Eaglehawk in Wiraidhuri[124]. The
+Kamilaroi bundar (=kangaroo) may give us a clue to the meaning of the
+Dippil Bundar[125]; the Kiabara Bulcoin has a homophone in the Peechera
+tribe, where it means kangaroo; on the Hastings River it means red
+wallaby. Balcun however means native bear according to Mathew[126].
+
+If we turn to the eight-class tribes the results are hardly more
+striking. The Dieri Pultara, Palyara and Upala[127], are homophones of
+the class names which we have seen as alternative forms; but this very
+fact makes it certain, or nearly so, that one of the homophones is due
+to chance coincidence. Bearing in mind that the Arunta alone have the
+form Bulthara, we may perhaps see in the change undergone by the word in
+their language the result of attraction, though it must be confessed
+that the hypothesis is far-fetched in the case of a non-written
+language. On the other hand it tells against the Palyeri=Palyara
+equation that the Arunta, who are by far the nearest to the Dieri, use
+the form Bulthara. The equation Kanunka=Panunga is not backed by any
+evidence that the p-k change is admissible. Finally three of the four
+words mentioned seem to be compounded with a suffix; and if this is so
+it is clearly useless to equate them with words in which this suffix is
+a component part.
+
+One class name only, Ungilla, is found in the Arunta area itself (and
+far beyond it, as far as the Gulf of Carpentaria) with the meaning
+crow[128]. If we may regard the _j_ and _k_ of the forms jungalla,
+kungalla, as a prefix, the equation seems justified; otherwise it seems
+an insuperable difficulty that not the original form of the class name,
+but the derivative and shortened form is the one to which the equation
+applies. Our very defective knowledge of the languages of the
+eight-class tribes makes it possible that when we know more of them
+other root words may be discovered. At present it can only be said that
+in very few instances have we either in the four-class or the
+eight-class areas any warrant for saying that we know the meaning of the
+class names, much less that we know them to be derived from the names of
+animals.
+
+One piece of evidence on the subject we need mention only to reject. The
+Rev. H. Kempe, of the Lutheran Mission among the southern Arunta, has on
+two occasions stated that the classes in signalling to each other use as
+their signs the gestures employed to designate animals[129]. On one
+occasion however he assigns to the Bunanka class the eaglehawk gesture,
+on another the lizard gesture; the remaining three, which he added only
+on the second occasion, were ant, wallaby and eaglehawk. It may be noted
+that the eaglehawk sign is attributed by him to the two classes which
+would form the main part of the population of a local group; in the
+second place all four animals are among the totems of the tribe; it
+seems therefore probable that Mr Kempe has merely confused the sign made
+to a man of the given kin with a sign which he supposed to be made to a
+man of a certain class. If he paid little attention to the subject, and
+especially if on the second occasion he gained his information at a
+large tribal meeting, the large number of totems would render it
+improbable that conflicting evidence would lead him to discover his
+mistake. If he pursued his enquiries far enough he might, it is true,
+get more than one sign for a given class; but if he contented himself
+with asking four men, one of each class, the probability would be that
+he would get four separate gestures. In any case we have no warrant for
+arguing that the gesture in any way translates the class name.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[111] In practice they are eight-class.
+
+[112] The numbers refer to those used in chapter IV.
+
+[113] These are merely rough percentages based on arbitrary values for
+partial resemblances.
+
+[114] This table shows what percentage of names is completely different;
+partial differences are not allowed for.
+
+[115] Possibly a prefix also; cf. _Koocheebinga_, _Koorabunna_ and their
+sister names.
+
+[116] Curr, vocab. no. 37.
+
+[117] ib. no. 39. Spencer and Gillen give "loud voiced" as the meaning.
+
+[118] ib. nos. 34, 40, 49 _a_, 104.
+
+[119] Moore, _Vocab._; Mathew, p. 226.
+
+[120] Mathew, p. 232; Curr, nos. 164, 170, 178.
+
+[121] ib. no. 143.
+
+[122] ib. no. 110.
+
+[123] Elsewhere muri means red kangaroo.
+
+[124] ib. nos. 168, 181, 190; Mathew, _Eaglehawk_, p. 227.
+
+[125] Curr, no. 181.
+
+[126] Mathew, _Eaglehawk_, p. 100; Curr, no. 177.
+
+[127] ib. no. 55.
+
+[128] Roth, _Studies_, p. 50; Curr, nos. 37, 38, 39.
+
+[129] _Halle Verein fur Erdkunde_, 1883, p. 52; _Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._
+II, 640.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.
+
+Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
+ totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory
+ of classes.
+
+
+In dealing with the origin of the classes it is important to bear in
+mind that they are undoubtedly later than the phratries. This is clear,
+not only from the considerations urged on p. 71, but also from the fact
+that the areas covered by the same classes are in the three most
+important cases immensely larger than any covered by a phratriac system.
+We may therefore dismiss at the outset Herr Cunow's theory, which makes
+the classes the original form of organisation.
+
+To explain the origin of the classes, as of the phratries, two kinds of
+theories have been put forward, which are in this case also classifiable
+as reformatory and developmental respectively. The former labour under
+the same disadvantages, so far as they assume that particular marriages
+were regarded as immoral or objectionable, as do the similar hypotheses
+of the origin of phratries.
+
+What is the effect of dividing a phratry into two classes? Firstly and
+most obviously, to reduce by one half the number of women from whom a
+man may take his spouse. Secondarily, to put in the forbidden class both
+his mother's generation and his daughters' generation. It must however
+not be overlooked that it is the whole class of individuals that are
+thus put beyond his reach and not those only who stand to him in the
+relation of daughters in the European sense. Now it is certain that the
+savage of the present day distinguishes blood relationship from tribal
+relationship; of this there are plenty of examples in Australia
+itself[130]. In fact the hypothesis that the introduction of class
+regulations was due to a desire to prevent the intermarriage of parents
+and children, more especially of fathers and daughters, the mothers
+being of course of the same phratries as their sons in the normal tribe,
+depends for its existence on the assumption that consanguinity was
+recognised. But it is clearly a clumsy expedient to limit a man's right
+of choice to the extent we have indicated solely in order to prevent him
+from marrying his daughter, when the simple prohibition to marry her
+would, so far as we can see, have been equally effective.
+
+Dr Durkheim has suggested that phratries and classes originated
+together.
+
+If we start with two exogamous local groups in which the determinant
+spouse removes, the result is two groups in which both phratries are
+found, as is evident from the following graphic representation. The two
+sides represent the local grouping, the letters A and B the phratry
+names, and m or f male or female; the = denotes marriage, the vertical
+lines show the children, the brackets show that the person whose symbol
+is bracketed removes, and the italics that the symbol in question is
+that of a spouse introduced from without.
+
+ mA=_fB_ mB=fA
+ _______| |_______
+ | | | |
+ [fB] mB=_fA_ _fB_=mA [mB]
+ _________| |_________
+ | | | |
+ [fA] mA=_fB_ _fA_=mB [fB]
+ _________| |_________
+ | | | |
+ [fB] mB=_fA_ _fB_=mA [fA]
+ etc. etc.
+
+We see from this that the alternate generations are in each group A and
+B, whose spouses are in the same alternation B and A, the male remaining
+in the group, the female removing in each case, if we assume that the
+matrilineal kinship is the rule. The permanent members of each group
+therefore, and in like manner the imported members, are by alternate
+generations A and B, though of course there is no difference of age
+actually corresponding to the difference of generation.
+
+By the simple phratry law that A can only marry B, and may marry any B,
+local group mates are marriageable. The law however which forbids the
+marriage of phratry mates is on Mr Lang's original theory founded on the
+prohibition to marry group mates. If we suppose that the primal law or
+the memory of it continued to work, we have at once a sufficient
+explanation of the origin of the four-class system. The tribes or
+nations in which the instinct against intra-group marriage was strong
+enough to persist as an active principle after the law against
+intra-phratry marriage had become recognised, may have proceeded to
+create four classes at a very early stage, while those in whom the
+feeling for the primal law was less strong adhered to the simple phratry
+system.
+
+But it is an insuperable objection to this theory that it makes the
+four-class system originate simultaneously with, or at any rate shortly
+after, the rise of the phratries. For we cannot suppose that the feeling
+for the primal law remained dormant for long ages and then suddenly
+revived. On the other hand we have seen that if the difference in the
+distribution of the phratry and class names is any guide, a considerable
+interval must have separated the rise of the one from the rise of the
+other. Unless therefore it can be shown that some other explanation
+accounts for the non-coincidence of phratry and class areas, we can
+hardly accept any explanation of the origin of classes which makes them
+originate at a period not far removed from the introduction of the
+phratries.
+
+The fact that a certain number of class names are in character totemic,
+that is, bear animal names, suggests that the class system may be a
+development of the totem kins, which in certain cases are grouped within
+the phratries or otherwise subject to special regulations. In the
+Urabunna the choice of a man of one totem is said to be limited to women
+of the right status in a single totem of the opposite phratry. Among the
+similarly organised Yandairunga the limitation is to certain totems, and
+Dr Howitt gives other examples of the same order. In the Kongulu tribe
+these totemic classes seem to have been known by special names. In the
+Wotjoballuk tribe there are sub-totems, grouped with certain totems,
+which again seem to be collected into aggregates intermediate between
+the phratry and the simple totem kin. But it is difficult to see why, if
+the classes have arisen out of such organisations, there should be found
+over the great part of Australia four, and only four, classes from which
+the eight have obviously developed. In any case we have no parallel in
+these modifications to the alternate generations of the class system.
+
+These find an analogue, according to an old report, not subsequently
+confirmed, in the Wailwun tribe, where, however, it is supplementary to
+the classes. We are told that there are four totems in this tribe,
+though this does not agree with other reports, and that they are found
+in both phratries indiscriminately. A woman's children do not take her
+totem, nor, apparently, the totem of her brother, who belongs to a
+different kin, but are of the remaining two totems according to their
+sex[131]. From this it follows that the totems alternate, precisely as
+do the classes; the difference in the arrangement consists in the
+distinction of totem falling to males and females, which has no analogue
+in the class system. But such arrangements, even if we may take them as
+established facts, are clearly of secondary origin, and can hardly give
+a clue to the origin of the classes.
+
+There is an important difference between the four-class and eight-class
+organisations in respect of the totem kins. In the former systems the
+kins are almost invariably divided between the phratries; but within
+them they do not belong to either of the classes, though certain classes
+claim them[132]; but on the contrary, of necessity are divided between
+them. In the eight-class tribes this seems to be the case in some tribes
+also; in others, like the Arunta, abnormalities of development cause the
+totems to fall in both phratries. But in the Mara, the Mayoo, and the
+Warramunga[133] they fall, or are stated to fall, in the first case into
+groups according to the four classes, in the other cases according to
+the "couples," i.e. the two classes which stand in the relation of
+parent and child (the son of Panunga is Appungerta, his son is again
+Panunga, and so for the other pairs). This suggests that totemism has
+something to do with the division of the four classes into eight, as was
+pointed out by Dr Durkheim in 1905[134]. His argument is that as long as
+descent was in the female line, the rule was that a man could not marry
+a woman of his mother's totem. When the change to male descent took
+place, the mother's totem, as we see by actual examples[135], did not
+lose the respect which it formerly enjoyed; there is in more than one
+tribe a tabu of the mother's as well as of the father's totem. That
+being so, it is natural to suppose that the new marriage organisation
+according to male descent might be modified to take account of this
+fact. By dividing the classes and arranging that one member of a couple
+should be debarred not only from intermarrying with the class of his
+mother, for which the four-class system also provides, but also from
+intermarrying with the second member of the same couple too, this result
+was attained, in the view of Dr Durkheim.
+
+It remains however to be established that this segregation of totems is
+actually found in the tribes in question. For the Warramunga Spencer and
+Gillen distinctly state[136] that the arrangement is dichotomous, in
+which case the alleged result would not be brought about. The Anula and
+Mara are exceptional tribes with direct male descent; it is hardly
+likely that the eight-class system spread from them. The Mayoo have not
+yet been reported on by an expert. Finally some of the tribes have not
+even the dichotomous arrangement of totems but distribute them in both
+phratries. The basis of the hypothesis, therefore, is hardly
+established.
+
+Singularly enough, Dr Durkheim[137] expresses his adherence to a
+previous theory of his own as to the method of effecting the change from
+female to male descent in four-class tribes. This he supposes to have
+been done by transferring one of the two classes from each phratry to
+the opposite one; and in the former discussion (_Anne Soc._ V, 82 sq.)
+he showed that this procedure would result in scattering the totems
+through both phratries, as we find them to be in the case of the Arunta.
+It is therefore singular to find that he adheres to this theory when his
+new hypothesis demands that the totems, so far from being more widely
+distributed, should be actually confined to the members of one couple.
+Beyond the Urabunna custom in intertribal marriages, however, which is
+hardly decisive evidence, there does not appear to be any proof that the
+transference from one phratry to the other ever took place.
+
+The further support claimed by Dr Durkheim for his hypothesis from the
+alleged male descent of the totem in tribes where female descent of the
+class names prevails, rests on too uncertain a basis to make it
+necessary to deal with it at length; some criticism of the evidence will
+be found elsewhere.
+
+We have seen above that the Dieri rule is precisely parallel to that of
+the eight-class tribes in practice; it is however expressed, not by a
+class system, but by enacting that people standing in a certain degree
+of kinship or consanguinity shall marry. If Dr Durkheim's theory of the
+origin of the eight-class system is correct, it should also apply to the
+Dieri. Now the rule that a man must marry his maternal great-uncle's
+daughter clearly prevents intermarriage with one of the mother's totem;
+but this cannot be the object of the rule, for it is prevented already
+by the phratry system. Dr Durkheim's theory therefore finds no support
+in the Dieri rule.
+
+On the other hand, unless the totems have been scattered through the
+phratries since the southern Arunta divided their classes, Dr Durkheim
+will have difficulty in explaining why a tribe where the totem does not
+concern marriage at all has found it necessary to split the classes; and
+that though the child does not take its totem from mother or father.
+
+Herr Cunow has advanced the view that the classes correspond to
+distinctions of age; but he took as his basis, not the differentia of
+elder and younger, but the distinction made by the initiation customs,
+which divide the community, in his view, into three strata--young, adult
+and old. Into the difficulties created by this theory we need not here
+enter. Suffice it to say that the theory depends on the supposition that
+an age-grade had to marry within itself. Now the age-grade is not a
+fixed body, but is continually changing its personnel; not only so, but
+it is difficult to see how marriage could take place, given the
+initiation ceremonies, in any other way; unions of "old men" with adult
+women apart, which are not, in fact, prohibited, so far as is known, the
+only marriages possible are those within the adult grade. Although
+father and son can rarely belong to the adult grade simultaneously,
+mother and daughter can readily do so. If not, these grades are clearly
+generation classes, and what Herr Cunow really takes as the basis of his
+theory is the generation in each family. This can readily be shown by a
+consideration of the kinship terms.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[130] Roth, _Eth. Stud._ p. 182; Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ p. 616;
+Howitt, p. 262; _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 166.
+
+[131] _J.A.I._ VII, 249, cf. _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 172.
+
+[132] Howitt, p. 110.
+
+[133] _Nor. Tr._ p. 167; _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XVI, 70; _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXX,
+111, 112.
+
+[134] _Ann. Soc._ VIII, 118.
+
+[135] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ p. 166.
+
+[136] _Nor. Tr._ p. 163.
+
+[137] p. 142.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+KINSHIP TERMS.
+
+Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
+ Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
+ Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger.
+
+
+Some classless two-phratry tribes observe in practice the same rules as
+the four and eight class tribes when they are deciding what marriages
+are permissible. The Dieri and Narrangga follow the eight-class rule;
+the position of the Urabunna is somewhat uncertain owing to the
+obscurity of our authorities, which again is probably due to their lack
+of intimate acquaintance with the tribe; and the Wolgal, Ngarrego and
+Murring have the simple four-class rule that a man marries his mother's
+brother's daughter.
+
+We have seen in an earlier chapter that kinship and consanguinity are
+distinct in their nature, though among civilised peoples they are not in
+practice distinguishable. In the lower stages of culture it is otherwise,
+as will be shown in detail below. Corresponding to this distinction of
+consanguinity and kinship but not parallel to it we have two ways of
+expressing these relationships--the descriptive and the classificatory.
+The terminology of the former system is based on the principle of
+reckoning the relationship of two people by the total number of steps
+between them and the nearest lineal ancestor of both. The latter does not
+concern itself with descent at all but expresses the status of the
+individual as a member of a group of persons. Thus, to take a single
+example, in a typical Australian tribe the word applied by a child to its
+father is not used of him alone but of all the other males on the same
+level of a generation provided they belong to the same phratry; to the
+other half of the generation is applied the term usually translated
+"mother's brother."
+
+Unfortunately but few Australian lists of kinship terms have been drawn
+up, and the anomalous tribes like the Kurnai have absorbed a large share
+of attention. It is however possible to give tables for the three classes
+of tribes with which we have been in the main concerned. Those given are
+in use among the Wathi-Wathi of Victoria, the Ngerikudi-speaking people
+of North Queensland and the Arunta[138].
+
+_Wathi-Wathi Tribe: two-phratry._
+
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----
+ _Phratry A_ | _Phratry B_ |Gen-
+ |_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |er-
+ |(mother's father) | |(mother's mother)|at-
+ |_Miimui_ | |_Matui_ |ion
+ |(father's mother) | |(father's father)|
+ | | | | I
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Mamui_ | |_Kukui_ | |
+(father) | |(mother) | |
+_Niingui_ | |_Gunui_ | | II
+(father's sister= | |(mother's brother=| |
+_Nalundui_, | |_Nguthanguthu_ | |
+wife's mother) | |wife's father) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Malunui_ | | EGO |
+ |(father's | |_Wawi, mamui_ |
+ |sister's son) | |(elder brother, | III
+ |_Neripui_ | |sister) |
+ |(father's sister's| |_Tatui, minukui_ |
+ |daughter=wife) | |(younger do.) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Waipui_ | |_Ngipui_ | |
+(son, daughter) | |(sister's son) | |
+ | |? (sister's dau. | | IV
+ | |=_Boikathui_, | |
+ | | son's wife) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |
+ |(daughter's son) | |(sister's |
+ |_Miimui_ | |daughter's son) | V
+ |(sister's son's | |_Matui_ |
+ | son) | | (son's son) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+---
+
+
+_Ngerikudi: Four-class._
+
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
+ | | | |Gen-
+ | | | |er-
+_Phratry A:_ |_Class a_1_ |_Phratry B:_ |_Class b_1_ |at-
+_Class a_ | |_Class b_ | |ion
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Daida_ (mother's | |_Mite_ (mother's |
+ |father) | |mother) | I
+ |_Baida_ (father's | |_Laeta_ (father's|
+ |mother) | |father) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Naider_ (father) | |_Naibeguta_ | |
+_Waita_ (father's | |(mother) | |
+brother) | |_Miata_ (brother) | |
+_Niata_ (elder | |_Goete_ (elder | | II
+sister) | |sister) | |
+_Wiata_ (younger | |_Datu_ younger | |
+do.) | |( do.) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ | | | EGO |
+ |_Danuma_ (wife= | |_Maneinga_ (elder|
+ |mo. bro. dau.) | |brother) |
+ |_Lanti ngenuma_ | |_Goete_ (elder | III
+ |(sister's husband | |sister) |
+ |=mo. bro. son) | |_Otro_ (younger |
+ | | |brother or |
+ | | |sister) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Yuta_ (son or | |? (sister's son | |
+daughter) | |or daughter) | |
+ | |_Yamaanta_ (dau.'s| | IV
+ | |husband) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Yudanta_ | |_Yuunta_ (son's |
+ |(daughter's child)| |child) | V
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
+
+So far as deficiencies in our information would allow, these tables have
+been drawn up on corresponding lines, and the first point which strikes
+us is the great similarity between the three tables, in spite of the
+apparent wide divergence in the kinship organisation of the tribes. To
+facilitate comparison the Wathi-Wathi terms have been arranged, not only
+according to the system in use in the tribe, but in such a way as to
+show how the terms would be arranged under the four-class system.
+
+
+_Arunta: Eight-class._
+
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+ _Panunga_ | _Uknaria_ | _Bulthara_ | _Appungerta_ |Gen-
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
+ | |_Ipmunna_ (mother's|_Arunga_ (father's|at-
+ | |mother, wife's |father) |ion
+ | |mother's father) | |I
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Oknia_ (father)|_Mura_ (wife's | | |
+_Uwinna_ |mother, wife's | | |II
+(father's |mother's | | |
+sisters) |brothers) | | |
+ | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | | EGO |
+ | |_Ipmunna_ (father's|_Okilia_ (elder |
+ | |sister's daughter's|brothers) |
+ | |husband, son's |_Ungaraitcha_ |III
+ | |wife's mother) |(elder sisters) |
+ | | |_Itia_ (younger |
+ | | |brothers and |
+ | | |sisters) |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Allira_ | | | |
+(children, | | | |
+brother's | | | |IV
+children) | | | |
+----------------|---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | |_Arunga_ (son's |
+ | | |son) |V
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+ _Purula_ | _Ungalla_ | _Kumara_ | _Umbitchana_ |Gen-
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
+ | |_Tjimmia_ |_Aperla_ |at-
+ | |(mother's father) |(father's |ion
+ | | |mother) |I
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Mia_ (mother, |_Ikuntera_ | | |
+mother's sister)|(wife's father)| | |II
+_Gammona_ | | | |
+(mother's | | | |
+brother) | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | | |
+ | |_Unkulla_ (father's|_Unawa_ (wife, |
+ | |sister's sons) |wife's sisters) |
+ | | |_Umbirna_ |III
+ | | |(wife's brother= |
+ | | |sister's |
+ | | |husband) |
+- | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Gammona_ (son's|_Umba_ | | |
+ wife) |(sister's | | |IV
+ |children) | | |
+ | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | |_Tjimmia_ | |
+ | |(daughter's child) | |V
+ ---------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+
+In the Wathi-Wathi system, we observe that in each generation there are
+two groups of males and two of females, corresponding to the two-phratry
+system, which are distinguished by names differing for each generation.
+Precisely the same arrangement is found in the four-class tribe. The
+four-class are therefore simply a systematisation of the terms of
+kinship in use under the two-phratry system.
+
+Comparing now the eight-class with the four-class system, we do not see
+at a glance the essential principle of the former. The clue is given by
+the fact that classes I and IV, II and III in phratry A, I and II, III
+and IV in phratry B, are what we have termed a couple, that is to say
+stand in the relation of parent and child alternately. Marriage being
+between classes of corresponding numbers, it follows that
+Kumara-Bulthara and Appungerta-Umbitchana are the maternal and paternal
+grandparents of the man EGO. The grandparents of his wife are in the
+same classes but with reversal as regards the sex. Bulthara is the
+cousin of Appungerta, Kumara of Umbitchana and so on. We see therefore
+that, just as among the Dieri, a man may not marry his cousin, but must
+marry his second cousin, to use ordinary terms, which in this case are
+not misleading.
+
+Looking now at the Ngerikudi system, we see that elder and younger
+sisters are distinguished in the generations of EGO and his parents.
+Possibly they are the eight-class tribe of Queensland to which Dr Howitt
+alludes. If not, we have in them a tribe one stage earlier than the
+southern Arunta, who have their four classes divided but as yet without
+any corresponding names.
+
+The Dieri rule is that of the eight-class tribes. The person designated
+as the proper spouse for a male is his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter, in other words, the grandchildren of brother and
+sister intermarry. This, as we have already seen, is precisely the
+effect of the eight-class rules. We are therefore confronted with three
+possibilities. Either the Dieri regulations are aberrant or they have
+introduced these rules under the influence of the neighbouring
+eight-class system; or the eight-class organisation is a systematisation
+of the Dieri rule, adopted perhaps to facilitate the determination of
+marriageableness or otherwise in the case of persons residing at some
+distance from each other and therefore less likely to be acquainted
+with genealogical niceties than the members of a small community. Now if
+the second of these hypotheses is correct, it is by no means clear why
+the Dieri, having in view the attainment of the object of the
+eight-class system, did not simply adopt it; for this we can find no
+reason; and it is clearly more reasonable on other grounds to suppose
+that these regulations are of independent origin. But we know the
+eight-class rule to have arisen from a division within a generation,
+which the Dieri rule is not. Therefore the latter must be sporadic.
+
+The same is probably true of the Urabunna, but here our information is
+very scanty and the precise working of the rules is far from clear. What
+happens is that an elder brother (A) of a woman (B) marries an elder
+sister (D) of a man (C); the daughter of this elder sister (D) is the
+proper mate for the son of the younger sister (B) of her husband; this
+younger sister's husband is the younger brother, C. Now the term elder
+brother, elder sister, does not seem to refer to age; the rule appears
+to be--once an elder brother, always an elder brother from generation to
+generation.
+
+We learn from Spencer and Gillen, that all the women of a generation in
+the one phratry, and presumably within the right totem only, are to a
+man either _nupa_ (=marriageable) or _apillia_. In the case given by Dr
+Howitt the younger sister is _nupa_ to the younger brother, the elder to
+the elder brother; but we do not learn how elder and younger are
+distinguished, if it is not by descent. Apparently it cannot be by
+descent, however; for we find that the son of the younger brother and
+sister marries the daughter of the elder brother and sister. As to what
+would happen if the younger brother and sister have a daughter, the
+elder a son, we have no information; but apparently they cannot marry.
+Such a daughter must find the son of two people who stand to her father
+and mother as they stood to A and D.
+
+From this example it is clear that the boundaries of the _nupa_ and
+_apillia_ groups are not fixed in a given group of women; it is not
+possible to divide the women and the men into elder brothers and sisters
+on the one hand, younger brothers and sisters on the other. But if this
+is the case, we are quite in the dark as to the meaning of the marriage
+regulations.
+
+One thing however seems certain; viz., that the Urabunna regulations do
+not give the same result as the four-class regulations. With them the
+division is within the generation. There is no class of women, who, with
+their descendants, are the normal spouses of a class of men, with their
+descendants. That being so, the Urabunna case can hardly throw light on
+the genesis of the four-class system.
+
+Among the Urabunna, however, like the Wathi-Wathi, we find the rule that
+a man must marry in his own generation; and this is _prim facie_ the
+meaning of the four-class rule. It is true that the origin of the
+eight-class rule was not what its _prim facie_ meaning suggests, viz.,
+the desire to prevent the marriage of cousins, for we know that it
+originated in the distinction between elder and younger sisters. But no
+similar theory appears to fit the case of the four-class tribes. No
+division within the generation could possibly produce an alternation of
+generations.
+
+The Red Indians have in many cases different names for the elder and
+younger sister; the Hausa impose on persons standing in these relations
+certain prohibitions and avoidances, which are not the same for both
+elder and younger; in Australia a man may speak freely to his elder
+sisters in blood, but only at a distance to his tribal _ungaraitcha_. To
+his younger sisters, blood and tribal, he may not speak save at such a
+distance that his features are indistinguishable. In many parts the
+elder brother has special rights with regard to the younger, and many
+similar customs might be quoted[139].
+
+The question why marriage within the generation--the rule of four-class
+and two-phratry tribes alike--should have come into existence is a
+complicated one and involves that of the origin of kinship terms. If we
+take a crucial case of kinship terminology, we find that a child applies
+the same term to its actual mother as to all the women whom its father
+might have married, to its potential mothers in fact. If therefore we
+have to choose between the gradual extension of the terms from the
+single family to the group or their original application to a group,
+this instance seems decisive in favour of the latter theory.
+
+Now if marriage was originally not "group" but individual, a question to
+be fully discussed in later chapters, we can hardly doubt that
+parent-child marriage was forbidden or perhaps instinctively avoided.
+But this would be equivalent to prohibiting marriage with one of a
+number of men or women embraced under a common kinship term. In the
+lower culture generally and especially among the Australians there is a
+tendency to follow things out to their logical conclusions. If this were
+done in the present case, the result would be to extend the prohibition
+to all the persons embraced under the kinship term.
+
+In any case the natural tendency in a small group would be to marry
+within the generation, and this might readily become crystallised in the
+kinship terms.
+
+The eight-class system, as we have seen, resulted from the distinction
+between elder and younger sister. What is the meaning of this and what
+analogies do we find to it?
+
+Widely extended also are the systems of age-grades. In all parts of the
+world the men, and sometimes the women, are or have been divided into
+associations, to which reference was made in Chapter I, which begin by
+being co-extensive with the tribe for all practical purposes, since all
+pass through the initiation ceremonies. The various initiation
+ceremonies during what may be termed the involuntary stage of these
+associations, no less than in their later form of secret societies,
+determine the rights and duties of the individuals who undergo them. The
+period at which they take place is determined, broadly speaking, by the
+age of the individual. It is therefore clear that for the peoples in the
+lower stage of culture considerations of age are of the highest
+importance.
+
+We find that in practice the elder brother has much authority, both over
+the younger brother and the sister. In Victoria he decides whom they are
+to marry. As we have seen in the tables of terms, the Wathi-Wathi man
+distinguishes both elder and younger of either sex by special terms,
+which points to their having special rights or duties[140].
+
+If therefore we cannot see why primitive man should have enacted that
+the elder rather than the younger, or the daughter of the elder rather
+than the daughter of the younger, should be preferred, it is at any rate
+of a piece with his other customs.
+
+From the terms of kinship tabulated above various conclusions have been
+drawn. It will be seen that a man applies to all the women in the other
+phratry on the level of his generation the same term as he applies to
+his actual wife. On this basis it has been argued that at one time all
+the men in one phratry were united in marriage with all the women in the
+other within the limits of the generation. Before this again a stage of
+absolute promiscuity is supposed to have existed. This alternative
+explanation of the kinship organisations demands to be considered.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[138] _J.A.I._ XIV, 354; _N. Queensl. Eth. Bull._ VI, 6; Spencer and
+Gillen, _Northern Tribes_, p. 90.
+
+[139] Morgan, in _Smithsonian Contr._ vol. XVII; _Globus_, LXIX, 3;
+_Nat. Tribes_, pp. 88-9.
+
+[140] For lists of tribes where this distinction is found see Mathew,
+_Eaglehawk_, p. 223-4.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.
+
+Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types. Hypothetical
+ and existing forms.
+
+
+Students of the sociology of white races enjoy conspicuous advantages
+over those who devote themselves to the investigation of the
+organisation of races in the lower stages of culture. In the first place
+they deal with conditions and forms with which they are personally
+familiar; and this familiarity is shared by those who form the audience,
+or the reading public, of these investigators, who may thus count on
+making themselves understood. Even should they find the already existing
+terminology insufficient, the knowledge of the phenomena enables them to
+introduce suitable modifications or innovations without fear of causing
+misunderstanding. It is true that terminology is often loose, but it
+exists and can be made to express what is meant.
+
+The student of primitive sociology, on the other hand, is called upon to
+digest the reports of other observers, who have not always understood
+the conditions which they describe, who have failed to define to
+themselves what they are endeavouring to make clear to others, and who
+make use of a terminology created for an entirely different set of
+conditions, as if exact definition and care in the use of terms were the
+last and not the first duty of the observer when he frames his report.
+
+Thus, to take a concrete example, there is not much danger that a writer
+who discusses the question of marriage in civilised communities will
+deal with one form of union of the sexes, while his readers may imagine
+that he is dealing with another form. For marriage is the form of
+sexual union recognised by the law of the land, and its legal sanction
+distinguishes it from all other forms of sexual union, however permanent
+they may be, and however short may be the period before the marriage is
+dissolved by an appeal to the courts of law. In fact in civilised
+communities the fulfilment of legal forms and ceremonies constitutes
+marriage, whatever might be said of a union sanctioned by legal forms
+but unaccompanied by the cohabitation of the parties. When, however, we
+are dealing with a people ruled by custom and not by law, the case is
+far different. The force of custom may and usually does in such cases
+far exceed the force of law in civilised communities. In the lower
+stages of culture there is far more reluctance to overstep the
+traditional lines of behaviour than is felt by the ordinary member of a
+European state, and this though there are penalties in the latter which
+do not necessarily exist in the former case. But law, in the sense of a
+rule of conduct, promulgated by a legislator and enforced by penalties
+inflicted by law courts and carried out by the agents of the state, does
+not necessarily exist, and, at most, exists only in a very inchoate
+state. If therefore we read of marriage among such a people, we are left
+in complete uncertainty whether it is a union corresponding to marriage
+in civilised lands, or whether it belongs to a different category. The
+difficulty of the case lies partly in the inability of the observer to
+distinguish _de jure_ from _de facto_ unions, partly in the fact that
+one may be transformed into the other, and no ceremony of any sort mark
+the change. An Australian may, for example, have a wife who is
+recognised as his by tribal custom and tradition; if she is abducted the
+aggrieved husband may vindicate his rights but will not necessarily be
+supported by even his own kin, and will certainly not find anything to
+correspond to the tribunal before which an Englishman would sue for the
+restitution of conjugal rights. If the aggrieved husband proves the
+weaker, he necessarily abandons his wife, and she becomes _ipso facto_
+the wife of the aggressor; divorce is in fact pronounced by the issue of
+an ordeal by combat. So far the matter is clear to the observer.
+
+But if the aggrieved husband take no steps to vindicate his rights, the
+woman will equally pass to the aggressor, and in this case there will
+be no customary ceremonial to mark for the benefit of the observer the
+exact moment of the transition from a marriage, recognised by public
+opinion, or tribal custom, with the first husband A to the same kind of
+union with B.
+
+Again, even where no second mate intervenes to complicate the question,
+the observer may be confronted with delicate problems; at what point,
+for example, does a mere liaison pass into something worthy of the name
+of marriage? What is the status of a union in which the parties are more
+or less permanently associated, but which confers no rights as against
+aggressors? If by native custom the union is not of such a nature as to
+confer on the male party to it any rights over the female, such as the
+liberty to chastise or punish without fear of the intervention of the
+woman's kin, are we to regard the tie as equivalent to marriage if only
+it is permanent? At what point does mere cohabitation pass into
+marriage?
+
+All these are questions which have to be debated and decided before we
+are in possession of a suitable terminology for dealing with the unions
+of the sexes in the lower stages of culture. But they are commonly
+neglected in controversies as to the origin and history of human
+marriage.
+
+We have seen above that in a European community we mean by marriage a
+union between two persons of opposite sexes, entered into with due legal
+formalities, and not dissoluble simply at the will of either or both the
+parties concerned. When we go further afield the connotation of the term
+is extended to embrace (1) polygyny, in which one male is associated
+with two or more females, (2) polyandry, in which one female is
+similarly associated with more than one male, and (3) the condition
+which I propose to term polygamy, in which both these conditions are
+found. In all these cases the union is properly termed marriage, in so
+far as it cannot be entered upon without due formalities nor be
+dissolved without the concurrence of the authority upon the carrying out
+of whose conditions in the preliminary steps the union depends for its
+marriage-character.
+
+When however we come to the so-called group marriage, using the term in
+its original sense of limited promiscuity, we are dealing with an
+entirely different state of things, and it is difficult to see any
+justification for the use of the term marriage in this connection at
+all. By group marriage is meant a condition only removed from absolute
+promiscuity by the existence of age-classes or of two or more exogamous
+classes in the community; it demands no special ceremonies prior to the
+individual union[141], it permits this union to be dissolved at will,
+and it consequently confers no rights on either of the parties to it,
+other than perhaps the right to the produce, or some of the produce, of
+each other's labour.
+
+If the confusion did not extend beyond the terminology, the advance of
+knowledge would perhaps be but little impeded; but experience shows that
+confusion in terminology is apt to go hand in hand with confusion in
+ideas. As will be shown later, this seems to be particularly true of
+investigations into the history of marriage and sexual relationships. It
+seems desirable therefore to clear the way by classifying the ideas with
+which we have to deal, and by defining the terms corresponding to them.
+
+Before classifying the various forms of sexual relationships, it may be
+well to say a few words on the definition of marriage in general. Dr
+Westermarck has defined it from the point of view of natural history as
+a more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting
+beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the
+offspring.
+
+It may not be possible to propose a better definition from the point of
+view selected by Dr Westermarck, which is certainly the one from which
+anthropology must regard sexual relationships. At the same time it is
+not entirely free from objection. In the first place we are employing
+the word marriage in a sense which has but little in common with its
+ordinarily accepted meaning. Suppose, for example, we are dealing with
+marriage in Europe, it is confusing to be compelled by our definition to
+regard as a marriage the _faux mnage_, not to speak of the not uncommon
+fairly permanent unions in which there is no common residence. Such
+monogamous relationships may be, technically speaking, marriages, in Dr
+Westermarck's sense, but it seems desirable to make use of some other
+term for them and reserve marriage for the unions sanctioned by legal
+forms. Or take the union of two people, each of whom has prior
+matrimonial engagements. Such a union may, as the records of the divorce
+court show, be anything but impermanent; but it does not make for
+clearness to call such an union marriage. Let us take a third example--a
+New Hebridean girl purchased, or in Upa stolen, for the use of the young
+men, who, of course, reside in their club-house. If any of the bachelors
+there resident chooses to recognise her children, they are regarded as
+his children; if not, they are supported by the whole of the residents
+in the club-house. How are we to classify the position of the mother of
+these children? The union is obviously fairly permanent, although some
+of the group enter into sexual relationships of an ordinary type and
+join the ranks of the married men, and others enter the club-house from
+the ranks of those hitherto shut out from the enjoyment of the
+privileges of the adult unmarried male. But the relationship established
+with the whole body of unmarried men and indistinguishable, so far as
+definition goes, from polyandry, hardly seems to be a permanent union of
+the type which Dr Westermarck had in mind when he framed his definition,
+much less a marriage in any accepted sense of the term.
+
+For Dr Westermarck's general term marriage it would be well to
+substitute _gam_ or gamic union, to express all kinds of sexual
+relationships other than temporary ones. As sub-heads under this we
+have:
+
+(1) Marriage, a union recognised by law or custom, which imposes duties
+and confers rights on one, both, or all the parties to it.
+
+(2) Free union, a relationship not recognised by the community as
+conferring rights, but at the same time not punished and not necessarily
+regarded as immoral. Temporary unions we may classify as (_a_)
+promiscuity where marriage does not exist or is temporarily in abeyance:
+(_b_) free love, the relationships of the unmarried: (_c_ i.) temporary
+polyandry or polygyny of married people, where the unions are limited
+and recognised by custom: (_c_ ii.) marital licence where the husband is
+complaisant in the face of public opinion: (_c_ iii.) adultery where
+neither the husband nor public opinion permits them.
+
+(3) Liaison, a union in which one or both parties have other ties, which
+renders them liable to punishment, or to some kind of atonement.
+
+Ten various possible forms of sexual relationship actually found or
+assumed to have existed may now be classified.
+
+
+A. PROMISCUITY.
+
+I. Unregulated Promiscuity. (_a_) Primary unregulated promiscuity is the
+hypothetical state assumed by Morgan and others to be the primitive
+state of mankind. It may be noted that promiscuity _de jure_, which is
+all that is implied by Morgan's hypothesis, is not necessarily also _de
+facto_ promiscuity. Unless it be assumed that jealousy was absent at
+this stage, it is clear that free unions must have been the rule rather
+than the exception. But if this be so, the only distinction between
+Morgan's promiscuity and the ordinary state of things in an Australian
+tribe is constituted, intermarrying rules apart, by the fact that the
+Australian husband is at liberty to reclaim his wife, if he can, without
+fear of blood feud if perchance he slays his successor in the
+affections, or perhaps rather in the possession, of his wife, whereas in
+Morgan's primitive stage might was right and the abductor was on an
+equal footing with his predecessor and successor. (_b_) Secondary
+unregulated promiscuity is distinguished from primary promiscuity by the
+co-existence of other forms of sexual relations. It may temporarily
+supersede these as in Australia; or it may take their place, as among
+the Nairs.
+
+II. Regulated Promiscuity. This again falls into (_a_) primary regulated
+promiscuity, the hypothetical stage postulated for Australia before the
+introduction of individual marriage; and (_b_) secondary regulated
+promiscuity, which is found in certain tribes as an exceptional
+practice. With this custom I deal in greater detail below.
+
+
+B. MARRIAGE.
+
+III, Polygamy. This state is constituted by the union of several men
+with several women. It may be distinguished, as before, into primary and
+secondary polygamy. We may further distinguish (_[alpha]_) simple
+and (_[beta]_) adelphic polygamy; and the latter may be (i)
+unilateral or (ii) bilateral, according as either the males or females,
+or both males and females, are brothers and sisters. A further
+sub-division is constituted by the relations of the groups of males or
+females, or both, within themselves. I distinguish these unions by the
+names of dissimilar (M.) and dissimilar (F.) according as one husband or
+one wife has a position superior to the others[142].
+
+IV, Polyandric and V. polygynic unions fall into the same divisions,
+save that they are naturally always unilateral. As a designation for the
+hypothetical stage postulated by Mr Atkinson in _Primal Law_, we may
+take "patriarchal polygyny," meaning thereby the state in which (_a_) in
+the earlier stage all the females of the horde[143] are _ipso facto_
+mates of the one adult male of the horde; or (_b_) in the second stage
+all females born in the horde are equally allotted to him.
+
+Finally we have VI, monogamy.
+
+To the three forms of marriage we can apply the determinants "regulated"
+and "unregulated," "temporary[144]," "permanent," as in the case of
+promiscuity.
+
+We have further two well-marked types of marriage and a mixed form in
+which (_a_) the husband goes to live with the wife; (_b_) he lives with
+the wife for a time and then removes to his own village or tribe; and
+(_c_) the wife removes to the husband. For the first of these Maclennan
+has proposed the name _beena_ marriage; Robertson Smith has proposed to
+call the third type _ba[']al_ marriage, and to include both _beena_ and
+_mot[']a_ marriages under the general name of _[s.]ad[=i]ca_. This
+terminology is unnecessarily obscure and has the further disadvantage of
+connoting the domination or subjection of the husband, a feature not
+necessarily bound up with residence. I therefore propose to term the
+three types matrilocal, removal, and patrilocal marriages. I suggest
+compounds of _pater_ and _mater_, not as being specially appropriate,
+but as being parallel to matrilineal and patrilineal, denoting descent
+in the female and male lines respectively.
+
+For the somewhat complicated relationships of _potestas_ in the family I
+propose two main divisions, (_a_) patri-potestal, (_b_) matri-potestal;
+the latter may be further subdivided according as the authority is in
+the hands (1) of the actual mother, (2) of the maternal uncles, (3) of
+the mother's relatives in general, and so on.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[141] The _pirrauru_ union is preceded by a ceremony, but this is no
+proof that primitive group marriage, if it existed, was contracted in
+the same way.
+
+[142] Dissimilar polygamy is, in respect of the inferior spouses, hardly
+to be distinguished from promiscuity, save that the number of them is
+limited. But in Australia the lending of _pirraurus_ sweeps away even
+this distinction.
+
+[143] He says family, or Cyclopean family. Harem in fact is the idea.
+
+[144] i.e. not life-long.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.
+
+Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+ harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts.
+
+
+The arguments for group marriage in Australia are of two kinds--(1) from
+the terms of relationship, that is to say of a mixed philological and
+sociological character, and (2) from the customs of the Australian
+tribes.
+
+The argument from the terms of relationship is so intimately connected
+with the theories of Lewis Morgan that it may be well to give a brief
+critical survey of Morgan's hypotheses. I therefore begin the treatment
+of this part of the subject by a statement of Morgan's views on the
+general question of the origin and development of human marriage.
+
+As a result of his enquiries into terms of relationships, mainly in
+North America and Asia, Morgan drew up a scheme of fifteen stages,
+through which he believed the sexual relations of human beings had
+passed in the interval between utter savagery and the civilised family.
+We are only concerned with the earlier portion of his scheme. It is not
+even necessary to discuss that in all its details. Morgan's first eight
+(properly five) stages are:
+
+I. Promiscuous Intercourse.
+
+II. Intermarriage or Cohabitation of Brothers and Sisters.
+
+III. The Communal Family (First stage of the Family).
+
+IV. The Hawaian Custom of Punalua[145], giving the Malayan Form of the
+Classificatory System[146].
+
+V. The Tribal Organisation, i.e. totemic exogamy plus promiscuity,
+giving the Turanian and Ganowanian System[147].
+
+VI. Monogamy.
+
+The objections to this theory or group of theories are numerous, and it
+will not be necessary to consider them all here. Were it not that no one
+has since Morgan's day attempted to trace in detail the course of
+evolution from promiscuity to monogamy, it would be almost superfluous
+to discuss the theories of a work on primitive sociology dating back
+nearly thirty years.
+
+With some points Morgan has failed to deal in a way that commends itself
+to us in the light of knowledge accumulated since his day; with others
+he has not attempted to deal, apparently from a want of perception of
+their importance.
+
+First and foremost among the points with which Morgan has failed to deal
+is that of the constitution of the primitive group. Was it composed of
+parents and children only or were more than two generations represented?
+If the former, why were the children expelled? if the latter, how are
+brother and sister marriages introduced, when _ex hypothesi_ the father
+of any given child was unknown and may have been any adult male? If
+Morgan and his supporters evade this difficulty by defining brother and
+sister as children of the same mother, they are met by the obvious
+objection that no revolution in a promiscuous group would result in the
+marriage of children of the same mother. _Ex hypothesi_ there were
+several child-bearing women in the group, and their children, if a
+reform were introduced prohibiting marriage outside one's own
+generation, would intermarry; but the children of these women are, on
+the definition adopted, not brothers and sisters.
+
+If brother and sister does not mean children of the same mother, what
+does it mean?
+
+By what process are these names supposed to have come into existence in
+a promiscuous group? If brother in this sense is taken to imply common
+parentage, the name must clearly denote the relation between two males
+because, although a whole group of men had access to the mother, the
+male parent was or may have been the same person in each case, and this
+whether the mother was the same or not. Now, quite apart from the fact
+that primitive man was unlikely to have evolved a term for such an
+indefinite relationship, except in so far as it involved rights or
+duties, it is obvious that great complications would arise which would
+in practice make the nomenclature unworkable. For to call two boys
+brothers because they have the same group of men as possible fathers is
+only practicable in a society which has already evolved a system of age
+grades, and has established restrictions on intercourse between
+different generations, to use a somewhat indefinite term. For it is
+clear that in a state of promiscuity the class of adults is continually
+being recruited and that the boy passes at puberty, in so far as
+restrictions in the nature of initiation ceremonies are not imposed,
+from the class of sons to that of fathers. In other words, if a group
+consists of M_1 M_2 M_3 M_4, and they have male children of all
+ages N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4, as soon as N_1 reaches puberty he
+becomes a possible father of the children O_1 O_2 O_3 O_4, who
+differ in age from N_4 only by a few years at most and reckon as his
+brothers. But this means that N_1 is the son of M_1, for example,
+but at the same time the father of O_1, who is likewise the son of
+M_1; in the same way O_1 is the brother of N_4, who is the brother
+of N_1; but O_1 is not the brother of N_1. The extraordinary
+complexity of the relations that would arise is at once obvious, and it
+seems clear that relationship terms could never come into existence
+under such circumstances unless they implied something beyond mere
+relationship and denoted rights and duties[148]. But if they denoted
+rights and duties, these must have preceded the relationship term, which
+consequently need not be held to apply to kinship in any proper sense of
+the term.
+
+It is clear that the same difficulties apply when we try to work out the
+development on the hypothesis that a group of mothers existed. We are
+therefore reduced to the supposition that the term brother denoted
+originally a person born within a given period of time, and that this
+period was the same for whole sections of the community; in other words
+that the name brother was given to all males born between, let us say,
+B.C. 10,000 and B.C. 9,990. This is of course equivalent to the
+establishment of age grades and is in itself not unthinkable; age grades
+are of course perfectly well known among primitive peoples; but the
+establishment of age grades implies a degree of social organisation;
+and, what is more important, this hypothesis makes the term brother
+quite meaningless as a kinship term; for at the present day a common
+term of address for members of an age grade does not imply any degree of
+consanguinity, and unless it be proved that age grades are a product of
+the period of "group marriage" it cannot be argued that they ever did
+imply kinship.
+
+It is sufficiently clear from these examples that Morgan entirely failed
+to work out the process by which the transition from pure to regulated
+promiscuity came about. But if the process is uncertain the causes are
+equally obscure. In Mr Morgan's view, or at any rate in one of the
+theories on which he accounted for the change, it was due to "movements
+which resulted in unconscious reformation"; these movements were, he
+supposes, worked out by natural selection. These words, it is true,
+apply primarily to the origin of the "tribal" or "gentile" organisation,
+as Mr Morgan terms totemism, but they probably apply to the original
+passage from promiscuity to "communal marriage," and I propose to
+examine how far such a theory has any solid basis.
+
+Natural selection is a blessed phrase, but in the present case it is
+difficult to see in what way it is supposed to act. The variation
+postulated by Mr Morgan as a basis for the operation of natural
+selection is one of ideas, not physical or mental powers. Now under
+ordinary circumstances we mean by natural selection the weeding out of
+the unfit by reason of inferiorities, physical or psychical, which
+handicap them in the struggle for existence. But it cannot be said that
+the tendency to marry or practice of marrying outside one's own
+generation is such a handicap to the parents. How far is it injurious to
+the children of such unions? Or rather, how far have children who are
+the offspring of brothers and sisters or of cousins a better chance of
+surviving than the offspring of unions between relatives of different
+generations?
+
+It is at the outset clear that savages are not in the habit of taking
+account of such matters. Even if it were otherwise, it is not clear how
+far they would have data as to the varying results of unions of near
+kin. For though on this question, so far as the genus homo is concerned,
+we have very few data on which to go, such data as we have hardly bear
+out his view. Modern statistics relate almost exclusively to the
+intermarriage of cousins, and apply, not to primitive tribes, such as
+those with which, _ex hypothesi_, Mr Morgan is dealing, but to more or
+less civilised and sophisticated peoples, among whom the struggle for
+existence is less keen owing to the advance of knowledge and the
+progress of invention, and among whom possibly the rise of humanitarian
+ideas not only tends to counteract the weeding out of the unfit, but
+even makes it relatively easy for them to propagate their species. What
+the result of the intermarriage of cousins is when war, famine, and
+infanticide are efficient weeders out of the unfit, we cannot say.
+Possibly or even probably the ill results would be inappreciable. It
+must not be forgotten that the marriage of near relatives is only
+harmful because or if it hands on to the children of the union an
+hereditary taint in a strengthened form, a result which is likely to
+follow in civilised life because hereditary taints are allowed to
+flourish unchecked by prudence and controlled by natural selection only
+so far as humanitarianism will permit it. These hereditary degeneracies
+however are probably largely if not entirely absent among savages. It is
+therefore open to question how far intermarriage of cousins would prove
+harmful under such conditions.
+
+Statistics of the influence of cousin-marriage are not however what Mr
+Morgan wants. It is essential for him to prove that father-daughter
+marriage is more harmful than brother-sister unions.
+
+It might be imagined that the data for estimating the effect of the
+union of father and daughter would be non-existent, but this is not so.
+Within the last few years it has been stated that such unions are common
+in parts of South America, and that the children, so far from being
+degenerates, are remarkably healthy and vigorous[149]. This is of
+interest in connection with Mr Atkinson's speculations as to the history
+of the family. In this connection it may be pointed out that such
+unions, _ex hypothesi_, are unlikely to result in continual in-and-in
+breeding, and would in all probability seldom be continued beyond the
+first alliance of this nature.
+
+We are practically in complete darkness as to the results of brother and
+sister marriage in the human species. We have of course various cases of
+ruling families who perpetuated themselves in this way, but the data
+from such peoples refer to an advanced stage of culture and to a
+favoured class. They are not therefore applicable to similar unions
+among savages where they formed, as Mr Morgan suggests, the invariable
+practice. It is however possible to deduce from very simple
+considerations the probabilities as to the respective effects of
+adelphic and father-daughter unions. In the first place, as has been
+already pointed out, the father-daughter union implies only one family
+of in-and-in-bred children; in the case of brother and sister marriage,
+on the other hand, this state of things may go on indefinitely. If this
+is not enough to turn the scale against adelphic unions there is the
+further fact that, taking the descendants of the first pair of
+intermarrying descendants of common parents, whose tendency to disease
+or deformity is we will suppose x^1 on both sides, and assuming that
+this tendency increases in a simple ratio, the offspring have the same
+tendencies to the second power of x. If their children marry each other
+the measure of degeneracy in the third generation is x^4. Suppose now
+a father and mother with index of degeneracy each x^1; a daughter of
+this union will have as her index x^2; if the daughter bears children
+to the father, their index will be not x^4, but x^3, if the simple
+law which I have assumed for the purposes of argument holds good.
+
+It is therefore clear that the offspring of adelphic unions, so far from
+being at an advantage compared with the offspring of father-daughter
+unions, are at a disadvantage in the proportion of 4 to 3. In the third
+place, in father-daughter unions the male is physically as well as
+sexually mature. In adelphic unions both parties are probably immature.
+Consequently from this point of view also the advantage is with the
+supposed injurious type of union. Now if the father-daughter union was
+less harmful than the brother-sister union, _a fortiori_ are uncle-niece
+and similar unions less harmful. Yet Morgan supposes them to have been
+prohibited in favour of brother and sister unions.
+
+Mr Morgan's reformation therefore turns out to have been no reformation
+at all, but a retrograde step. Assuming however that the facts were as
+he supposed them to be, and that the reformation was a real one, it is
+by no means clear how he supposes it to have been brought about. It was,
+as we have seen, an unconscious[150] reformation; it is not supposed
+therefore that the primeval savage detected more pronounced signs of
+degeneracy in the offspring of one class of union and by the force of
+public opinion caused such unions to fall into disrepute and ultimately
+into desuetude. So far as can be seen the method which Mr Morgan had in
+his mind was this: certain unions resulted in offspring less able to
+maintain the struggle for existence, and these families consequently
+tended to die out. Other unions--those of sisters and brothers--on the
+other hand produced more vigorous children, and tended to perpetuate
+themselves. Whereas originally there was no tendency either one way or
+the other, some families developed from unknown causes, which, whatever
+they were, were neither moral nor utilitarian, the practice of brother
+and sister marriage. This diathesis followed the ordinary laws of
+descent, and eventually those families which were fortunate enough to be
+affected in that way exterminated their rivals.
+
+Now, as will be shown immediately, this course of events seems to be in
+contradiction with the facts of savage society at the present day and
+with all probability. Apart from that however, how does Mr Morgan
+suppose his eugenic diathesis to be transmitted? It can hardly be
+maintained that this was the result of the different social conditions
+of the families in which brothers and sisters intermarried. Obviously
+there would be nothing to prevent the male in one of these unions from
+reverting to the other type of marriage. This would indeed be highly
+probable for reasons to be developed in the next paragraph. But if
+social conditions were not the determining factor, we are left with the
+somewhat grotesque theory of innate ideas. It is hardly necessary to
+refute this origin of social evolution.
+
+Perhaps the strongest objection, however, to Mr Morgan's theory is the
+fact that in the most primitive communities the female tends to be
+younger, often much younger, than her mate. It is a readily
+ascertainable fact, though it seems to have been neglected by Mr Morgan,
+that the age of puberty does not coincide with the greatest development
+of the physical powers, but precedes it in the human subject by many
+years. The result of this is that the younger males are, as a rule, in
+the case of many mammals, held in subjection by the patriarch of the
+herd, the result being what I have termed above patriarchal polygyny, as
+long as the old male retains his powers. We have, it is true, no
+evidence of any such conditions among the anthropoids; but it must not
+be forgotten that we have no evidence of the consanguine family either
+among anthropoids, other mammals or human beings.
+
+It tells against the hypothesis of patriarchal polygyny that both among
+horses and among camels there is evidence of the existence of actual
+sexual aversion between both sire and filly and dam and colt in the
+first case; and, as Aristotle tells us, at least between dam and colt in
+the case of camels; but we can hardly argue from Ungulata to Primates.
+
+However this may be, the objections to Morgan's theories do not lose
+their strength. Enough has perhaps been said of them from the point of
+view of theory. We may look at them in the light of the known facts of
+social evolution among races of low stages of culture.
+
+If we now turn for a moment to see what light Australian facts throw on
+the first two stages postulated by Mr Morgan, we find that the
+theoretical objections are amply supported by the course of evolution
+which can be traced in Australian social regulations. It will be
+recollected that in his view father-daughter marriage disappeared first,
+then brother and sister marriage. Totemism apart, there are in
+Australia, as we have seen, two kinds of organisation for the regulation
+of marriage--phratries, the dichotomous division of the southern tribes,
+and classes, the four-fold or eight-fold division of the other areas as
+to which we have any knowledge. Of these the phratry is demonstrably
+older than the class. But the result of the division of a tribe into two
+phratries is to prevent brother and sister marriage, while, so far as
+phratry rules are concerned, father and daughter are still free to marry
+in those tribes where the descent is matrilineal. The result (though not
+necessarily the original object) of the class-system, on the other hand,
+is to prevent the marriage of fathers and daughters and generally of the
+older generation with the younger, so far as the classes actually
+represent generations. In actual practice the class into which a man may
+marry includes females of all ages, so that he is only debarred from
+marrying young females if they are his own daughters. But if we may
+assume that the original object of the classes was to prevent the
+intermarriage of different generations, it is at once obvious that in
+Australia the evolution postulated by Mr Morgan, if it took place at
+all, took place in reverse order, the brother and sister marriage being
+the first to be brought under the ban.
+
+The objections to which attention has been called seem to make it
+difficult if not impossible to accept Morgan's explanations either of
+the processes or of the causes which led to the passage from promiscuity
+to communal marriage.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[145] This is not really material.
+
+[146] Properly speaking these are not stages in the same sense as the
+other forms.
+
+[147] See note 2 on previous page. [Transcriber's Note: Refers to [146]]
+
+[148] We find that in practice change of age grade, i.e. of relationship
+term, does exist; a clearer proof could not be given that the term of
+relationship has nothing to do with descent.
+
+[149] _Wiener Med. Wochenschrift_, 1904; cf. _Fort. Rev._ LXXXIII, 460,
+n. 18. There is, as Mr Lang informs me, a curious Panama case in records
+of the Darien expedition, 1699.
+
+[150] Sometimes but usually not, for Morgan is utterly inconsistent.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.
+
+Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. _Noa._ Group Mothers.
+ Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms
+ express status. The savage view natural.
+
+
+We may now turn to consider the terms of relationship from the point of
+view of marriage, more especially in connection with Australia. We have
+already seen that there are great difficulties in the way of Morgan's
+hypothesis that the names accurately represent the relations which
+formerly existed in the tribes which used them. I propose to discuss the
+matter here from a somewhat different standpoint.
+
+It seems highly probable that if any individual term came into use,
+whether monogamy, patriarchal polygyny, "group marriage," or promiscuity
+prevailed, it would be that which expresses the relationship of a mother
+to her child. The only other possibility would be that in the first two
+conditions mentioned the relation of husband to wife might take
+precedence.
+
+In actual practice we find that the name which a mother applies to her
+own child is applied by her equally to the children of the women whom
+her husband might have married. This state of things may obviously arise
+from one of three causes, (_a_) In the first place the name may have
+been originally that which a mother applied to her own son, and it may
+have been extended to those who were her nephews in a state of monogamy,
+or stepsons (=sons of other women by the same father) in a state of
+polygyny either with or without polyandry. (_b_) The theory that a name
+was applied originally to own and collateral relatives has already been
+discussed, so far as it refers to the "undivided commune." The case of
+regulated promiscuity is different and must be considered here. (_c_) On
+the other hand the name which she uses may have been expressive of
+tribal status or group status, and may have had nothing to do with
+descent.
+
+It is unnecessary to say much about the first of these possibilities.
+First, there is no evidence to show that such a thing has taken place;
+secondly, we can see no reason why such a thing should take place;
+thirdly, if such a change of meaning did take place, it is quite clear
+that we have no grounds for regarding the philological evidence for
+group marriage as having the slightest significance.
+
+In connection with the second hypothesis--that the names actually
+represent the relations formerly existing, it may be well to preface the
+discussion by a few remarks on the regulation of marriage in Australia.
+The rules by which the Australian native is bound, when he sets out to
+choose a wife, make the area of choice as a rule dependent on his
+status, that is to say, he must, in order to find a wife, go to another
+phratry, class, totem-kin, or combination of two of these, membership of
+which depends on descent, direct or indirect; on the other hand he may
+be limited by regulations dependent on locality, that is to say he may
+have to take a wife from a group resident in a certain area. There is
+reason to suppose that the latter regulations are the outcome of earlier
+status regulations which have fallen into desuetude. However this may
+be, all that we are here concerned with is the fact that regulations in
+this case also are virtually dependent on descent, inasmuch as a man is
+not in practice free to reside where he likes, but remains in his own
+group, though occasionally he joins that of his wife (this does not
+apparently affect the exogamic rule). The groups are therefore to all
+intents and purposes totem-kins with male descent.
+
+Taking the Kurnai as our example of the non-class-organised groups, we
+find that the fraternal relationship once started goes on for ever; the
+result of this is that with few exceptions the whole of the
+intermarrying groups, so far as they are of the same generation, are
+brothers and sisters. Dr Howitt, whose authority on matters of
+Australian ethnology is final, recognises that on the principles on
+which group marriage is deduced from terms of relationship, this fact
+should point to the Kurnai being yet in the stage of the undivided
+commune (why, it is difficult to see, when they are definitely
+exogamous), but regards the argument from terms of relationship as
+untrustworthy in this instance. If it is not reliable in one case it may
+well be unreliable in all; we are entitled to ask supporters of the
+hypothesis of group marriage what differentiates this case from those in
+which they have no doubt of the validity of the philological argument.
+
+Now if Dr Howitt's doubts as to the interpretation to be put upon the
+Kurnai terms of relationship are correct, we may reasonably, in the
+absence of proof that they originated in a different way from the
+Malayan terms, ask ourselves upon what basis the case for promiscuity
+rests. Beyond a few customs, and it will be shown below that it is
+unnecessary to regard them as survivals of a period when marriage was
+unknown, the proof is purely philological, and on examination the
+philological proof is found to be wanting.
+
+Dr Howitt, in his recent book, rests the case for the undivided commune
+(i.e. promiscuity) on the Australian terms of relationship which he
+discusses, viz. those of the Dieri and the Kurnai. He will not admit
+that the Kurnai terms point to the undivided commune; we are therefore
+left with the Dieri terms. But the Dieri organisation, so far from being
+that of an undivided commune, is the two-phratry arrangement by which a
+man is by no means free to marry any woman in his tribe, but is limited
+to one-half of the women; further, tribal customs limit his choice still
+further and compel him to marry his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter (these terms do not refer to blood but so-called
+"tribal" relationship, i.e. it is a woman with a certain tribal status
+whom he has to marry). Where then does Dr Howitt find his proof of
+promiscuity?
+
+We have, it is true, a certain number of tribal legends, according to
+which the phratry organisation was instituted to prevent the marriage
+of too near kin. But, quite apart from the fact that tribal legends are
+not evidence, the legends merely point to a period when marriage was
+unregulated, when a man was free to marry any woman, not when he was _de
+facto_ or _de jure_ the husband of every woman. Even if it be proved
+beyond question that marriage was once unregulated, it does not follow
+that promiscuity prevailed.
+
+The existence of the undivided commune is a proof of promiscuity only
+for those who discover proofs of group marriage in the divided commune,
+in other words in the terms of relationship and the customs of the
+ordinary two-phratry tribe of the present day. We may therefore let the
+decision of the question of the validity of terms of relationship as a
+proof of extensive connubial activities rest upon the discussion of the
+evidence to be drawn from the tribes selected by Dr Howitt and Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen, viz. the Dieri and the Urabunna.
+
+It may however be pointed out that neither of these writers has dealt
+with the passage from promiscuity to "group marriage," nor shown how
+under the former system terms of relationship could come into existence
+at all. With the difficulties we have dealt above.
+
+We must now revert to the question of the origin of the so-called "terms
+of relationship." Are they expressive of kinship or only of status and
+duties? Neither Lewis Morgan nor the authorities on Australian marriage
+customs--Dr Howitt and Messrs Spencer and Gillen--discuss the question
+at length, but seem to regard it as an axiom (although they warn us that
+all European ideas of relationship must be dismissed when we deal with
+the classificatory system) that all these terms may be interpreted on
+the hypothesis that the European relationships to which they most nearly
+correspond actually existed in former times, not, as in Europe, between
+individuals, but between groups. The case on which Spencer and Gillen
+rely is that of the _unawa_ relationship. They argue that a man is
+_unawa_ to a whole group of women, one of whom is his individual wife;
+for this individual wife no special name exists, she is just _unawa_
+(=_noa_) like all the other women he might have married. Consequently
+the marital relation must have existed formerly between the man in
+question and the whole group of _unawa_ women. The reasoning does not
+seem absolutely conclusive, and our doubts as to the validity of the
+argument are strengthened when we apply it to another case and find the
+results inconsistent with facts which are known to the lowest savage.
+Not only has a man only one name for the women he might have married,
+and for the woman he actually did marry, but a mother has only one name
+for the son she actually bore, and for the sons of the women who, if
+they had become her husband's wives, would have borne him sons in her
+stead. From this fact by parity of reasoning we must draw the obvious
+conclusion that during the period when group marriage was the rule,
+individual mothers were unknown. If we are entitled to conclude from the
+fact that a man's wife bears the same name for him as all the other
+women whom he might have married, that he at one time was the husband of
+them all, then we are obviously equally entitled to conclude, from the
+fact that a woman's son is known to her by the same name as the sons of
+other women, either that during the period of group marriage she
+actually bore the sons of the other women or that the whole group of
+women produced their sons by their joint efforts. Finding that the term
+which is translated "son" is equally applied by the remainder of the
+group of women to the son of the individual woman, whose case we have
+been considering, we may discard the former hypothesis and come to the
+conclusion that if there was a period of group marriage there was also
+one of group motherhood. This interesting fact may be commended to the
+attention of zoologists.
+
+It is perhaps unnecessary to pursue the argument any further. The single
+point on which Spencer and Gillen rely is sufficiently refuted by a
+single _reductio ad absurdum_. If more proof is needed it may be found
+in Dr Howitt's work[151]. We learn from him that a man is the younger
+brother of his maternal grandmother, and consequently the maternal
+grandfather of his second cousin. Surely it is not possible in this case
+to contend that the "terms of relationship" are expressive of anything
+but duties and status. It seems unreasonable to maintain in the
+interests of an hypothesis that a man can be his own great uncle and
+the son of more than one mother.
+
+From the foregoing discussion it will be clear that there are very
+grave, if not insurmountable, difficulties in the way of regarding the
+"terms of relationship" as being in reality such. In reply to those who
+regard them as status terms it is urged that if they are not terms of
+relationship, then the savages have no terms of any sort to express
+relationships which we regard as obvious, the implication being that
+this is unthinkable.
+
+Now in the first place it may be pointed out that the converse is
+certainly true. Civilised man has a large number of terms of
+relationship, but he has none for such ideas as _noa_; a boy has no term
+for all men who might have been his father; a woman has no name for the
+children of all women who might have married her husband, if she had not
+anticipated them. To the savage this is just as unthinkable as the
+converse seems to be to some civilised men.
+
+In the second place it is perfectly obvious that the savage has, as a
+matter of fact, no names for the quite unmistakeable relationship of
+mother and child. The name which an Australian mother applies to her
+son, she applies equally to the sons of all other women of her own
+status; the name which a son applies to his mother, he applies equally
+to all the women of her status, whether married or unmarried, in old
+age, middle life, youth, or infancy. If there is no term for this
+relation we can hardly argue that the absence of terms for other
+relations is unthinkable.
+
+Morgan attempted to meet this objection by urging that in a state of
+promiscuity a woman would apply the same name to the children of other
+women as to her own, because they were or might be by the same father.
+But in the first place this assumes that the relationship to the father
+was considered rather than the relationship to the mother, and this is
+against all analogy. In the second place, even granting Morgan's
+postulate, the relation of a mother to her son is not that of a wife to
+the children of other wives of a polygynous husband. Poverty of language
+is therefore established in this case, and may be taken for granted
+where the obvious relationships are concerned.
+
+It has been pointed out more than once that there are grave difficulties
+in the way of any hypothesis which assumes that terms of relationship,
+properly so called, were evolved in a state of pure promiscuity. It has
+now been shown that no intelligible account of the meaning of such terms
+can be given, even if we dismiss the difficulties just mentioned and
+assume that terms were somehow or other evolved, and a transition
+effected to a state of regulated promiscuity. If on the other hand we
+regard the "terms of relationship" as originally indicative of tribal
+status and suppose they have been transformed in the course of ages into
+"descriptive" terms such as we use in everyday life, the difficulties
+vanish.
+
+For one proof of this hypothesis we need look no further than the terms
+of relationship applied by a mother to her own (and other) children, an
+illustration which has already done duty more than once. It is
+abundantly clear that what this term expresses is not relationship but
+status, the relation of one generation to the next in the Malayan
+system, of the half of a generation to the next generation in the same
+moiety of the tribe among the Dieri, and so on.
+
+It is admitted even by believers in group marriage that the terms of
+relationship do not correspond to anything actually existing; beyond the
+"survivals" which we shall consider below, they can produce no shadow of
+proof that the terms ever did correspond to actual relationships, as
+they understand them. They can give no proof whatever that they did not
+express status.
+
+It is therefore a fair hypothesis that _unawa_ (_noa_) and similar terms
+express status and not relationship. From the example of mother and son
+we see that the Australian does not select for distinction by a special
+term that bond which is most obvious both to him and us. It is therefore
+by no means surprising that by _unawa_ he should mean, not the existence
+of marital relations, but their possibility, from a 'legal' point of
+view. Just as he is struck, not by the genetic relation between mother
+and son, but by the fact that they belong to different generations, so
+in the case of husband and wife the _existence_ of marital relations
+between them is neglected, and the point selected for emphasis is the
+_legality_ of such marital relations, whether existent or not.
+
+It is singular that anyone should regard this savage view of life as
+anything but natural. For the Australian the due observance of the
+marriage regulations is a tribal matter; their breach, whether the
+connection be by marriage or free love, is a matter of more than private
+concern. The relations of a man with his legal wife however concern
+other members of the tribe but little. Public opinion among the Dieri,
+it is true, condemns the unfaithful wife, but her punishment is left to
+the husband; among the Kamilaroi the tribe indeed takes the matter up
+but only on the complaint of the husband; and generally speaking it is
+the husband who, possibly with his totemic brethren, pursues the
+abductor. We have therefore in this insistence on the legal status of
+the couple and the comparative indifference to the husband's rights a
+sufficiently exact parallel to the insistence on status and not marital
+relations in the use of the term _unawa_.
+
+The course of evolution has been, not, as group-marriagers contend, from
+group to individual terms of relationship but from terms descriptive of
+status to terms descriptive of relationship.
+
+It is, in fact, on any hypothesis, impossible to deny this. Whatever
+terms of relationship may have meant in the past, no believer in group
+marriage contends that they represent anything actually existing. But
+this is equivalent to admitting that they express status and not
+relationship, and no proof has ever been given that they were ever
+anything else.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[151] p. 163.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+PIRRAURU.
+
+Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
+ marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
+ _pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
+ Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
+ _Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
+ scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_:
+ obscure points.
+
+
+We now come to the marriage customs of the Australian natives of the
+present day and the supposed survivals of group marriage. In dealing
+with the question of group marriage we are met with a preliminary
+difficulty. No one has formulated a definition of this state, and the
+interpretations of the term are very diverse.
+
+Fison, for example, says[152] group marriage does not necessarily imply
+actual giving in marriage or cohabitation; all it means is a marital
+right or rather qualification which comes by birth. He argues however on
+a later page[153] that Nair polyandry, which is more properly termed
+promiscuity, is group marriage. Much the same view is taken by A.H.
+Post[154], who regards the theory of pure promiscuity and the undivided
+commune as untenable.
+
+Kohler, on the other hand[155], speaks of group marriage as existing
+among the Omahas, a patrilineal tribe, be it remarked; but means by that
+no more than adelphic polygyny.
+
+Spencer and Gillen criticise Westermarck's use of the term "pretended
+group marriage" and assert it to be a fact among the Urabunna. On the
+very next page group marriage is spoken of as having preceded the
+present state of things. Both statements cannot be true.
+
+For the purposes of the present work I understand group marriage to mean
+promiscuity limited by regulations based on organisations such as
+age-grades, phratries, totem-kins, or local groups.
+
+The fact is that Spencer and Gillen and other writers on Australia use
+the term group merely as a noun of multitude. They do not mean by group,
+in one sense, anything more than a number of persons. In this sense they
+speak of group marriage (=polygamy) at the present day--a fact which is
+not peculiar to Australia and which no one is concerned to deny. By a
+quite illegitimate transformation of meaning they also apply the term
+group to a portion of a tribe distinguished by a class name and (or or)
+term of relationship and mean by group marriage class promiscuity. They
+do not even perceive that they make this transition, for otherwise
+Messrs Spencer and Gillen could hardly assail Dr Westermarck for using
+the term "pretended group marriage" which is quite accurate as a
+description of group (=class) marriage or promiscuity. Even if there
+were justification for assuming that group marriage (=polygamy) is a
+lineal descendant of group marriage (=class promiscuity), nothing would
+be gained by using the term group marriage of both. In the subsequent
+discussion it will be made clear that whatever their causal connection,
+there is hardly a single point of similarity between them beyond the
+fact that the sexual relations are in neither case monogamous. It is
+therefore to be hoped that the supporters of the hypothesis of group
+marriage will in the future encourage clear thinking by not using the
+same term for different forms of sexual union.
+
+I now proceed to discuss the alleged survival of group marriage and
+other Australian marriage customs.
+
+Taking the Dieri tribe as our example the following state of things is
+found to prevail. The tribe is divided into exogamous moieties, Matteri
+and Kararu; subject to restrictions dependent on kinship, with which we
+are not immediately concerned, any Matteri may marry any Kararu. A
+reciprocal term, _noa_[156], is in use to denote the status of those who
+may marry each other. This _noa_ relationship is sometimes cited as a
+proof of the existence of group marriage. As a matter of fact it is no
+more evidence of group marriage than the fact that a man is _noa_ to all
+the unmarried women of England except a few, is proof of the existence
+of group marriage in England; or the fact that _femme_ in French means
+both wife and woman is an argument for the existence of promiscuity in
+France in Roman or post-Roman times.
+
+A ceremony, usually performed in infancy or childhood, changes the
+relationship of a _noa_ male and female from _noa-mara_ to
+_tippa-malku_. The step is taken by the mothers with the concurrence of
+the girl's maternal uncles, and is in fact betrothal. Apparently no
+further ceremony is necessary to constitute a marriage. At any rate
+nothing is said as to that.
+
+In connection with this form of marriage there are two points of
+importance to be noted. The first is that whereas a man may have as many
+_tippa-malku_ wives as he can get, a woman cannot have more than one
+_tippa-malku_ husband, at any rate not at the same time. After the
+husband's death she may again enter into the _tippa-malku_ relation. The
+second point is that the _tippa-malku_ relation must precede the
+_pirrauru_ relation, of which I shall speak in a moment, and cannot
+succeed it[157].
+
+There are unfortunately many points in Dr Howitt's narrative which
+demand elucidation. He says, for example, that _noa_ individuals become
+"_tippa-malku_ for the time being[158]." This suggests, probably
+erroneously, that the _tippa-malku_ relation is merely temporary; but I
+am unable to say whether it in reality means that the _tippa-malku_
+relation is terminated by the capture of the woman, or that divorce is
+practised and may terminate the relationship at the will of the man only
+or of both parties.
+
+Another point on which we have no information is the position of the
+unmarried girls and widows. Free love is permitted, the only
+limitation[159] given by Dr Howitt being that the man (who must of
+course have passed through the Mindari ceremony) must not be
+_tippa-malku_ to the girl, but must be _noa-mara_. It would be
+interesting to know whether girls in the _tippa-malku_ relation before
+actual marriage are at liberty to have sexual relations with any men of
+the right status or only with unmarried men, or whether the privilege is
+restricted to those who are not yet _tippa-malku_ to any one, and how
+far the same restriction applies to the men.
+
+Any man who has been duly initiated, whether he is married to a
+_tippa-malku_ wife or not, and any woman who has a _tippa-malku_
+husband[160], can enter or be put into a relation termed _pirrauru_ with
+one or more persons of the opposite sex. The effect of the
+ceremony--termed _kandri_--is to give to the _pirrauru_ spouses the
+position of subsidiary husbands and wives, whose rights take precedence
+of the _tippa-malku_ rights at tribal gatherings, but at other times can
+only be exercised in the absence of the _tippa-malku_ spouse, or, when
+the male is unmarried, with the permission of the _tippa-malku_ husband
+of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
+
+The _pirrauru_ relation is, for the woman, a modification of a
+previously existing _tippa-malku_ marriage; that being so, it cannot be
+quoted as evidence of a more pristine state of things in which she was
+by birth the legal and actual spouse of all men of a certain tribal
+status.
+
+The _pirrauru_ relation falls under two heads of the classification I
+have given above, according as the man has or has not a _tippa-malku_
+wife. In the first case, it is, taken in combination with the
+_tippa-malku_ marriage, a case of bi-lateral adelphic dissimilar (M. and
+F.) polygamy. In the latter it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal)
+polyandry, adelphic being taken here, be it noted, in the sense of
+tribal, and possibly, but not necessarily, own brother.
+
+Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes
+contradictory. We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a _pirrauru_
+is always a brother's wife or a wife's sister (they are usually the
+same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their
+wives[161]. But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can
+also become _pirraurus_. It appears further that a woman may ask for a
+_pirrauru_, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear. It
+is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the
+arrangement. Further we find that important men have many _pirrauru_
+wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention.
+Then again we are told that when two new _pirrauru_ pairs are allotted
+to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted. Are we to understand
+from this that the allocation of new _pirraurus_ is a rare event or that
+the _pirrauru_ relationship is a very temporary affair? Or does
+re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over? If the latter,
+the terminology is very unfortunate. Gason's statement is perfectly
+clear: once a _pirrauru_, always a _pirrauru_[162]. Again does it imply
+that the wishes[163] of the already existing _pirraurus_ are consulted
+in the matter or not? If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy
+between _pirraurus_, especially when one of them (the male) is
+unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one
+another. Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother's wife
+as his _pirrauru_, giving presents to his brother. Does this imply that
+the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse
+it, or that it is purchased? Again we read "a man is privileged to
+obtain a number of wives from his _noas_ in common with the other men of
+his group, while a woman's wish can only be carried out with the consent
+of her _tippa-malku_ husband." This latter statement clearly implies
+that a man can obtain a _pirrauru_ without the consent of the
+_tippa-malku_ husband, but this contradicts what has already been told
+us about the exchange by brothers of their wives. Exchange is clearly
+not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the
+matter, it is rather a transfer. These are by no means all the unsettled
+questions on which light is needed. What, for example, is the position
+of a _pirrauru_ wife whose _tippa-malku_ husband dies? Does she pass to
+a new _tippa-malku_ husband? If so, must he be an ex-_pirrauru_? Does
+she continue in the _pirrauru_ relation to her former _pirraurus_,
+regardless of her new husband's wishes? Can the _pirrauru_ relationship
+be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?
+
+With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves
+fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special
+ceremony is necessary to make the _pirrauru_ relation legal; this is
+performed by the head or heads of the men's totems, and need not be
+described here.
+
+With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the
+_tippa-malku_ spouse always takes precedence of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
+Where two men are _pirrauru_ to the same woman, the _tippa-malku_
+husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share
+his rights and duties with the younger. It is the duty of the _pirrauru_
+husband to protect a woman during the absence of her _tippa-malku_
+husband.
+
+A woman cannot refuse to take a _pirrauru_ who has been regularly
+allotted to her. In her _tippa-malku_ husband's absence the _pirrauru_
+husband takes his place as a matter of right. He cannot however take her
+away from the _tippa-malku_ husband without his consent except at
+certain ceremonial times[164]. One other fact may be noted. An
+influential man hires out his _pirraurus_ to those who have none.
+
+Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well
+to mention the analogous customs of the only two tribes outside the
+Dieri nation where the same relation is asserted to exist, and certain
+cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all probability, as on the same
+level as the _pirrauru_ custom. In the Kurnandaburi, according to an
+informant of Dr Howitt's, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers
+and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united,
+apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe
+assembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other times[165].
+
+Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with
+his sister-in-law (wife's sister or brother's wife), although they are
+in the relation of _Kodi-molli_ and practise a modified avoidance. This
+he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage. It is not however clear
+that it is more than what we have called a liaison. Our authority does
+not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet
+that any ceremony initiates the relations[166]. In the absence of these
+details we cannot regard his view as probable. It may however be noted
+that the widow in this tribe passes to the brother.
+
+The only other case of "group marriage" which Dr Howitt gives[167] is in
+the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland. Here however, so far from being
+group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic
+polyandry. A man's unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties,
+the child is said to term them its father. It may however be pointed out
+that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would
+do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any
+other man besides the primary husband.
+
+It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we
+have is neither precise nor free from contradiction. A most essential
+point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the
+_pirrauru_ relationship. Among the Dieri the men may be of different
+totems. Is this the case among the Wakelbura? Was it always the case
+among the Dieri?
+
+Before we leave Dr Howitt's work it is necessary to refer again to the
+Kurnai. The most important point in connection with the Kurnai, so far
+as the present work is concerned, is that, contradictory to Bulmer's
+statement[168] that unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives,
+and sometimes even married men, Dr Howitt mentions[169] as a singular
+fact that he recalls one instance of a wife being lent in that tribe.
+
+Dr Howitt however holds that there are traces of group marriage in the
+tribe, and refers to the fact that the term _maian_[170] is applied to a
+wife by her husband and by his brother, whose "official wife[171]" she
+is thus declared to be, and that a brother takes his deceased brother's
+widow. He regards this rather unfortunately named custom of the levirate
+as having its root in group marriage. Now _maian_ is applied, not only
+by a husband to a wife, but by a wife to her husband's sister, and by a
+sister to her brother's wife. If therefore the use of the term proves
+anything, it proves, not group marriage, as Dr Howitt understands it,
+but promiscuity, the prior existence of the undivided commune, and this,
+as we have seen, Dr Howitt declines to accept on the strength of the
+philological argument.
+
+We are therefore reduced to the levirate as a proof of the former
+existence of group marriage. But there is nothing whatever to show that
+it is not a case of inheritance of property. For the Australians, as for
+many other savage peoples, the married state is the only thinkable one
+for the adult, and that being so it is natural for the widow to remarry.
+She has however been purchased by the exchange of a woman in the
+relation of sister to the deceased, and if the widow were allowed to
+pass to another group, the property thus acquired would be alienated.
+Moreover the marriage regulations require the woman to marry only a
+tribal brother of the deceased. It is therefore in every way natural for
+a brother to succeed to a brother. No arguments for the prior existence
+of group marriage can be founded on the levirate, any more than an
+argument for primitive communism can be founded on other laws of
+inheritance. At most the _maian_ relationship is evidence of adelphic
+polygyny[172].
+
+For the Urabunna we depend on the information gained by Spencer and
+Gillen on their first expedition. Here the circle from which a man takes
+his wife is much more restricted than among the Dieri. Not only is he
+bound to choose a woman of the other moiety of the tribe, but he is
+restricted to a certain totem[173] in that moiety, and to the daughters
+of his mother's elder brothers (tribal) in that totem. Hence although
+the _kami_ relationship of the Dieri is unknown among the Urabunna, the
+choice among the latter is more limited.
+
+The marriageable group is termed _nupa_ by both men and women; in
+addition to the _nupa_ relationship and the unnamed individual marriage,
+into which a man enters with one or more of his _nupa_, there is the
+_piraungaru_ relationship, corresponding to the _pirrauru_ of the Dieri.
+In each case the elder brothers of the woman decide who are to have the
+primary and who the secondary right to the female. In the case of the
+_piraungaru_ however the matter requires confirmation by the old men of
+the tribe. The circumstances under which the _piraungaru_ claims take
+the first rank are not stated by Messrs Spencer and Gillen; the
+statement that a man lends his _piraungaru_ need not, of course, refer
+to times at which he himself cannot claim the right of access[174].
+
+We may now turn to a discussion of the bearing of the facts just cited
+on the question of "group marriage." The first point is naturally that
+of nomenclature, and we at once recognise that among the Dieri the
+relations of the _pirrauru_ are not marriage, either on the definition
+suggested by Dr Westermarck or on that given in Chapter XI of the
+present work. If two _tippa-malku_ pairs are reciprocally in _pirrauru_,
+the only relations between them, unless the _tippa-malku_ husbands
+absent themselves or are complaisant, are, strictly speaking, those of
+temporary regulated polygamy or promiscuity, and rather a restriction
+than an extension of similar customs in other tribes, as I shall show
+below.
+
+A second point of a similar nature is that the parties to a _pirrauru_
+union are in no sense a group[175]. They are not united by any bond,
+local, totemistic, tribal, or otherwise. The theoretical "group
+marriage"--the union of all the _noa_--does, in a sense, refer to a
+group, though this term properly refers rather to a body of people
+distinguished by residence or some other _local_ differentia from other
+persons or groups. But no distinction of this kind can in any sense be
+affirmed of the _pirrauru_ spouses; it cannot be said of them that they
+are in any way distinguished from the remainder of their tribe, phratry,
+class or totem-kin. From this it follows that the term class-marriage
+cannot be applied to the relation between the _pirrauru_, nor yet class
+promiscuity; the _pirrauru_, though members of a certain class, do not
+include all members of that class.
+
+Turning now to the custom itself, let us examine how far it presents any
+marks of being a survival of a previous state of class promiscuity.
+_Pirrauru_ relations are regarded by Dr Howitt and others as survivals
+from a previous stage of "group," by which we must, presumably,
+understand class or status marriage, or promiscuity. So far as they are
+evidence of this, the _pirrauru_ customs are certainly important. If
+however it cannot be shown that they probably point to some form of
+promiscuity, they have but little importance except as a freak or
+exceptional development of polyandry and polygyny.
+
+Let us recall the distinguishing features of the _pirrauru_ union. They
+are (1) consent of the husband (?); (2) recognition by the totem-kin
+through its head-man; (3) temporary character[176]; (4) priority of the
+_tippa-malku_ union in the case of the woman; (5) purchase of _pirrauru_
+rights by (_a_) the brother who becomes a widower, and (_b_) visitors or
+others without _pirraurus_ of their own, the rights being in the latter
+case for a very short period and not dependent on recognition by the
+totem-kin, so far as Dr Howitt's narrative is a guide. Now unless "group
+marriage" was very different from what it is commonly represented to be,
+the essence of it was that all the men of one class had sexual rights
+over the women of another class. How far does this picture coincide with
+the features of the _pirrauru_, which is regarded as a survival of it?
+In the first place _pirrauru_ is created by a ceremony, which is
+performed, not by the head, nor even in the Wakelbura tribe, by a member
+of the supposed intermarried classes of the earlier period; but by the
+heads of the totem-kins of the individual men concerned. Now it is quite
+unthinkable that the right of class promiscuity, to use the correct
+term, should ever have been exercised subject to any such restriction;
+even were it otherwise the performance of the ceremony would more
+naturally fall into the hands of tribal, phratriac, or class authorities
+than of the heads of totem-kins. Then too if _pirrauru_ is a survival of
+group marriage we should expect the ceremony to be performed for the
+_tippa-malku_ union and not for the _pirrauru_.
+
+Again if _tippa-malku_ is later and _pirrauru_ earlier, what is the
+meaning of the regulation that the woman must first be united in
+_tippa-malku_ marriage before she can enter into the _pirrauru_
+relationship? On the "group marriage" theory this fact demands to be
+explained, no less than the different position of men and women in this
+respect. We have seen that freedom in sexual matters is accorded to both
+bachelors and spinsters. It is therefore from no sense of the value of
+chastity, from no jealousy of the future _tippa-malku_ husband's rights,
+that the female is excluded from the _pirrauru_ relation until she has a
+husband.
+
+Again, if _pirrauru_ is a relic of former rights, now restricted to a
+few of the group which formerly exercised them, why is the husband's
+consent needed before the _pirrauru_ relation is set up, and why is the
+_pirrauru_ relation, once established, not permanent (assuming that my
+reading of Dr Howitt is right)?
+
+Once more, if _pirrauru_ is a right, how comes it that a brother has to
+purchase the right, when he becomes a widower[177]? What too is the
+meaning of the transference of _pirrauru_ women to strangers in return
+for gifts?
+
+All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival
+theory, and we may add to them the fact that the _tippa-malku_ husband,
+so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains
+his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother's
+brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are
+not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the
+introduction of individual marriage. When we consider that the _jus
+primae noctis_ is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the
+position of the _tippa-malku_ husband and the method in which he obtains
+his wife are exceedingly instructive.
+
+Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what
+other way the facts can be explained. The unfortunate lack of detail to
+which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any
+counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from
+the facts already at our disposal. We have seen that in the Wakelbura
+tribe, so far from the condition being one of "group marriage," it is
+one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry. Now it is by no means easy to see
+how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which,
+according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity. On the
+other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found
+in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other
+regions, the result of a scarcity of women[178], or, what is the same
+thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the
+independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28
+or 30.
+
+With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is
+required to purchase his _pirrauru_ rights, that the young man without
+_pirrauru_ wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one
+of his _pirrauru_ spouses, and that the _tippa-malku_ marriage always
+precedes the _pirrauru_ relation in the female. It may indeed be urged
+against the view that the purchase of a temporary _pirrauru_ is in fact
+not a case of _pirrauru_ at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of
+hospitality among savage nations. This is no doubt the case and we might
+merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of sexual
+rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia. Looked at from another
+point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive. So
+far as Dr Howitt's statements go, the husband of the _pirrauru_ who is
+thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter. The _pirrauru_
+husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she
+were a slave. On the theory of group marriage the _tippa-malku_ husband
+has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the _pirrauru_
+husband. In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the
+transaction. It is true that in the case we are considering the
+_pirrauru_ husband seems to have exceptional privileges, for we have
+seen that under ordinary circumstances the _tippa-malku_ husband has
+exclusive rights at ordinary times. But we must probably understand the
+passage to mean that the lending of _pirraurus_ takes place at tribal
+meetings[179] or on other occasions when the right of the husband is in
+abeyance. In either case, the facts tell far more strongly in favour of
+the view suggested here than in favour of group marriage.
+
+There is another factor to be considered. Abductions and elopements are
+merely ordinary amenities of married life among the aborigines of
+Australia. We have seen that it is the duty of the _pirrauru_ husband to
+protect the wife during the absence of the _tippa-malku_ husband.
+Clearly this is a sort of insurance against the too bold suitor or the
+too fickle wife, unless indeed the _pirrauru_ himself is the offender, a
+point on which Dr Howitt has nothing to say, though Mr Siebert's
+evidence may be fairly interpreted to mean that such occurrences are
+not known.
+
+We shall see below in connection with the question of the _jus primae
+noctis_ that special privileges are sometimes accorded to men of the
+husband's totem or class in return for assistance in capturing the wife.
+Now assuming that a wife is abducted or elopes, it is, I think, on the
+same persons that the duty of aiding the injured husband would fall.
+Whether this is so or not, the men of his own totem are those with whom
+a man's relations are, in most tribes, the closest. We have seen that
+the heads of the totem-kins play an important part in assigning
+_pirraurus_. Now although it is actually the practice for men of
+different totems to exchange wives, it by no means follows that it was
+always the case. The element of adelphic polyandry, for example, may
+well have upset the original relations and brought about a practice of
+exchange between men of different totems. At any rate the theory here
+suggested affords an explanation of the part played by the totem
+headmen, and on the theory of group marriage their share in the
+transaction remains absolutely mysterious.
+
+In connection with these possible explanations of the _pirrauru_ custom,
+it is important to observe that there are duties in regard to food owed
+by the _pirrauru_ wife to her spouse, when her husband is absent. Now it
+is hardly conceivable that in a state of "group marriage" any such
+practice should have obtained. A woman would doubtless have collected
+food for the man with whom she was actually cohabiting; but in the case
+of the _pirrauru_ relation, the absence of the _tippa-malku_ wife of her
+_pirrauru_ spouse must coincide with the absence of her own
+_tippa-malku_ husband before this position is reached. So long as only
+one _tippa-malku_ partner is absent, the _pirrauru_ spouse is under the
+obligation of lightening the labours of the woman whose place she
+sometimes occupies, and this is very far from what we should expect in
+the "group marriage" stage.
+
+On the whole therefore I conclude that the _pirrauru_ relation affords
+absolutely no evidence of a prior stage of group marriage. So far from
+the quantity of evidence for group marriage having been increased by Dr
+Howitt's recent book, it has undergone a diminution. Gason had
+stated[180] that tribal brothers had the right of access in the absence
+of the husband without first being made _pirrauru_. This, if correct,
+would have been much nearer group marriage than the actual facts; the
+statement however appears to be incorrect, if we may judge by the fact
+that Dr Howitt has silently dropped it.
+
+Of the _piraungaru_ relation but little can be said, mainly for the
+reason that our information is so scanty. We do not learn, for example,
+if it is temporary or permanent, if the consent of the woman is needed,
+if she ever asks her husband for a certain _piraungaru_, or if she
+applies rather to her elder brothers. We do not know what becomes of the
+_piraungaru_ when the primary spouse dies, whether the brother can claim
+a right to his brother's wife as _piraungaru_ on giving presents,
+whether married and unmarried alike enter into the relationship, whether
+a woman can become _piraungaru_ before she has a special husband,
+whether relations of free love are barred between a man and his
+prospective wife and permitted with other _nupa_ women, and a host of
+other questions. We do not even learn when access is permitted to a
+_piraungaru_ spouse. We have, it is clear, far too few data to be able
+to estimate the value of the dictum of Messrs Spencer and Gillen that
+"individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice in the
+Urabunna tribe." If their views are based only on the facts they have
+given us, they have clearly overlooked a number of essential points; if,
+on the other hand, they took other facts into consideration, we may
+reasonably ask to be put in possession of the whole case.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[152] _Aust. Ass._ IV, 689.
+
+[153] _Ib._ p. 717.
+
+[154] _Ausland_, 1891, p. 843.
+
+[155] _Zts. Vgl. Rechtsw._ XII, 268.
+
+[156] The statement, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 55, that a man and woman
+become _noa_ by betrothal is clearly erroneous.
+
+[157] _Nat. Tribes_, p. 181. This was not brought out by Dr Howitt's
+paper of 1890 in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, and is denied in _Folklore_
+XVII, 174 sq. by Dr Howitt himself; see my criticism, _ib._ 294 sq.
+
+[158] p. 179.
+
+[159] p. 187. Subject to the girl having passed the _wilpadrina_
+ceremony. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.
+
+[160] But see p. 129, n. 2.
+
+[161] This is in contradiction with the statement (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._
+XX, 56) that the various couples are not consulted. We also learn (_loc.
+cit._ p. 62) that the exercise of marital rights by own tribal brothers
+is independent of their _pirrauru_ relation. The order of precedence is
+(1) _tippa-malku_, (2) _pirrauru_, (3) brothers.
+
+[162] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 57.
+
+[163] Howitt says (p. 182) that each of a pair of _pirrauru_ watch each
+other carefully to prevent more _pirrauru_ relations arising.
+
+[164] In the Urabunna tribe a woman is lent irrespective of _piraungaru_
+to all _nupa_, _Nor. Tr._ p. 63. It is therefore a matter of no moment
+even if the consent of the primary husband is never refused at
+non-ceremonial times.
+
+[165] It appears, however (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62), to be only on
+ceremonial (Muni) occasions that anything like general intercourse
+occurs, termed Wira-jinka, then it is promiscuous. The Dippa-malli
+relation is not permanent (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61), and the
+_mebaia_ husband receives a present. If the Dippa-malli "group" is not
+permanent, it does not appear why Dr Howitt speaks of a "group" at all.
+
+[166] In the absence of these there is nothing to distinguish the
+practice from the adultery which prevails among the Dieri (p. 187), in
+which Dr Howitt does _not_ see a survival of group marriage or
+promiscuity.
+
+[167] He mentions the _pira_ marriage of the Yandairunga in _Journ.
+Anthr. Inst._ XX, 60, but drops it in _Native Tribes_. It is unfortunate
+that we never learn why Dr Howitt omits to mention facts which he has
+previously published. Are we to infer that the previous statements are
+erroneous in every case? If so, _pirrauru_ must be a temporary
+relationship.
+
+[168] Curr, III.
+
+[169] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61, n. 2.
+
+[170] Dr Howitt's argument from the use of _maian_ raises a difficulty.
+Twenty-five years ago he stated (Brough Smyth, II, 323) that among the
+Brabrolung a wife was termed _wr[=u]k[)u]t_, and this seems to be the
+ordinary term.
+
+[171] Titular _maian_ is Dr Howitt's phrase.
+
+[172] Dr Howitt's statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably passes
+to the brother is contradicted by passages on pp. 227 and 248.
+
+[173] Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but cf. his
+attitude on p. 188.
+
+[174] But cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 58 n.; this may, however, have
+been regarded as a ceremonial occasion, though there is no other
+evidence of such being the case.
+
+[175] Properly speaking group marriage should mean that all persons in a
+local group live in polygamy, a state not far removed indeed from
+promiscuity, the boundary between which and polygamy I cannot undertake
+to discuss here, or else that the whole of one group is united in
+marriage to those of the opposite sex in another group.
+
+[176] This is uncertain, as I have already intimated.
+
+[177] This tells strongly in favour of my theory. The unmarried youth
+gets his _pirrauru_ free, for he will reciprocate the attention later.
+The man who has lost his wife and can make no return purchases the
+right.
+
+[178] Cf. Curr, III, 546.
+
+[179] Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 73.
+
+[180] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+TEMPORARY UNIONS.
+
+Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for
+ adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven.
+
+
+It has been mentioned above that the _pirrauru_ custom, so far from
+being an extension of the recognised practice of Australian tribes, is
+in some respects a limitation of it. We may now proceed to illustrate
+this. Even among the Dieri the tribal festival on the occasion of an
+inter-tribal marriage is marked by free intercourse between the sexes
+without regard to existing sexual unions[181] (? either _tippa-malku_ or
+_pirrauru_). In the same way the Wiimbaio tribal gatherings were
+accompanied by regulated promiscuity, the class rules being the only
+limitation. At others wives could be lent or temporarily exchanged by
+the husbands[182]. The Geawe-gal held festivals at which wives were lent
+to young men, subject to class laws[183]. In other cases the exchange
+was limited to brothers or men of the same totem[184]. Among the
+Kamilaroi a wife was lent to friendly visitors but only with her
+consent. In all these cases we see a state of things similar to or not
+unlike the relations of the Dieri _pirrauru_ spouses, and it should be
+noted that it is at tribal gatherings that the latter can claim to
+exercise their rights. From this it appears that the Dieri custom
+amounts to an ear-marking of certain women for the use of certain men,
+and is consequently a limitation of the common custom; in consideration
+of the fact that the _pirrauru_ men protect them in the absence of their
+husbands, they are permitted at the same time to exercise marital
+rights, provided their own primary spouses are absent.
+
+Among the Wiimbaio, when sickness was believed to be coming down the
+Murray[185], and among the Kurnai, when the _Aurora australis_ was
+seen[186], an exchange of wives was ordered by the old men to avert the
+threatened evil[187]. This is explained by Dr Howitt as a reversion to
+the ancient custom of group marriage. It is however not quite clear on
+what grounds it is necessary to treat it as a survival at all. If a day
+of prayer and fasting is ordered in order to avert national calamities,
+it does not follow that the nation in question was in the habit of
+perpetual prayer and fasting at some previous stage of its existence.
+Moreover, if the magical rite was formerly the universal practice we may
+well ask what induced the tribes which believe in its efficacy to adopt
+a new form of marriage. _Ex hypothesi_, it is pleasing to Mungan, or
+good against disease; knowing this, they have not hesitated to abolish
+group marriage, but apparently without incurring Mungan's wrath, or
+bringing any epidemic upon them.
+
+Among the Narrinyeri[188], the old men have a right of access to the
+newly initiated girls, but apparently Dr Howitt does not regard this as
+a survival. On the other hand the _narumbe_ (initiated youths), who may
+not at this period take wives, had unrestricted rights over the younger
+women, those "of his own class and totem not excepted," and this Dr
+Howitt regards as a survival from the days of the undivided commune,
+though if it is so it is hard to see why they should have rights only
+over the younger women. The practice does not appear to differ from the
+free love found among the Dieri except in the absence of class
+restrictions and its limitation to the period after initiation which is
+among many other peoples a period of sexual licence.
+
+Another group of customs, also interpreted by Dr Howitt as a survival of
+group marriage and an "expiation for individual marriage," calls for
+some discussion. It is unnecessary to refer here to the explanation of
+the _jus primae noctis_ suggested by Mr Crawley. It may be that the
+matter can also to some extent be explained as payment for services, in
+the same way as the _pirrauru_ relation shows some signs of being a
+_quid pro quo_.
+
+In certain tribes access to the bride is permitted to men of the group
+of the husband. Among the Kuinmurbura they are the men who have aided
+the husband to carry off the woman[189]; and the same is the case with
+the Kurnandaburi and Kamilaroi tribes[190]. It is very significant that
+among the Narrinyeri the right of access only accrues in case of
+elopement and precisely to those men who actually give assistance in the
+abduction, a fact hard to explain on the theory of expiation[191]. Among
+the Mukjarawaint the right seems to belong to those of the same totem,
+but apparently the young men only[192]; but here too their position as
+accessories is quite clear, as indeed it must be in any tribe where the
+right accrues to men of the same totem. By all the rules of savage
+justice a punishment may be inflicted in these cases either on the
+offender himself or on the men of his totem. It is therefore not strange
+that they require from the abductor some return for the danger to which
+he exposes them, especially if they actually take part in the abduction.
+An aberrant form of the custom is found among the Kurnai, among whom the
+_jus primae noctis_ falls to men initiated at the same _jeraeil_ as the
+bridegroom.
+
+Among the Kurnandaburi there was a period of unrestricted licence after
+the exercise of the _jus primae noctis_, even the father of the bride
+being allowed access to her. This did not of course violate totem or
+phratry regulations. Dr Howitt does not comment on the case, but it
+would have been interesting to hear whether both these customs are to be
+regarded as survivals and if so what caused the duplication[193].
+
+In estimating the value of the custom of _jus primae noctis_ as evidence
+of a prior state of group marriage, a custom of the Yuin should not be
+overlooked. If a man elopes with another man's betrothed he is punished
+by having to fight the girl's father, brothers, and mother's brother;
+the girl was sometimes punished by being beaten; all the men who pursued
+her had a right of access provided they were of the right totem and
+locality. If however the eloping couple were not caught they were not
+liable to punishment after a child was born. There is no mention of any
+_jus primae noctis_ where the marriage was the result of betrothal. In
+this case therefore the right of access is a punishment, so far as the
+girl is concerned; it is earned by taking part in the pursuit, a fact
+which confirms the suggested explanation of the right of access at
+marriage.
+
+It should not be overlooked that this form of punishment is found among
+some tribes as the penalty for adultery[194], when it certainly cannot
+be interpreted as an expiation for individual marriage. This was the
+case among the Wotjoballuk, the Kamilaroi, and the Euahlayi.
+
+We may now turn to the customs of the central and northern tribes
+visited by Messrs Spencer and Gillen. Except in the case of three of the
+north-eastern tribes the right of access accrues in connection with the
+_ariltha_ ceremony. It may be said at once that there is among these
+tribes no trace of access as payment for services; for on the rare
+occasions when a wife is captured she is allotted to an individual and
+becomes his property at once, according to a statement in the first work
+of Spencer and Gillen[195]. In the same work, it is true, this statement
+is contradicted by the assertion that on such occasions only the men of
+the right class are allowed to have access[196]. But this statement does
+not seem to be based on any facts within the knowledge of the writers,
+for they make a definite statement to the contrary with regard to the
+Arunta customs, and it was with the Arunta that they were specially
+concerned, and in the later volume no further details are given, as they
+should have been, if the custom was found among any of the tribes
+visited on the second expedition.
+
+The association of the right of access with the initiation ceremony is
+paralleled, as we have already seen, among other tribes. It hardly seems
+necessary to argue a state of primitive promiscuity from a custom of
+licence at the period of puberty, which does not in fact differ, except
+in degree, from the licence normally enjoyed by the unmarried, and is
+readily explicable on other grounds than those suggested by Spencer and
+Gillen. If we are not prepared to regard this licence at puberty, which
+may equally well have subsisted side by side with marriage or group
+promiscuity, as a mere expression of the newly attained sexual rights,
+we have as an alternative the magical theory of Mr Crawley. I do not
+propose to dwell on this but will pass at once to discuss some points
+which seem to have escaped the notice of Spencer and Gillen when they
+proposed their hypothesis of promiscuity.
+
+The essential point in connection with these ceremonies is the fact that
+access is not limited, as in the case of the Dieri, to men who might
+lawfully marry the woman. The right is restricted to men of six classes
+out of the eight, including all four of the other moiety and the two of
+her own half of her own moiety. Now whatever else may be deduced from
+this, one thing is clear, and that is that the custom in its present
+form, at any rate, took its rise before the eight classes were
+introduced but after the four classes were already in existence and _a
+fortiori_ after the phratries were known. Consequently no argument for
+promiscuity can be founded on the right of access at initiation. It
+cannot be a survival from a time when no marriage regulations were
+known, for the simple reason that the custom itself bears unmistakeable
+traces of regulations of a comparatively advanced type. It may of course
+be argued that these limitations are of late origin. How far this is so
+and why such limitations should have been introduced it is impossible to
+say; but it is impossible to base an argument for primitive promiscuity
+on a state of things which is admittedly not primitive unless we have
+good _prim facie_ grounds for regarding the custom as a survival. There
+is nothing in the present case to show that it is not a magical rite.
+
+At other times access is permitted in accordance with class regulations,
+the husband's consent being necessary, if indeed he does not actually
+take the preliminary steps himself. We have seen that a similar state of
+things exists in other tribes. It does not seem necessary to look for
+the explanation further than the ordinary customs of savage hospitality,
+the desire to do a favour to men who may be useful. It is difficult to
+see why Spencer and Gillen regard the fact that women are lent in this
+way only to their _unawa_ as a proof of the former existence of group
+marriage. Clearly if intercourse is permitted only between certain
+persons before marriage and only certain persons are allowed to marry,
+we can hardly be surprised to find that these latter are restricted in
+the choice of men to whom they may lend their wives after marriage. The
+surprising thing would be if it were otherwise.
+
+In addition, as in the tribes we have already considered, irregular
+access is practised for magical purposes in connection with the
+performance of ceremonies and the sending out of messengers. It has
+already been pointed out that we have no grounds for regarding such
+practices as survivals; for if we put on sackcloth and ashes as a
+penance for our misdeeds, it does not follow that this was ever the
+prevailing costume. It is even less possible to interpret the ritual
+lending of wives to messengers as a survival, for, _ex hypothesi_, the
+messengers were not of the group which "group-married," and messengers
+of any sort point to a stage when inter-tribal relations had made
+considerable advance and the tribes in question are hardly likely to
+have been still in the stage of the "undivided commune."
+
+The survey of Australian customs and terms of relationship leads us to
+the conclusion that the former, so far from proving the present or even
+former existence of group marriage in that continent, do not even render
+it probable; on the latter no argument of any sort can be founded which
+assumes them to refer to consanguinity, kinship or affinity. It is
+therefore not rash to say that the case for group marriage, so far as
+Australia is concerned, falls to the ground. Even were it otherwise,
+even were group marriage proved for Australia or for any other part of
+the world, we should still be far from having established promiscuity
+and group marriage as a stage in the general history of mankind. For
+that at least a scheme of development is needed. Even were the arguments
+in favour of the group marriage hypothesis much stronger, its supporters
+might reasonably be asked to give us something more than assertion and
+reassertion without any attempt to show in detail the process of
+evolution. To take an example from another sphere, it may safely be said
+that the general theory of evolution would find few supporters if it
+were not possible to trace some existing species and genera back to some
+generalised type in the past. At present the position of a supporter of
+the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage is analogous to
+that of an evolutionist who can only point to a few more or less useless
+peculiarities in the anatomy of man without being able to show
+resemblances between them and the corresponding portions of fossil or
+actually existing anthropoids. He calls them "vestiges[197]" and insists
+that _homo_ is descended from a generalised anthropoid. The mere
+assertion of the vestigial character of such bones or organs would
+hardly carry conviction unless they could be shown to exist in some
+anthropoid in a more fully developed state. Similarly the arguments for
+promiscuity and group marriage suffer from incurable weakness, and would
+so suffer, even were the basis far more reliable than I have shown to be
+the case, unless and until it has been shown by what process and for
+what reasons man took each upward step. So far only one writer has
+attempted, and that nearly thirty years ago, to trace the course of
+human development on the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity, and his
+scheme is a house of cards.
+
+The student of sociology is at a disadvantage compared with the
+zoologist in not being able to unearth his fossils for comparison with
+living forms. He must therefore trace the relationship between living
+forms, and, in seeking to discover the earlier stages of human progress,
+rely in part on the sociology of the higher mammals, in part on the
+possibility of showing a logical scheme of human development. When he
+examines the living forms he is of course unable to say whether actually
+existing savage institutions are in the main line of human progress or
+merely bye-paths embryological or teratological. It may be possible to
+show that group marriage exists somewhere on the earth at the present
+time. Even if this is so, the theory of primitive promiscuity and group
+marriage as stages in the general history of mankind remain mere
+baseless guesses until we have a systematic account both of the causes
+which led to the various steps, and of the processes by which the
+various stages were reached.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[181] Howitt, p. 205.
+
+[182] p. 214.
+
+[183] p. 217.
+
+[184] pp. 224, 260.
+
+[185] p. 195.
+
+[186] pp. 170, 277.
+
+[187] Also among the Kurnandaburi, the Wonkamira, etc. _Journ. Anthr.
+Inst._ XX, 62. General circumcision was a remedy in Fiji when the chief
+was ill.
+
+[188] And among the Dieri, according to Gason, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX,
+87.
+
+[189] p. 219.
+
+[190] pp. 205, 193. _J.A.I._ XII, 36.
+
+[191] p. 245.
+
+[192] p. 269.
+
+[193] He also omits to mention the _Muni_ ceremony, described in _Journ.
+Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62. If general licence is of magical efficacy in cases
+of sickness, it can hardly be argued that general licence at marriage
+has not, as Mr Crawley argues, a magical significance.
+
+[194] p. 245.
+
+[195] _C.T._ 556.
+
+[196] _C.T._ 104.
+
+[197] Commonly but erroneously termed "rudimentary organs." It is a
+natural and justifiable assumption for a zoologist that all vestigial
+organs have previously been more largely developed. It is also an
+assumption that a given custom is vestigial, but it is not a justifiable
+one.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX.
+
+ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
+
+Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
+ and "Castes."
+
+
+A certain number of Australian tribes have ceased to adhere strictly to
+the regulations of their class systems. Thus, in the Kamilaroi tribe a
+correspondent of Dr Howitt's found intra-class marriage, the totem only
+being different; in determining the class and totem of the children the
+ordinary rule held good[198]. The Wiradjeri on the Lachlan permit Ipai
+to marry Muri as well as Kumbo, the two classes both belonging to
+Kupathin; in each case certain totems only, viz. emu, opossum, snake and
+bandicoot, have the privilege[199]. The same anomaly is found in the
+Wonghibon tribe[200].
+
+Among the Warramunga and other northern tribes Spencer and Gillen find
+that the division of the classes, explained in the last chapter, does
+not prevent marriages from taking place which this division ought to
+prevent, if the Arunta rule were followed[201]. A curious feature of
+these marriages is that the children of the anomalous union pass into
+the class which would have been theirs if their mother had wedded her
+normal spouse. It is not easy to say whether this should be regarded as
+a survival of matrilineal descent; it is, however, clear that only the
+existence of phratriac names enables us to say definitely that the
+descent in this tribe is in the male line.
+
+According to the information printed by Mr R.H. Mathews this
+irregularity is by no means the sum total of anomalies. His information
+is far from being commonly accepted as accurate; but, as will be shown
+later, there are correspondences between his statements and those of
+other observers, which make it probable that his statements have some
+basis in fact. At any rate they deserve notice, if only that they may be
+contradicted by competent witnesses, if they are incorrect.
+
+In the Inchalachee tribe, according to Mr Mathews, descent of the
+classes is reckoned through females. In the place of the arrangement
+shown in Table I a, he gives the order 3, 4, 8, 7; 6, 5, 1, 2[202]. Any
+man of the first moiety may marry any woman of the second, though
+certain marriages are normal and one of the remainder more usual than
+the others. The effect of these rules is to make it possible for a man
+to marry any woman of his own generation, even if she be of his own
+class. This is precisely the same as the case reported from the
+Kamilaroi by Dr Howitt, if we may take it that in the latter case the
+normal marriages are found side by side with the anomalous ones.
+
+In the Inchalachee marriages the children, as in the Warramunga cases of
+Spencer and Gillen, take the class which they would have had if the
+woman had taken her normal spouse. On this Mr Mathews relies for the
+statement that descent is reckoned in the female line in this tribe.
+But, as we have seen, such a view is erroneous as regards the
+Warramunga, among whom anomalous marriages also occur; it is therefore
+by no means clear that the Inchalachee are matrilineal. We have even
+more reason to doubt his view as to the Binbinga, for whom we have the
+evidence of Spencer and Gillen.
+
+Mr Mathews also reports among the Wiradjeri marriages resembling in many
+respects those mentioned above from the Wailwun tribe[203]. The table
+does not seem to be complete; it is therefore useless to enquire on what
+principle these marriages are arranged. There seems, however, no reason
+to doubt the substantial accuracy of the information.
+
+More revolutionary is the statement that these cross-class marriages are
+based on an actual kinship organisation, to which Mr Mathews gives the
+name of "blood" (Table III, p. 50)[204].
+
+Running across the phratries and classes are divisions known as
+Gwaigullean and Gwaimudthen, Muggulu and Bumbirra, etc., which have the
+meaning of "sluggish" and "swift" blood respectively. The bloods again
+are sometimes subdivided. In the Ngeumba tribe Gwaimudthen is divided
+into nhurai (butt) and wangue (middle), while Gwaigulir is equivalent to
+winggo (top). These names refer to different portions of the shadow of a
+tree and refer to the positions taken up in camping by the persons
+belonging to the different "bloods" and "castes." In this, it may be
+noted, these organisations follow the parallel of the phratries and
+classes.
+
+With the correspondences in names shown in Table III. before our eyes,
+it is difficult to suppose that the statements of Mr Mathews have no
+basis in fact. In the absence of further information, however, it is
+clearly impossible to discuss the origin of these divisions. It seems
+most probable that they are the systematisation of the anomalous
+marriages already cited. But much more information is needed before
+anything like certainty can be attained in the matter. Both actual
+genealogies and tables of terms of relationship must be in our hands
+before we can come to a decision.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[198] Howitt, p. 204.
+
+[199] _ib._ p. 211.
+
+[200] _ib._ p. 214, cf. _J.A.I._
+
+[201] _Nor. Tr._ pp. 107, 114.
+
+[202] _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 71.
+
+[203] _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 173.
+
+[204] _ib._ XXXVIII, 207-17, XXXIX, 117, _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 53, etc.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES.
+
+Phratry and Blood names are in caps., Class names in roman. In the
+ references Map II is equivalent to Table I (pp. 42-48), Map III to
+ Table II (pp. 48-51). The numbers refer to pages, save in the case
+ of Table I a.
+
+
+Ahjereena, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Akamaroo, Table I a, 9
+
+Anbeir, 44, Map II, v
+
+Appitchana, Table I a, 12
+
+Appungerta, Table I a, 12
+
+Arara, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Ararey, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Arawongo, 45, 76, Map II, viii
+
+Arenia, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Arrakan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Arrenynung, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Awukaria, 47, Map II, xi
+
+Awunga, 45, Map II, viii
+
+
+Badingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Balgoin, 43, 83, Map II, iii
+
+Ballaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Ballieri, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Banaka, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Banjoor, 43, 44, 76, Map II, iii, iv
+
+Banniar, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Barah, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Baran, 43, 74
+
+Barry, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Belthara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Belyeringie, Table I a, 9
+
+Beneringie, Table I a, 9
+
+BIINGARU, 47, 50, Map III, 41
+
+Biliarinthu, Table I a, 7
+
+Blaingunju, Table I a, 7
+
+Bolangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Bondan, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Bondurr, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Bongaringie, Table I a, 8
+
+Boogarloo, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Boonongoona, Table I a, 9
+
+BUDTHURUNG, 42, 50, Map III, 21
+
+Bullaranjee, Table I a, 4
+
+Bulleringie, Table I a, 8
+
+Bulthara, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+Bunbai, 44, Map II, v
+
+Bunburi, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+Bunda, 43, 83, Map II, iii
+
+Bungaranjee, Table I a, 4
+
+Bungumbura, 74
+
+BUNJIL, 48, Map III, 1
+
+Bunjur, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Bunya, 44, Map II, iv
+
+BURGUTTA, see also Pakoota
+
+Burong, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Burralangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Butcharrie, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Butha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Bya, 42, Map II, i
+
+
+Carburungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Carribo, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Carrigan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+CHEPA, 45, 50, 53, Map III, 32
+
+Chagarra, Table I a, 14
+
+Chambeen, Table I a, 14
+
+Chambijana, Table I a, 15
+
+Changally, Table I a, 14
+
+Changary, Table I a, 15
+
+Chapota, Table I a, 15
+
+Chavalya, Table I a 14, 15, 16
+
+Cheekungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Chikun, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Chinuma, Table I a, 15
+
+Chooara, Table I a, 14
+
+Choolima, Table I a, 15
+
+Choongoora, Table I a, 14, 15
+
+Chowan, Table I a, 14
+
+Chowarding, Table I a, 14
+
+Chungalla, Table I a, 15
+
+
+DARBOO, 50, Map III, 12
+
+DEEAJEE, 43, 50, Map III, 26
+
+Deringara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Derwen=Theirwain, 43, 82, Map II, iii
+
+Dhalyeree, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+Dhongaree, Table I a, 1
+
+Dhungaree, Table I a, 16
+
+Didaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+DILBI, 42, 43, 50, 53, Map III, 20
+
+
+Eemitch, Table I a, 10
+
+
+GAMANUTTA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
+
+GAMUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+GIRANA, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
+
+Gnangball, 47
+
+Gooroona, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Goothamungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Gubilla, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+GWAIGULLEAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
+
+GWAIGULLIMBA, 51
+
+GWAIMUDHAN, 51
+
+Gwaimudthen, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
+
+
+Heyanbo, 74
+
+
+Ikamaru, Table I a, 7
+
+ILLITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
+
+Imballaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbannee, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbawalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbongaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Imboong, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Immadena, Table I a, 10
+
+Inganmarra, Table I a, 10
+
+Inkagalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Ipai, 42, Map II, i
+
+Ipatha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Irrakadena, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Irroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Irpoong, 43, 73, Map II, ii
+
+Irpoong-Marroong classes, 73
+
+
+Jamada, Table I a, 16
+
+JAMAGUNDA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
+
+Jambijana, Table I a, 1
+
+Jameragoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jameram, Table I a, 16
+
+Janna, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+Jarbain, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Jeemara, Table I a, 1
+
+Jimidya, Table I a, 1
+
+Jimmilingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Jinagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Joolam, Table I a, 16
+
+Joolama, Table I a, 1
+
+Joolanjegoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jooralagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jorro, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Jumeyungie, Table I a, 8
+
+Jummiunga, Table I a, 16
+
+Jungalagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jungalla, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+JUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 32
+
+Jury, 46, 75, Map II, viii
+
+
+Kabidgi, Table I a, 12
+
+Kapoodungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+KAPPATCH, 49, Map III, 6
+
+KAPUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kaiamba, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Kairawa, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KARARAWA, 49, Map III, 7
+
+KARARU, 49, Map III, 7
+
+Karavangi, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Kari, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Karilbura, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KARPEUN, 43, 50, Map III, 26
+
+Karpungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+KARTPOERAPPA, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kearra, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+Kellungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
+
+KILPARA, 49, Map III, 4
+
+Kingelunju, Table I a, 7
+
+KINGILLI, 47, 50, Map III, 42
+
+KIRARU, 49, Map III, 7
+
+KIRTUUK, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kommerangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+KOOCHEEBINGA, 49, Map III, 10, 53
+
+Koodala, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+KOOKOOJEEBA, 49, Map III, 10
+
+KOOLPURU, 49, Map III, 8
+
+Koomara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Koopungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
+
+KOORABUNNA, 49, Map III, 11
+
+KOORAGULA, 49, Map III, 11
+
+KOORAMEENYA, 49, n. 19
+
+Kooran, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Koorgilla, 44, 74, Map II, v
+
+Koorpal, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KROKAGE, 49, Map III, 5
+
+KROKI, 49, Map III, 5
+
+KROKITCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kubaru, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+Kubi, Kubbi, 42, 76, 83, Map II, i
+
+Kubitha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Kuial, 46, Map II, x
+
+Kuialla, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+KULITCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kumara, 47, 76, 79, Map II, xiii, Table I a, 12
+
+Kumbo, 42, 76, Map II, i
+
+KUMIT, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kunggilungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Kungilla, Table I a, 9
+
+Kunullu, Table I a, 8
+
+KUPATHIN, 42, 43, 50, Map III, 20
+
+Kurbo, 43, 74, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Kurgan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Kurkilla, 45, 72, Map II, v
+
+Kurongon, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Kurpal, 44, 72, 74, 76, Map II, iv
+
+Kutchal, 45, Map II, vii
+
+KUUNAMIT, 49, Map III, 6
+
+KUUROKEETCH, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kymerra, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+
+Langenam, 48, 74, Map II, xv
+
+Lenai, 74
+
+LIARAKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
+
+LIARITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
+
+Loora, 45, Map II, viii
+
+
+Mahngal, 46, Map II, viii
+
+MALIAN, 49, 53, Map III, 3
+
+MALLERA, 45, 50, 52, Map III, 28
+
+MALLERA-WUTHERA phratries, 52 sq.
+
+Mambulgit, 36
+
+Manjarojally, 36
+
+Manjarwuli, 36
+
+Maringo, 46, 75, 76, Map II, ix
+
+Marinungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Marro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Marroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Maroongah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Matha, 42, Map II, i
+
+MATTERA, 49, 66, Map III, 7
+
+MATTERI, 49, 52, 53, 66, Map III, 7
+
+Matyang, 43, Map II, ii
+
+MERUGULLI, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
+
+MERUNG, 48, Map III, 2
+
+Moorob, 74
+
+Moroon, 43, Map II, iii
+
+MUKULA, 42, 50, 53, Map III, 21
+
+MUKUMURRA, 42, 50, 53, Map II, 23
+
+MULLARA, 46, 50, Map III, 28
+
+MULTA, 49, 53, Map III, 3
+
+Mumbali, 46, Map II, x
+
+Munal, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Mungilly, 46, Map II, viii
+
+MUNICHMAT, 48, 50, Map III, 34
+
+Munjungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+MUQUARA, 49, 52, Map III, 4
+
+Muri, 42, 73, 83, Map II, i
+
+Muri-Kubbi classes, 73
+
+MURLA, 45, 50, Map III, 31
+
+Murungun, 46, Map II, x
+
+
+Nabajerry, Table I a, 15
+
+Nabungati, Table I a, 14
+
+Naganok, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Nagarra, Table I a, 14
+
+NAKA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
+
+Nakomara, Table I a, 13
+
+Nala, Table I a, 2
+
+Nalangininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalirri, Table I a, 2
+
+Naltjeri, Table I a, 13
+
+Namaja, Table I a, 1
+
+Namaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namaringinta, Table I a, 11
+
+Nambean, Table I a, 1
+
+Nambeen, Table I a, 14
+
+Nambin, Table I a, 13
+
+Nambjana, Table I a, 15
+
+Nambitjin, Table I a, 2
+
+Nambitjinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namegor, 48, Map II, xv
+
+Namigili, Table I a, 13
+
+Namininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namita, Table I a, 2
+
+Namyungo, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Nana, Table I a, 2
+
+Nanagoo, Table I a, 15
+
+Nanakoo, Table I a, 16
+
+Nanajerry, Table I a, 14
+
+Nangally, Table I a, 14
+
+Nangili, Table I a, 14, 15
+
+Naola, Table I a, 15
+
+Napanunga, Table I a, 13
+
+Napungerta, Table I a, 13
+
+Naralu, Table I a, 13
+
+Narbeeta, Table I a, 15
+
+Narechie, Table I a, 9
+
+Narrabalangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Nemira, Table I a, 15
+
+Nemurammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Neonammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Ngarrangungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+NGIELBUMURRA, 42, 50, Map III, 23
+
+NGIELPURU, 50
+
+NGIPURU, 50
+
+NGUMBUN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
+
+NGURRAWAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
+
+Nhermana, Table I a, 15
+
+Niamaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Niameragun, Table I a, 3
+
+Niamerum, Table I a, 5
+
+Ninum, Table I a, 3
+
+Niriuma, Table I a, 5
+
+Nolangmer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nongarimmer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nooara, Table I a, 14
+
+Nowala, Table I a, 1
+
+Nowana, Table I a, 14
+
+Nuanakuma, Table I a, 6
+
+Nullum, 74
+
+Nulum, Table I a, 3
+
+Nulyarammer, Table I a, 18
+
+NUMBUN, 42, Map III, 24
+
+Nunalla, Table I a, 2
+
+Nungalermer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nungalla, Table I a, 2, 13, 15
+
+Nungallakurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Nungari, Table I a, 2
+
+Nuralakurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nurlanjukurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nurlum, Table I a, 5
+
+Nurralammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Nurumball, 47
+
+
+Obu, 44, 83, Map II, v
+
+Odall, 47
+
+OOTAROO, 45, 46, 50, Map III, 29; see also Wuthera, etc.
+
+
+Packwicky, 48, Map II, xv
+
+PAKOOTA, 45, 46, 50, 53, Map III, 29
+
+Paliarina, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Paliarinji, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Palyang, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Pamarung, 48, Map II, xv
+
+Pandur, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Panunga, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+Parajerri, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Parang, 43, 72, Map II, iii; see also Baran
+
+Parungo, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Patingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Perrynung, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Pungarinia, Table I a, 3, 6
+
+Pungarinji, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Pungarinju, Table I a, 7
+
+Purdal, 46, 75, Map II, x
+
+Purula, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+
+Ranya, 45, 75, Map II, viii
+
+Rara, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Roanga, 74, 76
+
+Roumburia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+
+Tabachin, Table I a, 10
+
+Tabadena, Table I a, 10
+
+Taran, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Tarbain, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Tchana, Table I a, 2
+
+Teilling, 74
+
+Thakomara, Table I a, 13
+
+Thalaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thalirri, Table I a, 2
+
+Thama, Table I a, 2
+
+Thamaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thamininja, Table I a, 10
+
+Thapanunga, Table I a, 13
+
+Thapungarti, Table I a, 13
+
+Theirwain, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Thimmermill, Table I a, 9
+
+Thungalla, Table I a, 2, 13
+
+Thungallaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Thungallinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Thungarie, Table I a, 2
+
+Thungaringinta, Table I a, 11
+
+TINEWA, 49, Map III, 8
+
+Tjambin, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjambitjina, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjameraku, Table I a, 6
+
+Tjameramu, Table I a, 7
+
+Tjamerum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Tjapatjinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjapetjeri, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjimara, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjimininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjimita, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjinguri, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjinum, Table I a, 3
+
+Tjuanaku, Table I a, 5
+
+Tjulantjuka, Table I a, 5, 6
+
+Tjulum, Table I a, 3
+
+Tjupila, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjurla, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjurulinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Tondarup, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+TOOAR, 50, Map III, 12
+
+Toonbeungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Trumininja, Table I a, 11
+
+TUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
+
+
+UA, 46, 50, Map III, 44
+
+Uanaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Ubur, 44, 83, Map II, v
+
+Uknaria, Table I a, 12
+
+ULUURU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 41, 42
+
+UMBE, 49, Map III, 3
+
+Umbitchana, Table I a, 12
+
+Unburri, 44, Map II, v
+
+Ungalla, Table I a, 12
+
+Unmarra, Table I a, 10
+
+Unwannee, Table I a, 10
+
+Uralaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Urgilla, 44, Map II, v
+
+URKU, 46, 50, Map III, 44
+
+Urtalia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+Urwalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Uwallaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Uwungaree, Table I a, 10
+
+
+WAA, 48, Map III, 1
+
+WAANG, 48, Map III, 1
+
+Wairgu, Table I a, 7
+
+WALAR, 45, 50, Map III, 31
+
+Walar, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Wandi, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Warganbah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Warkie, Table I a, 9
+
+Warrithu, Table I a, 7
+
+WARTUNGMAT, 48, 50, 53, Map III, 34
+
+Waui, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Weiro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Werrican, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wialia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+WILIUKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
+
+Wilthuthu, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Wiltu, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Wirrikin, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wirro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+WITTERU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+Wombee, 42, 76, Map II, i
+
+Wombo, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Womboongah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wongan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wongo, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+WOODAROO, 46, 50, Map III, 27, 28, 29
+
+WOOTAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27; see also Ootaroo
+
+WREPIL, 48, Map III, 1
+
+WUTHERA, 45, 50, 53, 54, 66, Map III, 28
+
+WUTHERA-MALLERA phratry, 66
+
+WUTTHURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+
+Yakomari, Table I a, 3, 5, 6, 8, 79
+
+Yakomarin(a), Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Yangor, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Yelet, 74
+
+Yoolgo, 74
+
+Youingo, 46, 72, 76, Map II, ix
+
+YUCKEMBRUK, 48, Map III, 2
+
+Yukamura, Table I a, 4
+
+Yungalla, Table I a, 10
+
+YUNGAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGARU, 44, 50, 53, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGNURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGO, 45, 49, 50, 53, 66, Map III, 9, 27
+
+YUNGO phratry, 66
+
+
+
+
+SUBJECT INDEX.
+
+Names of Australian tribes are in Clarendon, native words and parts of
+ words in italics. Words in inverted commas are defined.
+
+
+Abduction, 103
+
+Adoption, 2, 5, 7
+
+Adultery, punishment for, 146
+
+Affinity, 6
+
+"Age grades," 2, 92, 112
+
+_Agoo_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Aku_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Akulbura= classes, 44
+
+America, tribe in, 7
+
+American organisations, 9, 33
+
+_An_ as feminine termination 43, 44
+
+_Ana_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Anaywan= classes, 43
+
+_Angie_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Anjegoo_ as suffix, 80
+
+Annan R., classes on, 45
+
+Anomalous areas, 51, 72
+
+Anomalous marriages, 151
+
+=Anula= classes, 47
+
+_Ara_ as suffix, 80
+
+Arab phratries, 10
+
+_Archologia Americana_, 33, 34
+
+_Aree_ as suffix, 60, 80
+
+_Ariltha_, 145
+
+=Arunta= classes, Table I a, 47
+ customs, 145
+ kinship terms, 96
+ meaning of, 82
+ primitiveness, 70
+ S., classes, 47
+ totemism, 12
+
+Associations, changes in, 1
+ natal, 2
+
+Atkinson, J.J., 63
+
+Aversion, sexual, 117
+
+
+=Badieri= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+Baiame, 57
+
+_Balcoin_, 83
+
+=Barkinji= betrothal, 22
+ phratries, 49
+
+=Bathalibura= classes, 44
+
+_Beena_ marriage, 108
+
+Belyando R., classes on, 44
+
+=Berriait= phratries, 49
+
+Betrothal and potestas, 22
+ rule of descent, 22 sq.
+
+=Binbinga= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Bingongina= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+Bird myth, 55
+ conflict myth, 55
+
+Blood and phratry organisations, 68
+ cousins, marriage forbidden to, 7
+ division, 31
+ feud, 26
+ organisations, 30, 153
+ relationship, 4
+
+Bloomfield R., phratries on, 38, 50
+
+Brother and sister marriage, 69
+ meaning of terms in Morgan's work, 111
+
+_Bu_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Bulcoin_, 83
+
+_Bulthara_, 83
+
+_Bundar_, 83
+
+=Buntamurra= classes, 44
+
+
+"Caste" subdivision, 153
+
+_Cha_ as prefix, 79
+
+Chieftainship, 25
+
+Child and parent, 23, 119
+
+Children and parents, 4
+
+_Choo_ as prefix, 80
+
+"Classes, intermarrying," 30
+ and phratries, 51, 72, 87
+ and totems, 89
+ later than phratries, 71
+ list of, 42 sq.
+ names, borrowing of, 75 sq.
+ meaning of, 82
+
+Class organisations, 37 sq.; Map II, 40
+ effect of, 86
+ origin of, 100
+
+Classificatory terms of relationship, 93
+
+Conception, theories of, 12, 23
+
+"Consanguinity," 3 sq.
+
+Consent of husband, 131, 138, 146
+
+Contrasts in phratry names, 54, 56, 68
+
+"Couple," 30
+
+Cousin marriage, 70
+
+Crow phratry, 53
+
+Cunow, H., 86, 91
+
+
+=Dalebura= classes, 44
+
+=Darkinung= classes, 42 n.
+
+_Deeroyn_, 82
+
+Degeneration and incest, 113
+
+Descent, rule of, 11, 12 sq.; Map I, 40
+ change of, 15, 16
+
+Descriptive terms of relationship, 93
+
+"Determinant spouse," 30
+
+=Dieri= betrothal, 22
+ marriage rules, 97
+ phratries, 49
+ wife lending, 143
+
+_Dippa-malli_, 133
+
+=Dippil= classes, 43, 51
+ phratries, 43, III b, 51
+
+"Direct descent," 30
+
+_Dirrawong_, 82
+
+Durkheim, E., 69, 87, 90
+
+_Durween_, 82
+
+
+Eaglehawk, 54
+ and crow, 53, 59
+ phratries, 67
+
+_Eanda_, 10
+
+Earl, G.W., 36
+
+Economic conditions and rule of descent, 27
+
+_Egor_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+Eight-class names, centre of origin, 78
+ percentages of resemblance and difference, 77, 78
+ system, 76
+ tribe in Queensland, 97
+
+Elder and younger, meaning of, 98
+ brother, authority, 100
+
+Elopement, 20, 144
+
+_Eranta_, 82
+
+=Euahlayi= classes 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 e, 50, 51, 54
+
+Exchange of wives, 143
+
+Exogamy, 6, 30
+ origin of, 63
+
+
+Family, 1
+ types of, 8
+
+Father and son, conflict of, 17
+
+Father and daughter marriage, 114
+
+Father right, see Patriliny
+
+Female descent, see Matriliny
+
+Females, property vested in, 26
+
+Feminine class names, 80
+
+Fison, L., on group marriage, 127
+
+Folktales, stock of, 57
+
+Four-class area, 73
+ and eight-class systems, results compared, 97
+
+Frazer, J.G., 69
+ on totemism, 12
+
+Free love, 106, 129
+
+Free union, 106
+
+
+Gason, S., 13
+
+_Gam_, 106
+
+_Gan_ as feminine termination, 43
+
+=Geawegal classes=, 42
+ wife lending, 142
+
+=Geebera= phratries, 49
+
+Generation, marriage within, 99
+
+=Gnalluma= classes, 47, 48
+
+=Gnamo= classes, 47, 48
+
+=Gnanji= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Goa= classes, 44
+
+=Goonganji= phratries, 49
+
+=Goothanto= classes, 45
+
+Gregory, J.W., 27, 67
+
+Grey, Sir G., 34
+
+Groups, local, 29
+ meaning of, 136
+ primitive, 13, 64
+
+Group marriage and _pirrauru_, 136
+ meaning of term, 127
+ not proven, 148
+
+_Gurk_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+
+Haida phratries, 9
+
+Hausa rules of avoidance, 99
+
+Hereditary kinship groups, 12
+
+Hodgson, C.P., 35
+
+Homophones, 82
+
+Hottentots non-totemic, 8
+
+Howitt, A.W., 16, 23, 37, 121, 134
+
+
+_Iker_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Iliaura= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Ilpirra= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+In-and-in breeding, 115
+
+Incest and degeneration, 113
+
+=Inchalachee= classes, Table I a, 47
+ marriage, 151
+
+"Indirect descent," 30
+
+Individual property, 25
+
+_Inginja_ as suffix, 80
+
+Inheritance and descent, 18, 25
+ and patriliny, 22
+ of widow, 20
+ of wife by brother, 20, 21
+
+Initiation and free love, 144
+
+_Inja_ as suffix, 80
+
+"Intermarrying classes," 30
+
+Isaacs, F.N., 35
+
+_Itch_ as suffix, 63, 80
+
+_Itchana_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Itchumundi= "bloods," 50
+ phratries, 49, 50
+
+
+_J_ as prefix, 84
+
+_Ja_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+_Jarr_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+Jealousy, 131
+
+_Joo_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Joongoongie= classes, 48
+ phratries, 48
+
+=Jouon= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+_Jus primae noctis_, 140, 144
+
+
+_K_ as prefix, 84
+
+=Kabi= classes, 43
+
+=Kaitish= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Kalkadoon= classes, 46, 51
+ phratries, 46, 51
+
+=Kamilaroi= classes, 42
+ customs, 143
+ marriage, 151
+ organisation, 31 sq.
+ phratries, 42 a
+ wife lending, 142
+
+_Kandri_, 130
+
+=Kangulu= classes, 44
+ phratries, 44, IV b, 51
+
+_Kanunka_, 83
+
+=Karandee= class names, 74
+
+Kempe, H., 84
+
+=Keramin= phratries, 49
+
+=Kiabara= classes, 43, 51
+
+Kimberley, classes at, 47, 48
+
+"Kin group," 8
+
+"Kinsman," 31
+
+"Kinship," 3 sq.
+ and consanguinity, 23
+ groups, 2, 7
+ origin of idea, 13, 14
+ tribal, 5
+
+_Kodi-molli_, 133
+
+=Kogai= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+Kohler, J., on group marriage, 127
+
+=Kombinegherry= classes, 43
+
+_Koo_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Koogobathy= classes, 46
+
+_Koolbirra_, 82
+
+=Koonjan= classes, 46
+
+=Koorangie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Korkoren_, 83
+
+_Korkoro_, 75, 83
+
+_Ku_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+_Kubbi_, 83
+
+=Kuinmurbura= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 44
+ customs, 144
+ phratries, 44, IV a, 51
+ rules of residence, 16
+
+_Kulbara_, 82
+
+=Kurnai= customs, 143, 144
+ phratries, 49, n. 8
+ polygamy, 134
+ relationships, 120
+ rule of residence, 17, 18
+
+=Kurnandaburi= phratries, 49
+ polygamy, 132
+
+Kutchin phratries, 9
+
+
+Landed property, 7, 8, 29
+
+Lang, Andrew, ii, 63
+
+Languages, differentiation of, 60, 81
+
+Leichardt, L., 35
+
+Lending of wives, 132 sq., 143
+ _pirrauru_ wives, 132, 135, 139
+
+Levirate, 20, 134
+
+Liaison, 107, 133
+
+=Limba Karadjee= classes, 36
+
+Local group, constitution of, 26
+ influence of, in causing change of rule of descent, 26
+ types of, 8
+
+
+Macarthur, Capt., 35
+
+_Maian_, 134
+
+_Mala_, 82
+
+_Male_, 82
+
+Male descent, _see_ Patriliny
+
+_Malu_, 82
+
+=Mara= classes, 46
+ phratries, 46
+
+Marriage, definition of, 103, 105 sq.
+ evolution of, Morgan's theory, 110
+ forms of, 108
+ origin of, 64
+ prohibitions, 3, 6
+ rules, 97 sq.
+ and kinship terms, 93
+
+Maryborough tribes, classes of, 43
+ phratries, 43, III a, 51
+ rules of residence, 17
+
+Mathews, R.H., 31, 150
+
+Matriliny in eight-class tribes, 151
+ origin of, 13, 19
+ primitive, 69
+ priority of, 12, 15
+
+"Matrilocal," 30
+ marriage, 16
+
+Matripotestal family, 8, 109
+
+=Mayoo= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Meening= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+Melanesian phratries, 10
+
+=Miappe= classes, 46, 51
+ phratries, 46, 51
+
+Migrations, 61
+
+=Milpulko= phratries, 49
+
+=Miorli= classes, 44
+
+=Mittakoodi= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+"Mixed group," 8
+
+Mohegan phratries, 9
+
+=Monobar= classes, 35
+
+Moore, G.F., 34
+
+=Moree= classes, 42
+
+Morgan, Lewis, on promiscuity, 110
+
+Mother right, see Matriliny
+
+Mother, term for, 123
+
+=Mukjarawaint= betrothal, 22
+ customs, 144
+
+=Murawari= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 f, 50, 51
+
+Murchison R., classes on, 47, 48
+
+_Muri_, 83
+
+=Mycoolon= classes, 72
+
+Myths, diffusion of, 56
+
+
+_N_ as prefix, 80
+
+Nagualism, 12
+
+Narran R., classes on, 42
+
+=Narrangga= classes, 48
+
+Narrinyeri customs, 143, 144
+
+"Natal associations," 2
+
+=Nauo= phratries, 49
+
+Near relatives, marriage of, 113
+
+New Hebrides club-house, 106
+
+=Ngarrego= phratries, 48
+
+=Ngerikudi= kinship terms, 95
+
+=Ngeumba= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 d, 51
+ organisation, 152
+
+Nicol Bay, classes at, 47, 48
+
+Nind, S., 34
+
+_Noa_, 122, 129
+
+_Noa-mara_, 129
+
+_Nu_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Nupa_, 98, 135
+
+
+_Obur_, 83
+
+=Oolawunga= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Oruyo_, 11
+
+Ovaherero organisations, 10
+
+
+_Palyara_, 83
+
+_Palyeri_, 83
+
+_Panunga_, 83
+
+=Parnkalla= phratries, 49
+
+Paternity, uncertain, 21
+
+Patria potestas, 15, 19
+
+Patrilineal inheritance, 18
+
+Patriliny, causes of, in Australia, 27
+ cause of rise, 22
+ possible primitive, 13
+
+"Patrilocal," 30
+
+Patripotestal family, 8, 109
+
+=Peechera= classes, 42
+
+Phratries and classes, 51, 72, 87
+ list of, 48 sq.
+ object of, 69
+ origin of, 65
+ systematic groups as, 9
+
+"Phratry," 30
+
+Phratry names, 32 sq.
+ meanings of, 53 sq.
+ organisations, distribution of, 9, 37 sq.; Map III, 40
+ segmentation, 61, 66
+
+=Pikumbul= classes, 42
+
+_Piraungaru_, 135, 141
+
+_Pirrauru_, 130
+ and group marriage, 136
+ distinguishing features, 137
+ origin of, 139, 140, 141
+ spouses, duties of, 139-141
+
+=Pitta-Pitta=, authority of husband among, 19
+ classes, 44
+ phratries, 45
+
+Polyandry, 104, 108
+
+Polygamy, 104, 108
+
+Polygyny, 104, 108
+
+Post, A.H., on group marriage, 127
+
+Potestas, 4
+ and betrothal, 22
+ and patriliny, 22
+ and residence, 14
+ and rule of descent, 14
+ relation of, to rule of descent, 19
+
+Poverty of language, 124
+
+Powell, J.W., 27
+
+Prefixes, 79, 80
+
+Primitive group, 111
+
+Promiscuity, 133 n., 144
+ forms of, 107
+
+Property, inheritance of, 25
+ in law, 2, 7, 18
+
+Protectorship of woman's kin, 19, 20
+
+_Pu_ as prefix, 80
+
+Puberty, licence at, 143 sq., 146
+
+Pueblo peoples, descent among, 27
+
+_Pultara_, 83
+
+Punishment, 19, 20
+
+Purchase of wife, 21
+
+=Purgoma= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+
+Queries as to Australian facts, 129 sq., 132, 141
+
+
+Racial conflict, 55
+
+Rank and intermarrying class, 35
+
+Relationship, systems of, 93
+
+Residence and potestas, 14
+ and rule of descent, 14
+ customs of, 8, 10
+
+Ridley, W., 36
+
+Right of betrothal, 22
+
+=Ringa-Ringa= classes, 44
+
+
+Scarcity of women, 139
+
+Schrmann, C.W., 34
+
+"Secret Societies," 3
+
+Sexual aversion, 117
+ unions, 102 sq.
+
+"Shade" division, 31, 152
+
+Sign language, 84
+
+Sisters, exchange of, 19, 20
+
+"Social organisation," 3
+
+Societies, secret, 3
+
+Solidarity of totem kin, 140
+
+Spencer, B., on group marriage, 128
+
+Status and kinship terms, 120, 125
+
+Stokes, J.L., 36
+
+"Sub-tribe," 30
+
+Suffixes, 53, 60, 80
+
+
+_Ta_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Tarderick= classes, 48
+
+=Taroombul= classes, 44
+
+=Tatathi= phratries, 49
+
+_Tchi_ as suffix, 53, 60, 80
+
+Terminology, 29 sq.
+
+_Tippa-malku_, 129
+ husband, rights of, 132, 139
+
+=Tjingillie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Tjuka_ as suffix, 80
+
+Toda phratries, 10
+
+Totem and phratry, 9
+
+Totems and classes, 89
+ and phratry names, 60, 69
+
+Totemism, distribution of, 8
+
+"Totem kin," 31
+ sacrosanctity of, 16
+
+Totem kins, 5
+ and phratries, 89
+ arrangement of, 89
+ and _pirrauru_, 134
+
+Tribal brothers, rights of, 131 n., 141
+ kinship, 5
+ names, meaning of, 82
+ property, 2, 7, 18, 61
+ solidarity, 7
+
+"Tribe," 2, 7, 29
+ subdivisions of, 8
+
+Tully R., classes on, 45
+
+=Turribul= classes, 42
+
+
+_U_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Uku_ as suffix, 53, 60
+
+_Ula_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Um_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Umbaia= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+_Unawa_, 122
+
+Unconscious reformation, 116
+
+=Undekerebina= phratries, 51
+
+Undivided commune, 121, 143
+
+_Unga_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Unghi= classes, 42
+
+_Ungilla_, 84
+
+=Ungorri= classes, 44
+
+_Upala_, 83
+
+=Urabunna= customs, 142
+ marriage rules, 98
+ phratries, 49
+ polygamy, 135
+
+_Uru_ as suffix, 53, 60
+
+
+Victoria, occupation of, 27, 67
+ S.W., phratries in, 49
+
+
+=Wailwun= classes, 42
+ organisation, 89
+
+=Wakelbura= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45 51
+ polyandry, 133
+ rules of residence, 16
+
+=Walpari= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+Wanika phratries, 10
+
+=Warkeman= classes, 45
+
+=Warramunga= classes, Table I a, 47
+ marriage, 150
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Wathi-Wathi= kinship terms, 94
+ phratries, 49
+
+=Weedokarry= classes, 47, 48
+
+_Welu_, 54
+
+West Australia, classes in, 48
+ phratries in, 48
+
+Westermarck, E., on group marriage, 128
+ on marriage, 105
+
+Wide Bay, classes at, 43
+
+Widow, position of, 20, 134
+ removal of, 19
+
+Widower, 131
+
+Wife lending, 142
+ authority over, 19
+
+=Wiimbaio= customs, 143
+ phratries, 49
+ wife lending, 142
+
+_Wilpadrina_, 129 n.
+
+Wilson, T.B., 36
+
+=Wilya= phratries, 49
+
+=Wiradjeri=, chiefs among, 25
+ classes, 42, 51
+ marriage, 150
+ phratries, 42 b, 50
+
+=Wolgal= phratries, 49
+
+=Wollaroi= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 42
+
+=Wollongurma= classes, 45
+
+=Wonnaruah= classes, 42
+
+=Wonghibon= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 c, 50, 51
+
+=Woonamurra= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+=Worgaia= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Workoboongo= classes, 46, 72
+
+=Wulmala= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Wurunjerri= phratries, 48
+
+
+_Ya_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+=Yambeena= classes, 51
+ phratries, 51
+
+=Yandairunga= phratries, 49
+
+=Yandrawontha= phratries, 49
+
+=Yangarella= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Yelyuyendi= phratries, 51
+
+=Yerunthully= classes, 44, 72
+
+=Yookala= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Yoolanlanya= classes, 47
+
+=Yowerawarika= phratries, 49
+
+=Yuin= custom, 145
+
+=Yuipera= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+=Yukkabura= classes, 45
+
+_Yun_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Yungmunnie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+
+CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Note:
+
+The following inconsistencies have been maintained in the text:
+
+Misspellings and typographical errors
+
+Hawaian for Hawaiian
+Chapter IV, Table I, Section XV, the paragraph that begins with "Tribe"
+ is missing a ) at the end.
+
+Inconsistent hyphenation:
+
+bi-lateral / bilateral
+eight-fold / eightfold
+four-fold / fourfold
+Geawe-gal / Geawegal
+head-man / headman
+inter-tribal / intertribal
+matri-potestal / matripostestal
+Narrang-ga / Narrangga
+patri-potestal / patripotestal
+sacrosanctity / sacrosanctity
+sub-division / subdivision
+wide-spread / widespread
+
+Other inconsistencies:
+Archologia / Archaeologia
+Eaglehawk-Crow / eaglehawk-crow
+Pirraurru / Pirrauru
+vice vers / vice versa
+
+In list of abbreviations: Proc. R.G.S. Qn.
+ In text: Proc. R.G.S. Qu., Proc. R.S. Qu.
+In list of abbreviations: R.G.S. Qn.
+ In text: R.G.S. Qu.
+
+In Chapter IV, Table II, repeated column headings have been omitted.
+The numbering in this table jumps from 12 to 20 and then from 34 to 40.
+
+In Chapter IV, Table III, two symbols are used ([++] and ) which are
+not defined. Repeated column headings have been omitted.
+
+In Chapter VII, the abbreviation ib. in the Footnotes is not italicized.
+
+In Chapter X, Section B. Marriage
+ The roman numerals are followed by a comma, rather than a period as in
+ the preceding section.
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group
+Marriage in Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+***** This file should be named 17404-8.txt or 17404-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+ http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/4/0/17404/
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+ the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+ you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
+ owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+ has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+ Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
+ must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+ prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+ returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+ sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+ address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+ the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+ you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+ does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+ License. You must require such a user to return or
+ destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+ and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+ Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+ money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+ electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+ of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+ distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+ Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+ Chief Executive and Director
+ gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+ http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/17404-8.zip b/17404-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..65f899b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-8.zip
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h.zip b/17404-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c36d875
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h.zip
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/17404-h.htm b/17404-h/17404-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fce2c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/17404-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,11292 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
+ <head>
+ <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+ <title>
+ The Project Gutenberg eBook of Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in
+Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+ </title>
+ <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */
+<!--
+ p { margin-top: .75em;
+ text-align: justify;
+ margin-bottom: .75em;
+ }
+ h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
+ text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+ clear: both;
+ }
+ hr { width: 33%;
+ margin-top: 2em;
+ margin-bottom: 2em;
+ margin-left: auto;
+ margin-right: auto;
+ clear: both;
+ }
+
+ img {border: 0;}
+
+ .tablecenter {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
+ .tablei {font-size: 90%; border: 0px;}
+ .tablei td {padding: 0px;}
+ .tablei .numbers {padding-right: 1em; text-align: right;}
+ .tablei .roman {padding-left: 2em;}
+ .tablei .roman2 {padding-left: 2.8em;}
+ .tablei .adjust {padding-left: 0.5em;}
+ .Ia td {padding-left: 4px; padding-right: 4px;}
+
+ body{margin-left: 10%;
+ margin-right: 10%;
+ }
+
+ /* Ensure anchors work by positioning them all in the same way */
+ a[name] { position:absolute; }
+ a {text-decoration: none;}
+
+ .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
+ /* visibility: hidden; */
+ position: absolute;
+ left: 92%;
+ font-size: smaller;
+ text-align: right;
+ color: gray;
+ } /* page numbers */
+
+ .blockquot {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;}
+
+ .bb {border-bottom: solid black 1px;}
+ .bl {border-left: solid black 1px;}
+ .bt {border-top: solid black 1px;}
+ .br {border-right: solid black 1px;}
+ .bbox {border: solid black 1px;}
+
+ .center {text-align: center;}
+ .left {text-align: left;}
+ .right {text-align: right;}
+
+ .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;}
+ .smrom {font-size: smaller;}
+ .super {font-size: 0.7em; vertical-align: 0.3em; padding: 0.1em;}
+ .super2 {font-size: 0.7em; vertical-align: 0.5em; padding: 0.1em;}
+ .subs {font-size: 0.7em; vertical-align: -0.2em;}
+ .hidespace {display: none}
+ .nowrap { white-space: nowrap; }
+
+ ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin dotted gray;}
+
+ .hanging {margin-left: 3.5em; text-indent: -3.5em;}
+ .hanging p {text-align: left;}
+ .hanging2 {margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;}
+ .tabledesc {font-size: 90%;}
+ .tablehead {font-size: 90%;}
+
+ .chapterhead {margin-top: 4em; font-weight: normal;}
+ .sectionhead {margin-top: 2em;}
+
+ .double {font-size: 200%; width: 80%; font-weight: lighter;}
+ .triple {font-size: 300%; width: 80%; font-weight: lighter;}
+ .quadruple {font-size: 400%; width: 60%; font-weight: lighter;}
+ .indent {margin-left: 0.75em;}
+
+ .toc {position: relative;}
+ .tocchapno {text-align: center; font-size: larger; margin-top: 2em;}
+ .tocchap {text-align: center; font-size: larger;}
+ .tocpg {font-weight: bold; position: absolute; width: 4em; text-align: right;
+ padding-left: 3em; top: auto; right : 0;}
+ .tocdesc {padding-right: 3em;}
+
+ .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;}
+ .caption {font-weight: normal;}
+
+ .footnote {text-indent: 0.5em; font-size: 0.9em; text-align: justify; }
+ .label {font-size: 60%; vertical-align: 0.4em; }
+ .footnotea {text-decoration: none;}
+ .fnanchor {vertical-align: 0.3em; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 0.1em;}
+ .fnline {border-top: solid 1px; }
+
+ div.index {margin-left: -5%;}
+ ul.IX {list-style-type: none; font-size:inherit;}
+ li.subhead {padding-left: 2em;}
+ // -->
+ /* XML end ]]>*/
+ </style>
+ </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in
+Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia
+
+Author: Northcote W. Thomas
+
+Release Date: December 28, 2005 [EBook #17404]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+<table class="tablecenter" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: silver;" summary="Transcriber's Note">
+<tr>
+ <td valign="top">Transcriber's Note</td>
+ <td valign="top">Table I a and the <i>Arunta: Eight-class</i> Table were printed on fold-out
+pages. These have been split into sections (3 and 2 sections,
+respectively) to fit within the display boundaries. Each of these tables has a link
+to a scanned copy of the original table.<br />
+<br />
+The original book had a number of words with inconsistant hyphenation or
+spelling, as well as a small number of typographical errors. These have
+been maintained in this version and <ins class="correction" title="correction">marked</ins>, with the
+corrected text shown in the popup. A <a href="#note">list</a> of the
+inconsistencies and errors is found at the end of the present text.</td>
+
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[ii]</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p style="margin-top: 2em;"><i>The Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series is supervised by
+an Editorial Committee consisting of <span class="smcap">William Ridgeway</span>, M.A.,
+F.B.A., Disney Professor of Archaeology, <span class="smcap">A.&nbsp;C. Haddon</span>, Sc.D.,
+F.R.S., University Lecturer in Ethnology, <span class="smcap">M.&nbsp;R. James</span>, Litt. D.,
+F.B.A., Provost of King's College and <span class="smcap">C. Waldstein</span>, Litt. D.,
+Slade Professor of Fine Art.</i></p>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[iii]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<h1 class="sectionhead">
+KINSHIP ORGANISATIONS</h1>
+
+<h3>AND</h3>
+
+<h1>GROUP MARRIAGE</h1>
+
+<h3>IN</h3>
+
+<h1>AUSTRALIA</h1>
+
+<p style="text-align: center; margin-top: 4em;">BY</p>
+
+
+<p style="text-align: center; margin-top: 2em;"><span style="font-size: larger">NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS, M.A.</span><br />
+Diplom&eacute; de l'&Eacute;cole des Hautes-&Eacute;tudes,<br />
+Corresponding Member of the Soci&eacute;t&eacute; d'Anthropologie de Paris, etc.</p>
+
+<p style="text-align: center; margin-top: 6em;">CAMBRIDGE:<br />
+at the University Press<br />
+1906</p>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[iv]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<p class="center">
+CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,<br />
+C.&nbsp;F. CLAY, <span class="smcap">Manager</span>,<br />
+<br />
+London: FETTER LANE, E.C.<br />
+Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.</p>
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 100px;">
+<img src="images/image01.jpg" width="100" height="94" alt="Coat of arms" title="Coat of arms" />
+</div>
+
+<p class="center">
+Leipzig: F.&nbsp;A. BROCKHAUS.<br />
+New York: G.&nbsp;P. PUTNAM'S SONS.<br />
+Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., <span class="smcap">Ltd</span>.</p>
+
+<p class="center">[<i>All Rights reserved.</i>]</p>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[v]</a></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<p class="center" style="line-height: 1.5">
+DEDICATED<br />
+TO<br />
+MISS C.&nbsp;S. BURNE,<br />
+WHO FIRST GUIDED MY STEPS<br />
+INTO THE PATHS OF<br />
+ANTHROPOLOGY</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[vi]</a></span></p>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[vii]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE.</h2>
+
+
+<p>It is becoming an axiom in anthropology that what is needed is not
+discursive treatment of large subjects but the minute discussion of
+special themes, not a ranging at large over the peoples of the earth
+past and present, but a detailed examination of limited areas. This work
+I am undertaking for Australia, and in the present volume I deal briefly
+with some of the aspects of Australian kinship organisations, in the
+hope that a survey of our present knowledge may stimulate further
+research on the spot and help to throw more light on many difficult
+problems of primitive sociology.</p>
+
+<p>We have still much to learn of the relations of the central tribes and
+their organisations to the less elaborately studied Anula and Mara. I
+have therefore passed over the questions discussed by Dr Durkheim. We
+have still more to learn as to the descent of the totem, the relation of
+totem-kin, class and phratry, and the like; totemism is therefore
+treated only incidentally in the present work, and lack of knowledge
+compels me to pass over many other interesting questions.</p>
+
+<p>The present volume owes much to Mr Andrew Lang. He has read twice over
+both my typescript MS, and my proofs; in the detection of ambiguities
+and the removal of obscurities he has rendered my readers a greater
+service than any bald statement will convey; for his aid in the matter
+of terminology, for his criticisms of ideas already put forward and for
+his many pregnant suggestions, but inadequately worked out in the
+present volume.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[viii]</a></span> I am under the deepest obligations to him; and no mere
+formal expression of thanks will meet the case. I have been more than
+fortunate in securing aid from Mr Lang in a subject which he has made
+his own.</p>
+
+<p>I do not for a moment suppose that the information here collected is
+exhaustive. If any one should be in a position to supplement or correct
+my facts or to enlighten me in any way as to the ideas and customs of
+the blacks I shall be obliged if he will tell me all he knows about them
+and their ways. Letters may be addressed to me c/o the Anthropological
+Institute, 3 Hanover Sq., W.</p>
+
+<p class="right">NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS.</p>
+<p><span class="smcap" style="margin-left: 2em;">Buntingford,</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 3em;"><i>Sept. 11th, 1906.</i></span></p>
+
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[ix]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS.</h2>
+
+
+<div class="toc">
+<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" summary="Contents">
+<tr><td></td><td align="right">PAGE</td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#PREFACE">PREFACE</a></td><td align="right"><a href="#PREFACE">vii</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#CONTENTS">CONTENTS</a></td><td align="right"><a href="#CONTENTS">ix</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#BIBLIOGRAPHY">BIBLIOGRAPHY</a></td><td align="right"><a href="#BIBLIOGRAPHY">xii</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><a href="#INDEX_TO_ABBREVIATIONS">INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS</a></td><td align="right"><a href="#INDEX_TO_ABBREVIATIONS">xiv</a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">INTRODUCTORY.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Social Organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups: totem kins;
+phratries&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg" style="font-weight: normal;">Pages&nbsp;<b><a href="#CHAPTER_I">1-11</a></b></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">DESCENT.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Descent of Kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
+Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of descent;
+relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">12-28</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
+"Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in Australia.
+General sketch&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">29-40</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.</p>
+
+<table width="100%" summary="Tables">
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#Table_I"><span class="smcap">Tables I</span></a>, <a href="#Table_Ia">I a</a>. Class Names</td><td align="right" style="width: 5em;"><a href="#Table_I">42</a>, <a href="#Table_Ia">47</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#Table_II"><span class="smcap">Table II.</span></a> Phratry Names</td><td align="right"><a href="#Table_II">48</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#Table_III"><span class="smcap">Table III.</span></a> Comparison of "blood" and phratry names</td><td align="right"><a href="#Table_III">50</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="left"><a href="#Table_IV"><span class="smcap">Table IV.</span></a> Relations of Class and phratry organisations</td><td align="right"><a href="#Table_IV">51</a></td></tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[x]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="toc">
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">PHRATRY NAMES.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
+Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts. Intercommunication.
+Tribal Migrations&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">52-62</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split
+groups. The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory
+of phratriac origin&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">63-70</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">CLASS NAMES.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the Names:
+Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">71-85</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
+totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory of
+classes&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">86-92</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">KINSHIP TERMS.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
+Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
+Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">93-101</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types.
+Hypothetical and existing forms&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_X">102-109</a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">110-118</a></span></p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[xi]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="toc">
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. <i>Noa.</i> Group Mothers.
+Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms express
+status. The savage view natural&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII"><b>119-126</b></a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII">CHAPTER XIII.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">PIRRAURU.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
+marriage. Obscure points. <i>Pirrauru.</i> Obscure points. Relation of
+<i>pirrauru</i> to <i>tippa-malku</i> unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
+Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. <i>Piraungaru</i> of Urabunna.
+<i>Pirrauru</i> and group marriage. <i>Pirrauru</i> not a survival. Result of
+scarcity of women. Duties of <i>Pirrauru</i> spouses. <i>Piraungaru</i>; obscure
+points&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIII"><b>127-141</b></a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#CHAPTER_XIV">CHAPTER XIV.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">TEMPORARY UNIONS.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. <i>Jus primae noctis.</i> Punishment for
+adultery. <i>Ariltha</i> of central tribes. Group marriage unproven&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg">
+<a href="#CHAPTER_XIV"><b>142-149</b></a></span></p>
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno"><a href="#APPENDIX">APPENDIX.</a></p>
+
+<p class="tocchap">ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.</p>
+
+<p class="hanging2"><span class="tocdesc">Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
+and "Castes"&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> <span class="tocpg"><a href="#APPENDIX"><b>150-152</b></a></span></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" summary="Indexes">
+<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#INDEX_OF_NAMES">Index of Phratry, Blood, and Class Names</a></span></td> <td align="right"><a href="#INDEX_OF_NAMES"><b>153-157</b></a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><span class="smcap"><a href="#SUBJECT_INDEX">Index of Subjects</a></span></td> <td align="right"><a href="#SUBJECT_INDEX"><b>158-163</b></a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<hr style='width: 8em; border: solid 1px;' />
+
+
+<p class="tocchapno">MAPS.</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" summary="Maps">
+<tr><td style="width: 1.5em;"></td><td></td><td style="width: 4em;"></td><td align="right" style="width: 4em;">PAGE</td></tr>
+<tr><td align="right"><a href="#Map_I">I.</a></td><td><a href="#Map_I">Rule of Descent</a></td><td></td><td align="right"><a href="#Map_I"><b>40</b></a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="right"><a href="#Map_II">II.</a></td><td><a href="#Map_II">Class Organisations</a></td> <td align="center">to follow</td> <td align="right"><a href="#Map_II"><b>40</b></a></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="right"><a href="#Map_III">III.</a></td><td><a href="#Map_III">Phratry Organisations</a></td> <td align="center">"</td> <td align="right"><a href="#Map_III"><b>40</b></a></td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tocchapno">TABLE.</p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" summary="Table">
+<tr><td><a href="#Table_Ia">Class Names of Eight-Class Tribes.</a></td> <td align="right"><a href="#Table_Ia"><b>between pp. 46</b> and <b>47</b></a></td></tr>
+</table>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[xii]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="BIBLIOGRAPHY" id="BIBLIOGRAPHY"></a>BIBLIOGRAPHY.</h2>
+
+<div class="hanging">
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift.</i> Gutersloh, 1874 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>American Anthropologist.</i> Washington, 1888 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Ann&eacute;e Sociologique.</i> Paris, 1898 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">4.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Archaeologia Americana.</i> Philadelphia, 1820 etc., 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">5.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Das Ausland.</i> Munich, 1828-1893, 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">6.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Bulletins of North Queensland Ethnography.</i> Brisbane, 1901 etc.,
+fol.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">7.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Bunce, D.</span>, <i>Australasiatic Reminiscences of Twenty-three
+Years Wanderings.</i> Melbourne, 1857, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">8.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Colonial Magazine.</i> London, 1840-1842, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p style="padding-left: 0.5em;">9.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Cunow, H.</span>, <i>Die Verwandtschaftsorganisationen der
+Australneger.</i> Leipzig, 1894, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>10.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Curr, E.&nbsp;M.</span>, <i>The Australian Race.</i> 4 vols., London, 1886,
+8<span class="super2">o</span> and fol.</p>
+
+<p>11.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Dawson, J.</span>, <i>Australian Aborigines.</i> Melbourne, 1881, 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>12.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Fison, L.</span> and <span class="smcap">Howitt, A.&nbsp;W.</span>, <i>Kamilaroi and
+Kurnai.</i> Melbourne, 1880, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>13.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Folklore.</i> London, 1892 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>14.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Fortnightly Review.</i> London, 1865-1889, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>15.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Frazer, J.&nbsp;G.</span>, <i>Totemism.</i> Edinburgh, 1887, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>16.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Gerstaecker, F.</span>, <i>Reisen von F. Gerstaecker.</i> 5 vols.,
+Stuttgart, 1853-4, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>17.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Globus.</i> Hildburghausen etc., 1863 etc., 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>18.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Grey</span>, Sir G., <i>Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in
+North-West and West Australia.</i> 2 vols., London, 1841, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>19.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Gribble, J.&nbsp;B.</span>, <i>Black but Comely.</i> London, 1874, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>20.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Hodgson, C.&nbsp;P.</span>, <i>Reminiscences of Australia.</i> London, 1846,
+12<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>21.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Howitt, A.&nbsp;W.</span>, <i>Native Tribes of South-East Australia.</i>
+London, 1904, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>22.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie.</i> Leyden, 1888 etc., 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>23.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Journal of the Anthropological Institute.</i> London, 1871 sq., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>24.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Journal of the Royal Geographical Society.</i> London, 1832-1880, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>25.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales.</i> Sydney, 1877
+etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>26.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Journals of Several Expeditions in West Australia.</i> London, 1833,
+12<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>27.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Lahontan, H. de</span>, <i>Voyages.</i> Amsterdam, 1705, 12<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>28.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Lang, A.</span> and <span class="smcap">Atkinson, J.</span>, <i>Social Origins</i>;
+<i>Primal Law.</i> London, 1903, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>29.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Lang, A.</span>, <i>Secret of the Totem.</i> London, 1905, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>30.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Leichardt, F.&nbsp;W.&nbsp;L.</span>, <i>Journal of an Overland Expedition in
+Australia.</i> London, 1848, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>31.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Lumholtz, C.</span>, <i>Among Cannibals.</i> London, 1889, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>32.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Maclennan, J.&nbsp;F.</span>, <i>Studies in Ancient History.</i> 2nd Series,
+London, 1886, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[xiii]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="hanging">
+<p>33.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Man.</i> London, 1901 sq., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>34.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Mathew</span>, J., <i>Eaglehawk and Crow.</i> London, 1898, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>35.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Mathews</span>, R.&nbsp;H., <i>Ethnological Notes.</i> Sydney, 1905, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>36.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Mitteilungen des Seminars fur orientalische Sprachen.</i> Berlin, 1898
+etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>37.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Erdkunde.</i> Halle, 1877-1892, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>38.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Moore</span>, G.&nbsp;F., <i>Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language in
+Common Use among the Aborigines of Western Australia.</i> London, 1842,
+8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>39.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Morgan</span>, Lewis H., <i>Ancient Society.</i> New York, 1877, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>40.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">New</span>, C., <i>Travels.</i> London, 1854, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>41.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Owen</span>, Mary A., <i>The Musquakie Indians.</i> London, 1905, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>42.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Parker</span>, K.&nbsp;L., <i>The Euahlayi Tribe.</i> London, 1905, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>43.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Petrie</span>, Tom, <i>Reminiscences.</i> Brisbane, 1905, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>44.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.</i> Philadelphia,
+1840 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>45.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Proceedings of the Australian Association for the Advancement of
+Science.</i> 1889 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>46.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia,
+Queensland Branch.</i> Brisbane, 1886 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>47.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland.</i> Brisbane, 1884
+etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>48.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria.</i> Melbourne, 1889
+etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>49.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Reports of the Cambridge University Expedition to Torres Straits.</i>
+Cambridge, 1903 etc., 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>50.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Roth</span>, W.&nbsp;E., <i>Ethnological Studies.</i> Brisbane, 1898, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>51.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Sch&uuml;rmann</span>, C.&nbsp;W., <i>Vocabulary of the Parnkalla Language.</i>
+Adelaide, 1844, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>52.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Science of Man.</i> Sydney, 1898 etc., 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>53.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge.</i> Washington, 1848 etc.,
+4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>54.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Spencer</span>, B. and <span class="smcap">Gillen</span>, F.&nbsp;J., <i>Native Tribes of
+Central Australasia.</i> London, 1898, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>55.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Spencer</span>, B. and <span class="smcap">Gillen</span>, F.&nbsp;J., <i>Northern Tribes of
+Central Australia.</i> London, 1904, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>56.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Stokes</span>, J.&nbsp;L., <i>Discoveries in Australia.</i> 2 vols., London,
+1846, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>57.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Taplin</span>, G., <i>Folklore, Manners, Customs and Language of the
+South Australian Aborigines.</i> Adelaide, 1878, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>58.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South
+Australia.</i> Adelaide, 1878 etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>59.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">van Gennep</span>, A., <i>Mythes et L&eacute;gendes.</i> Paris, 1906, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>60.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>West Australian.</i> Perth, 1886 etc., fol.</p>
+
+<p>61.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Westermarck</span>, E., <i>History of Human Marriage.</i> 3rd Edition,
+London, 1901, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>62.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Wiener Medicinische Wochenschrift.</i> Vienna, 1851 etc., 4<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>63.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Wilson</span>, T.&nbsp;B., <i>Narrative of a Voyage round the World.</i>
+London, 1835, 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+
+<p>64.&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft.</i> Stuttgart, 1878
+etc., 8<span class="super2">o</span>.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[xiv]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="INDEX_TO_ABBREVIATIONS" id="INDEX_TO_ABBREVIATIONS"></a>INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS.</h2>
+
+
+<table class="tablecenter" border="0" style="width: 25em;" summary="Abbreviations">
+<tr><td style="text-align: left; vertical-align: top;"><i>Allg. Miss. Zts.</i>, 1<br />
+<i>Am. Anth.</i>, 2<br />
+<i>Am. Phil. Soc.</i>, 44<br />
+<i>Ann. Soc.</i>, 3<br />
+<i>Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci.</i>, 45<br />
+<i>Col. Mag.</i>, 8<br />
+<i>C.&nbsp;T.</i>, 54<br />
+<i>Ethn. Notes</i>, 35<br />
+<i>Fort. Rev.</i>, 14<br />
+<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i>, 23<br />
+<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S.</i>, 24<br />
+<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>, 25<br />
+<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S. Vict.</i>, 48<br /></td>
+<td style="text-align: left; vertical-align: top; width: 10em;"><i>Nat. Tr.</i>, 54<br />
+<i>Nor. Tr.</i>, 55<br />
+<i>N.&nbsp;Q. Ethn. Bull.</i>, 6<br />
+<i>N.&nbsp;T.</i>, 21<br />
+<i>Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.</i>, 44<br />
+<i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qn.</i>, 46<br />
+<i>Proc. R.&nbsp;S. Vict.</i>, 48<br />
+<i>R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qn.</i>, 47<br />
+<i>Sci. Man</i>, 52<br />
+<i>T.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;A.</i>, 58<br />
+<i>West. Aust.</i>, 60<br />
+<i>Zts. vgl. Rechtsw.</i>, 64</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">INTRODUCTORY.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Social organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups; totem kins;
+phratries.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>The passage from what is commonly termed savagery through barbarism to
+civilisation is marked by a change in the character of the associations
+which are almost everywhere a feature of human society. In the lower
+stages of culture, save among peoples whose organisation has perished
+under the pressure of foreign invasion or other external influences, man
+is found grouped into totem kins, intermarrying classes and similar
+organised bodies, and one of their most important characteristics is
+that membership of them depends on birth, not on the choice of the
+individual. In modern society, on the other hand, associations of this
+sort have entirely disappeared and man is grouped in voluntary
+societies, membership of which depends on his own choice.</p>
+
+<p>It is true that the family, which exists in the lower stages of culture,
+though it is overshadowed by the other social phenomena, has persisted
+through all the manifold revolutions of society; especially in the stage
+of barbarism, its importance in some directions, such as the regulation
+of marriage, often forbidden within limits of consanguinity much wider
+than among ourselves, approaches the influence of the forms of natal
+association which it had supplanted. In the present day, however, if we
+set aside its economic and steadily diminishing ethical <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span>sides, it
+cannot be compared in importance with the territorial groupings on which
+state and municipal activities depend.</p>
+
+<p>If the family is a persistent type the tribe may also be compared to the
+modern state; it is, in most parts of the world, no less territorial in
+its nature; membership of it does not depend among the Australians on
+any supposed descent from a common ancestor; and though residence plus
+possession of a common speech is mentioned by Howitt as the test of
+tribe, it is possible in Australia, under certain
+<span class="nowrap">conditions<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">1</a></span>, to pass
+from one tribe to another in such a way that we seem reduced to
+residence as the test of membership. This change of tribe takes place
+almost exclusively where tribes are friendly, so far as is known; and we
+may doubt whether it would be possible for a stranger to settle, without
+any rite of adoption, in the midst of a hostile or even of an unknown
+tribe; but this is clearly a matter of minor importance, if adoption is
+not, as in North America, an invariable element of the change of tribe.
+Although membership of a tribe is thus loosely determined, tribesmen
+feel themselves bound by ties of some kind to their fellow-tribesmen, as
+we shall see below, but in this they do not differ from the members of
+any modern state.</p>
+
+<p>But in Australia the importance of the tribe, save from an economic
+point of view, as joint owner of the tribal land, is small compared with
+the part played in the lives of its members by the intratribal
+associations, whose influence is recognised without, as within the
+tribe. These associations are of two kinds in the lowest strata of human
+society; in each case membership is determined by birth and they may
+therefore be distinguished as <i>natal associations</i>. In the one case, the
+<i>kinship groups</i> such as totem kins, phratries, etc., an individual
+remains permanently in the association into which he is born, special
+cases apart, in which by adoption he passes out of it and joins another
+by means of a legal <span class="nowrap">fiction<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">2</a></span>. The other kind of association, to which
+the name <i>age-grades</i> is applied, is composed of a series of grades,
+through which, concomitantly with the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span>performance of the rites of
+initiation obligatory on every male member of the community, each man
+passes in succession, until he attains the highest. In the rare cases
+where an individual fails to qualify for the grade into which his
+coevals pass, and remains in the grade of "youth" or even lower grades,
+he is by birth a member of one class and does not remain outside the
+age-grades altogether.</p>
+
+<p>In the element of voluntary action lies the distinction between
+age-grades and <i>secret societies</i>, which are organised on identical or
+similar lines but depend for membership on ceremonies of initiation,
+alike in the lowest as in the highest grade. Such societies may be
+termed voluntary. The differentia between the natal and the voluntary
+association lies in the fact that in the former all are members of one
+or other grade, in the latter only such as have taken steps to gain
+admission, all others being simply non-members.</p>
+
+<p>Although <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> all these forms of association are equally
+entitled to be classed as social organisations, the use of this term is
+limited in practice, at any rate as regards Australia, and is the
+accepted designation of the kinship form of natal associations only; for
+this limitation there is so far justification, that though they perhaps
+play a smaller part in the daily life of the people than the secret
+societies of some areas, with their club-houses and other features which
+determine the whole form of life, the kinship associations are normally
+regulative of marriage and thus exercise an influence in a field of
+their own.</p>
+
+<p>Marriage prohibitions in the various races of mankind show an almost
+endless diversity of form; but all are based on considerations either of
+consanguinity or kinship or on a combination of the two. The distinction
+between <i>consanguinity</i> and <i>kinship</i> first demands attention; the
+former depends on birth, the latter on the law or custom of the
+community, and this distinction is all-important, especially in dealing
+with primitive peoples. With ourselves the two usually coincide, though
+even in civilised communities there are variations in this respect.
+Thus, according to the law of England, the father of an illegitimate
+child is not akin to it, though <i>ex hypothesi</i> there is a <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span>tie of blood
+between them. In England nothing short of an Act of Parliament can make
+them akin; but in Scotland the subsequent marriage of the father with
+the mother of the child changes the legal status of the latter and makes
+it of kin with its father. These two examples make it abundantly evident
+that kinship is with us a matter of law.</p>
+
+<p>Among primitive peoples kinship occupies a similar position but with
+important differences. As with us, it is a sociological fact; custom,
+which has among them far more power than law among us, determines
+whether a man is of kin to his mother and her relatives alone, or to his
+father and father's relatives, or whether both sets of relatives are
+alike of kin to him. In the latter case, where parental kinship
+prevails, the limits of the kin are often determined by the facts of
+consanguinity. In the two former cases, where kinship is reckoned
+through males alone or through females alone, consanguinity has little
+or nothing to do with kinship, as will be shown more in detail below.</p>
+
+<p>Kinship is sociological, consanguinity physiological; in thus stating
+the case we are concerned only with broad principles. In practice the
+idea of consanguinity is modified in two ways and a sociological element
+is introduced, which has gone far to obscure the difference between
+these two systems of laying the foundations of human society. In the
+first place, custom determines the limits within which consanguinity is
+supposed to exist; or, in other words, at what point the descendants of
+a given ancestor cease to be blood relations. In the second place
+erroneous physiological ideas modify the ideas held as to actually
+existing consanguine relations, as we conceive them. The latter
+peculiarity does not affect the enquiry to any extent; it merely limits
+the sphere within which consanguinity plays a part, side by side with
+kinship, in moulding social institutions. If an Australian tribe, for
+example, distinguishes the actual mother of a child from the other women
+who go by the same kinship name, they may or may not develop on parallel
+lines their ideas as to the relation of the child and his real father.
+Some relation will almost certainly be found to exist between them; but
+it by no means follows that it arises from any idea of consanguinity. In
+other communities potestas and not consanguinity is held to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>determine
+the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring; and it is a
+matter for careful enquiry how far the same holds good in Australia,
+where the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be
+unrecognised by the natives. In speaking of consanguinity therefore, it
+must be made quite clear whether consanguinity according to native ideas
+or according to our own ideas is meant.</p>
+
+<p>The customary limitations and extensions of consanguinity, on the other
+hand, cause more inconvenience. They are of course sometimes combined
+with the other kind, which we may term quasi-physiological, but with
+this combination we need not deal, as we are concerned to analyse only
+on broad lines the nature of these elements. Just as, with us, kinship
+and consanguinity largely coincide, so with primitive peoples are the
+kinship organisations immense, if one-sided, extensions of blood
+relationship, at all events in theory. In many parts of the world a
+totem kin traces its descent to a single male or female ancestor; and
+even where, as in Australia, this is not the case, blood brotherhood is
+expressly asserted of the totem <span class="nowrap">kin<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">3</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>Entry into the totem kin may often be gained by adoption, though not
+apparently in Australia, and the blood relationship thus becomes an
+artificial one and partakes, even if the initial assumption be accepted
+as true, far more of the nature of kinship than of consanguinity. In
+Australia, and possibly in other parts of the world, there is a further
+extension of natal kinship. Although the tribe is not regarded as
+descended from a single pair, its members are certainly reckoned as of
+kin to each other in some way; the situation may be summarised by saying
+that under one of the systems of kinship organisation (the two-phratry),
+half of the members of the tribe in a given generation are related to a
+given man, A, and the other half to his wife. More than one observer
+assures us that there is a solidarity about the tribe, which regards
+some, if not all other <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>tribes as "wild blacks," though it may be on
+terms of friendship and alliance with certain neighbours, and feel
+itself united to them by a bond analogous to, though weaker than, that
+which holds its own members together.</p>
+
+<p>If however a homonymous totem kin exists even in a hostile or absolutely
+unknown tribe, a member of it will be regarded, as we learn from Dr
+Howitt, as a brother. How this view is reconciled with the belief that
+the tribe in question is alien and in no way akin to that in which the
+other totem kin is found, is a question of some interest for which there
+appears to be no answer in the literature concerning the Australian
+aborigines.</p>
+
+<p>Even if, therefore, we had reason to believe that all totem kins in a
+given tribe or group of tribes could make out a good case for their
+descent from single male or female ancestors, which is far from being
+the case, we should still have to recognise that kinship and not
+consanguinity is the proper term to apply to the relationship between
+members of the same group. For, as we have seen, it may be recruited
+from without in some cases, while in others, persons who are
+demonstrably not of the same blood, are regarded as totem-brethren by
+virtue of the common name.</p>
+
+<p>Enough has now been said to make clear the difference between
+consanguinity and kinship and to exemplify the nature of some of the
+transitional forms. As we have seen, it is on considerations of either
+consanguinity or kinship that many marriage prohibitions are based.</p>
+
+<p>Marriage prohibitions depend broadly on three kinds of considerations:
+(1) Kinship, intermarriage being forbidden to members of the same
+kinship group; a brief introductory sketch of the nature and
+distribution of kinship groups will be found below. (2) Locality. In New
+Guinea, parts of Australia, Melanesia, Africa, and possibly elsewhere,
+<i>local exogamy</i> is found. By this is meant that the resident in one
+place is bound to go outside his own group for a mate, and may perhaps
+be bound to seek a spouse in a specified locality. This kind of
+organisation is in Australia almost certainly an offshoot of kinship
+organisation (see p. <a href='#Page_10'>10</a>), and is <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> due to the same cause in
+other areas. (3) (<i>a</i>) consanguinity, and (<i>b</i>) affinity. The first of
+these <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span>considerations is regulative of marriage even in Australia, where
+the influence of kinship organisations is in the main supreme in these
+matters. We learn from Roth and other authorities that blood cousins,
+children of own brother and sister, may not marry in North-West Central
+Queensland, although the kinship regulations designate them as the
+proper spouses one for the other. (<i>b</i>) Considerations of affinity, the
+relations set up by marriage, do not affect the status of the parties,
+so far as the legality of marriage is concerned, till a somewhat higher
+stage is reached.</p>
+
+<p>In the present work we are concerned with kinship groups and the
+marriage regulations based on them. A kinship group, whether it be a
+totem kin, phratry, class, or other form of association, is a fraction
+of a tribe; and before we proceed to deal with kinship organisations, it
+will be necessary to say a few words on the nature of the tribe and the
+family. In Australia the tribe is a local aggregate, composed of
+friendly groups speaking the same language and owning corporately or
+individually the land to which the tribe lays claim. A change of tribe
+is effected by marriage plus removal, and possibly by simple residence;
+children belong to the tribe among which their parents reside. In the
+ordinary tribe each member seems to apply to every other member one or
+other of the kinship terms; and this no doubt accounts for the feeling
+of tribal solidarity already mentioned. There are however certain tribes
+in which the marriage regulations, as with the Urabunna, so split the
+intermarrying fractions, that the tribe is, as it were, divided into
+water-tight compartments; how far kinship terms are applied under these
+circumstances our information does not say.</p>
+
+<p>The tribe is defined by American anthropologists as a union of hordes or
+clans for common defence under a chief. The American tribe differs in
+two respects, at least, from the Australian tribe; in the first place,
+marriage outside the tribe is exceptional in America and common in
+Australia; in the second place, the stranger gains entrance to the
+American tribe only by adoption; and we may probably add, thirdly, that
+the American tribe does not invariably lay claim to landed property or
+hunting rights.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The tribe is subdivided in various ways. In addition to the various
+forms of natal and other associations, there is, at any rate in
+Australia, a local organisation; the local group is often the owner of a
+portion of the tribal area. This local group again falls into a number
+of families (in the European sense), and the land is parcelled out among
+them in some cases, in others it may be the property of individuals. But
+there is a great lack of clearness with regard to the bodies or persons
+in whom landed property is vested. The composition of the local group
+varies according to the customs of residence after marriage, and the
+rules by which membership of the kinship organisation is determined.
+These two forces acting together may produce two types of local group:
+(1) the mixed group, in which persons of various kinship organisations
+are scattered at random; (2) the kin group, in which either all the
+males or all the females together with the children are members of one
+kinship organisation.</p>
+
+<p>Save in the rare instances of non-exogamous kinship groups, the family
+necessarily contains one member, at least, whose kin is not the same as
+that of the remainder; this is either the husband or the wife, according
+as descent is reckoned in the female or the male line; where polygyny is
+practised, this unity may go no further than the phratry or the class,
+each wife being of a different totem kin.</p>
+
+<p>Although it frequently happens that the children belong to the kin which
+through one of the parents or otherwise exercises the supreme authority
+in the family, it is far from being the case that there is invariable
+agreement between the principles on which kinship and authority are
+determined. Three main types of family may be distinguished: (1)
+patripotestal, (2) matripotestal, (<i>a</i>) direct, and (<i>b</i>) indirect, in
+which the authority is wielded by the father, mother, and mother's
+relatives, in particular her brothers, respectively. Innumerable
+transitional forms are found, some of which will be mentioned in the
+next chapter, which deals with the rule of descent by which membership
+of natal groups is determined.</p>
+
+<p>Turning now to kinship organisations, we find that the most widely
+distributed type is the totem kin, in fact, if we except the Hottentots
+and a few other peoples among whom no trace <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>of it is found, it is
+difficult to say where totemism has not at one time or another
+prevailed. It is found as a living cult to-day among the greater part of
+the aborigines of North and South America, in Australia, and among some
+of the Bantu populations of the southern half of Africa. In more or less
+recognisable forms it is found in other parts of Africa, New Guinea,
+India, and other parts of the world. In the ancient world its existence
+has been maintained for Rome (clan Valeria etc.), Greece, and Egypt, but
+the absence of information as to details of the social structure renders
+these theories uncertain.</p>
+
+<p>Aberrant cases apart, totemism is understood to involve (1) the
+existence of a body of persons claiming kinship, who (2) stand in a
+certain relation to some object, usually an animal, and (3) do not marry
+within the kin.</p>
+
+<p>Passing over the classes, which are peculiar to Australia and will be
+fully dealt with below, we come to a more comprehensive form of kinship
+organisation in the phratries. These are a grouping of the community in
+two or more exogamous divisions, between which the totem kins, where
+they exist, are distributed. The essential feature of a phratry is that
+it is exogamous; its members cannot ordinarily marry within it, and,
+where there are more than two phratries, there may exist rules limiting
+their choice to certain <span class="nowrap">phratries.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">4</a></span></p>
+
+<p>This dual or other grouping of the kins is widely found in North
+America, the number of phratries ranging from two among the Tlinkits,
+Cayugas, Choctaws, and others, to ten among the Moquis of Arizona. As in
+Australia, the totem kins bearing the same eponymous animal as the
+phratry are usually, e.g. among the Tlinkits, found in the phratry in
+question. Exceptions to this rule are found among the Haida, where both
+eagle and raven are in the eagle phratry.</p>
+
+<p>The Mohegan and Kutchin phratries call for special notice. The kins of
+the former are arranged in three groups: wolf, turtle, and turkey; and
+the first phratry includes quadrupeds, the second turtles of various
+kinds and the yellow eel, and the third birds. We find a parallel to
+these phratries in the groups <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>of the Kutchin, but in the latter case
+our lack of knowledge of the tribe precludes us from saying whether
+totem kins exist among them, and, if so, how far the grouping is
+systematic; the Kutchin groups, according to one authority, are known by
+the generic names of birds, beasts, and fish. As a rule, however, no
+classification of kins is found, nor are the phratry names specially
+significant.</p>
+
+<p>Dual grouping of the kins is also found in New Guinea, the Torres
+Straits Islands, and possibly among the ancient <span class="nowrap">Arabs<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">5</a></span>; but evidence
+in the latter case has not been systematically dealt with.</p>
+
+<p>Other peoples have a similar dichotomous organisation; but it is either
+not based on the totem kins or they have fallen into the background.</p>
+
+<p>In various parts of Melanesia we find the people divided into two
+groups, each associated with a single totem or mythological personage,
+and sexual intercourse, whether marital or otherwise, is strictly
+forbidden between those of the same <span class="nowrap">phratry<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">6</a></span>. In India the Todas have
+a similar <span class="nowrap">organisation<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">7</a></span>,
+and the Wanika in East <span class="nowrap">Africa<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">8</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>Customs of residence and descent affect the distribution of the
+phratries within the tribe, no less than the composition of the local
+group. With patrilineal descent they tend to occupy the tribal territory
+in such a way that each phratry becomes a local group. With the
+disappearance of phratry names this would be transformed into a local
+exogamous group, which is, however, indistinguishable from the local
+group of the same nature which is the result of the development of a
+totem kin under similar conditions.</p>
+
+<p>As a rule kinship organisations descend in a given tribe either in the
+male line or in the female. Among the Ova-Herero, however, and other
+Bantu tribes, there are two kinds of organisation, one&mdash;the
+<i>eanda</i>&mdash;descending in female line and regulative of marriage, is
+clearly the totem kin; property remains <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>in the <i>eanda</i>, and
+consequently descends to the sister's son. The other&mdash;the
+<i>oruzo</i>&mdash;descends in the male line; it is concerned with chieftainship
+and priesthood, which remain in the same <i>oruzo</i>, and the heir is the
+brother's <span class="nowrap">son.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">9</a></span></p>
+
+<p>This dual rule of descent brings us face to face with the question of
+how membership of kinship groups is determined.</p>
+
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">1</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, <i>N.&nbsp;T.</i>, p. 225.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">2</span></a>&nbsp;Cf. Owen, <i>Musquakie Indians</i>, p. 122; Lahontan, <i>Voyages</i>,
+<span class="smrom">II</span>, 203-4; Morgan, <i>Ancient Society</i>, p. 81.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">3</span></a>&nbsp;Two kinds of kinship are recognised in Australian
+tribes&mdash;(<i>a</i>) totem and (<i>b</i>) phratry or class&mdash;but the precise
+relationship of one to the other is far from clear. Nor is there much
+information as to what terms of kinship are used within the totem kin.
+It is certain that neither set of terms includes the other, for the
+totem kin extends beyond the tribe or may do so, and there is more than
+one in each phratry.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">4</span></a>&nbsp;For the facts see Frazer, <i>Totemism</i>, and cf. p. 31
+<i>infra</i>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">5</span></a>&nbsp;MS. note from Dr Seligmann's unpublished <i>Report of
+Cook-Daniels Expedition; Camb. Univ. Torres Sts Exped.</i>, <span class="smrom">V</span>, 172; <i>Man</i>,
+1904, no. 18.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">6</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XVIII</span>, 282.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">7</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Man</i>, 1903, no. 97.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">8</span></a>&nbsp;New, <i>Travels</i>, p. 274.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">9</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Ausland</i>, 1856, p. 45, 1882, p. 834; <i>Allg. Miss. Zts.</i>
+<span class="smrom">V</span>, 354; <i>Zts. Vgl. Rechtswiss.</i> <span class="smrom">XIV</span>, 295; <i>Mitt.
+Orient. Seminar</i>, <span class="smrom">III</span>, 73, <span class="smrom">V</span>, 109. The recent work of
+Irle is inaccurate and confused.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">DESCENT.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Descent of kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in
+Australia. Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of
+rule of descent; relation to potestas, inheritance and local
+organisation.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>In discussions of the origin and evolution of kinship organisations, we
+are necessarily concerned not only with their forms but also with the
+rules of descent which regulate membership of them. Until recently the
+main questions at issue were twofold: (1) the priority or otherwise of
+female descent; (2) the causes of the transition from one form of
+descent to another. Of late the question has been raised whether in the
+beginning hereditary kinship groups existed at all, or whether
+membership was not rather determined by considerations of an entirely
+different order. Dr Frazer, who has enunciated this view, maintains that
+totemism rests on a primitive theory of conception, due to savage
+ignorance of the facts of <span class="nowrap">procreation.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">10</a></span>
+But his theory is based
+exclusively on the foundation of the beliefs of the Central Australians
+and seems to neglect more than one important point which goes to show
+that the Arunta have evolved their totemic system from the more ordinary
+hereditary form. Whether this be so or not, it is difficult to see how
+any idea of kinship could arise from such a condition of nescience. If
+we take the analogous case of the nagual or "individual totem" there
+seems to be no trace of any belief in the kinship of those who have the
+same animal as their nagual, but are otherwise bound by no tie of
+relationship. Yet if Dr Frazer's theory were correct, this is precisely
+what we ought to find.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>This is, however, no reason for rejecting the general proposition that
+kinship, at its origin, was not hereditary; or, more exactly, that the
+beginnings of the kinship groups found at the present day may be traced
+back to a point at which the hereditary principle virtually disappears,
+although the bond of union and perhaps the totem name already existed.
+If, as suggested by Mr Lang, man was originally distributed in small
+communities, known by names which ultimately came to be those of the
+totem kins, we may suppose that daily association would not fail to
+bring about that sense of solidarity in its members which it is found to
+produce in more advanced communities. In the case of the tribe an even
+feebler bond, the possession of a common language, seems to give the
+tribesmen a sense of the unity of the tribe, though perhaps other
+explanations may be suggested, such as the possession in common of the
+tribal land, or the origin of the tribe from a single blood-related
+group. However this may be, it seems reasonable to look for one factor
+of the first bond of union in the influence of the daily and hourly
+association of group-mates. On the other hand, if, as Mr Lang supposes,
+the original group was a consanguine one, the claims of the factor of
+consanguinity and perhaps of foster brotherhood and motherhood cannot be
+neglected. It may be true, as Dr Frazer argues, that man was originally
+and still is in some cases ignorant of physiological facts. But all
+races of man and a great part of the rest of the animal kingdom show us
+the phenomena of parental affection, of care for offspring and sometimes
+of union for their defence. This does not, it may be noted, imply any
+predominance of the <span class="nowrap">mother.<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">11</a></span></p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>We may suppose that the idea of kinship or the recognition of
+consanguinity, whichever be the more correct term to apply to these
+far-off developments of the factors of human society, extended only by
+degrees beyond the limits of the group. First, perhaps, came the naming
+of the group, already, it may be, exogamous; then came the recognition
+of the fact that those members of it, viz. the women, who passed to
+community B after being born and having resided for years in community
+A, were in reality, in spite of their change of residence, still in fact
+the kin of community A; finally came the step of assigning to their
+children the group names which were retained by their mothers from the
+original natal groups. This brings us face to face with the first of the
+fundamental questions of descent, to which allusion has been made.</p>
+
+<p>It is commonly assumed by students of primitive social organisation that
+matrilineal descent is the earlier and that it has everywhere preceded
+patrilineal descent; but the questions involved are highly complicated
+and it can hardly be said that the subject has been fully discussed.</p>
+
+<p>Much of what has been said on the point has been vitiated by the
+introduction of foreign factors. Thus, the child belongs to the tribe of
+the father where the wife removes to the husband's local group or tribe.
+But though it may be taken as a mark of matrilineal institutions, often
+associated with matria potestas or its analogue the rule of the mother's
+brother, that the husband should remove and live with the wife, we are
+by no means entitled to say that the removal of the wife to the husband
+implies a different state of things. Customs of residence are no guide
+to the principles on which descent is regulated. Consequently it is
+entirely erroneous to import into the discussion with which we are
+concerned, viz. the rules by which <i>kinship</i> is determined, any
+considerations based on the rules by which membership of a <i>tribe</i> is
+settled.</p>
+
+<p>Similarly, no proof of the existence of paternal authority in the family
+throws any light on the question of whether the children belong to the
+kin of the father rather than of the mother. Where the mother or
+mother's brother is the guardian, we are usually safe in assuming that
+descent is or has been until <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>recently matrilineal. But from the
+undisputed existence of patria potestas no similar inference can be
+drawn.</p>
+
+<p>Again, as will be shown below, not even the tie of blood between parent
+and child, confined though it may be in the opinion of the people whose
+institutions are in question, to a single parent, is an index to the way
+in which is determined the kinship organisation to which the child
+belongs.</p>
+
+<p>It is therefore clear that the utmost discrimination is necessary in
+dealing with these questions; rules of descent must be kept apart from
+matters which indeed influence the evolution of the rules but are in no
+way decisive as to their form at any given moment.</p>
+
+<p>Returning now to the alleged priority of matrilineal descent in
+determining the kinship organisation into which a child passes, it may
+be said that whereas evidences of the passage from female to male
+reckoning may be <span class="nowrap">observed,<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">12</a></span>
+there is virtually none of a change in
+the opposite direction. In other words, where kinship is reckoned in the
+female line, there is no ground for supposing that it was ever
+hereditary in any other way. On the other hand, where kinship is
+reckoned in the male line, it is frequently not only legitimate but
+necessary to conclude that it has succeeded a system of female kinship.
+But this clearly does not mean that female descent has in <i>all</i> cases
+preceded the reckoning of kinship through males. Patrilineal descent may
+have been directly evolved without the intermediate stage of reckoning
+through females.</p>
+
+<p>The problem is probably insoluble. No decisive data are available, for
+the mere absence of traces of matrilineal descent does not necessarily
+prove more than that it had long been superseded by reckoning of kinship
+through males. All that can be said is that in the kinship organisations
+known to us female descent seems to have prevailed in the vast majority
+of cases and probably existed in the residual class of indeterminable
+examples.</p>
+
+<p>With patria potestas it is, of course, different. There can be little
+doubt that it might and probably did develop in the absence <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>of kinship
+organisations and in a state of society where consanguinity is no real
+bond after the children have reached puberty. If therefore under such
+circumstances a kinship organisation were to come into existence, either
+independently or by transmission, it might well be that patrilineal
+principles prevailed from the first. But of such a case we have no
+knowledge. It may perhaps be questioned whether the actually existing
+peoples who appear to have no kinship organisations, such as the
+Hottentots, the Bushmen, the Veddahs and perhaps the Fuegians, are not
+in this state rather as a result of the break-up of their former
+organisation than because they have never evolved kinship groups. But
+our knowledge in these matters is lamentably small and the problem is
+not one which calls for discussion here.</p>
+
+<p>The second fundamental problem relating to rules of descent is that of
+the cause of the transition from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. The
+subject needs to be discussed in detail for each particular area before
+general conclusions can be formulated; it is quite possible that the
+causes will be found to differ widely; for no general rule can be laid
+down as to the relations between matrilineal descent and other cultural
+conditions.</p>
+
+<p>All that can be attempted here is an examination of the various elements
+in the problem so far as it affects Australia. To this may be prefixed a
+further discussion of the origin of matrilineal descent with especial
+reference to Australian conditions.</p>
+
+<p>It is commonly assumed that in a pure matrilineal community, the husband
+removes to the wife's local group (matrilocal marriage), or if not that,
+that at any rate the authority in the family rests in the hands of the
+mother's brothers, who are also the heirs to the exclusion of the
+children. But of any such custom of removal there is but the very
+slenderest evidence in Australia. According to Howitt it occurs
+occasionally in Victoria and among the Dieri; among the Wakelbura it is
+done only if a man elopes with a betrothed woman and the man to whom she
+was betrothed dies; among the Kuinmurbura it seems to have been a
+recognised thing for a man who married a woman of another tribe to
+remove, but in this case he took no part in <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>intertribal <span class="nowrap">warfare<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">13</a></span>. In
+all these cases, the Kurnai excepted, descent is reckoned in the female
+line.</p>
+
+<p>If however Dr Howitt's informant, who does not seem to have been
+particularly accurate in many cases, is to be relied on, the removal of
+the husband to the wife's group is also found among the patrilineal
+Maryborough tribes, though only if the woman belonged to a distant
+tribelet, whatever that may <span class="nowrap">be<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">14</a></span>. To this information is added the
+statement that in such cases the husband joined his wife's tribe for
+purposes of hostilities also and that it has happened that a son has
+come into conflict with his father under these circumstances and
+endangered his life with full knowledge of what he was doing. There is,
+it is true, no definite statement to the effect that children in these
+tribes take their totems from the father, but we may assume that it is
+the case. If therefore the statement in question is accurate, it is a
+pretty clear proof of the break-up of the social system; for under no
+circumstances does the totem-kinsman, as a rule, violate the
+sacro-sanctity of his own flesh. It cannot therefore be argued that the
+fact of removal in the Maryborough tribes is any very strong evidence of
+the primitive nature of the custom. In the other tribes, on the other
+hand, it is distinctly stated that the practice prevails only when
+marriage takes place between members of two different tribes, and among
+the Wakelbura only exceptionally even when the wife is of an alien folk.
+Whatever else the custom proves in these cases, it certainly evidences
+the existence of friendly relations between the tribes in question; for
+if it were otherwise the man would hardly be disposed to give up the
+security of his own people for the perils of a strange community; on the
+other hand it is hardly likely that the man's tribe would allow him to
+pass over to the ranks of the strangers, nor would they view with
+equanimity the loss of effective fighting strength which would result
+from the fact that his children too would be numbered against them, not
+for them, if it came to hostilities. The custom is therefore clear
+evidence of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>fairly permanent friendly relations in the district in
+question; and it is plain that we cannot assume these to have existed in
+more primitive times. It is therefore difficult to see in what way the
+present day practices lend support to the theory that the original usage
+was for the husband to remove to his wife's group. For, be it noted,
+there is not a single case, unless we include the anomalous Kurnai, in
+which the husband removes to his wife's group within his own tribe; but
+clearly this is the custom to which the removal theory applies. So far,
+therefore, as Australia is concerned, the removal theory falls to the
+ground; it cannot of course be disproved, but we are not justified in
+assuming that matrilineal descent and matria potestas are due to a
+custom of removal.</p>
+
+<p>Inasmuch as <span class="nowrap">patrilocal<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">15</a></span>
+marriage involves descent of group and tribal
+property rights in the male line, it might appear that in rejecting the
+hypothesis of a prior stage of matrilocal marriage, we are involving
+ourselves in difficulties; for it is clearly not easy to see how descent
+could come to be reckoned through the mother, while property descended
+through the father. But it is obviously unnecessary in the first place
+to regard the individual rights of property as originating
+simultaneously or under the same conditions as the rules as to kinship
+or even communal property; there is nothing to show how long the present
+system of land tenure in Australia has held good, and it is clearly one
+which points to a certain growth of population; for if the local group
+were remote from their neighbours, there would be little need to
+encroach; moreover, the exact delimitation of territory now in practice
+is a thing of long growth.</p>
+
+<p>Further consideration however shows that it is only by a confusion of
+thought that we can speak of land descending in the male line (that is,
+of course, in respect of group rights, not private property, to which we
+return later); strictly speaking the descent of landed property is
+neither in the male nor the female line but local. A man who removes to
+his wife's tribe is, so far as we can see, as truly part owner of the
+tribal land as if he were himself a member of the tribe by birth within
+its limits. The suggested difficulty, therefore, does not exist, and the
+conclusion as to removal customs holds good.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>We may now examine the relation of matriliny to the seat of authority in
+the family. Questions of potestas naturally range themselves under more
+than one head. We have (1) the relation of the husband (<i>a</i>) to the wife
+and (<i>b</i>) to the children; (2) the relation of the mother to the
+children, and closely connected with this the influence of the mother's
+brother; finally (3) we have the position of the widow, a matter indeed
+more intimately connected with inheritance from a legal point of view
+but in Australia more closely connected with potestas than in countries
+where slavery is a recognised institution.</p>
+
+<p>Small as is our information on Australian jurisprudence, it is certain
+that the husband enjoys practically unrestricted rights over the person
+of his wife, <i>pirrauru</i> and similar customs apart. He may at will lend
+her or hire her out to strangers; he may punish her infidelity,
+disobedience or awkwardness by chastisement, not stopping short of the
+infliction of spear or club wounds; he may even, according to <span class="nowrap">Roth<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">16</a></span>,
+go so far as to kill her and yet get off scot free, his only duty in
+such a case being to provide a sister for the brothers of his dead wife
+to kill in retaliation.</p>
+
+<p>This custom suggests that the kin to which the woman belongs claim a
+certain property in her even after she is married, and this partial
+proprietorship naturally implies a slight protecting influence; for it
+would clearly not be in every case easy for the homicidal male to find a
+sister ready to go out and be killed as a set-off to his murdered wife.
+We should not, it is true, overlook the fact that the customs of the
+Pitta-Pitta differ from those of many of the Australian tribes, in that
+exchange of sisters is not practised. Otherwise it would be tempting to
+argue that this proprietorship in the women of their kin may go back to
+the time of Mr Lang's connubial groups and help to explain the reckoning
+of descent through females. For clearly, if a woman still belongs in a
+sense to the group she has left, so may her children belong to the same
+group, inasmuch as their relationship to her is, to us at any rate,
+unmistakeable. If any evidence could be produced for the widespread
+existence of the custom (found in various parts of the globe, though
+not, up to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>the present, in Australia), according to which the widow and
+her children remove to her own district, some probability would be
+imparted to this hypothesis.</p>
+
+<p>The ordinary rule as regards punishment inflicted by the husband on the
+wife seems to be that he may go any length short of doing her a mortal
+injury, without being liable to be called to account. The punishment of
+death however may only be inflicted for adultery and certain specified
+offences without incurring a blood-feud with the woman's relatives.</p>
+
+<p>It is by no means improbable that under the influence of the custom of
+exchanging sisters there may be a tendency for the control of the kin in
+this respect to diminish; in fact the Boulia example is only explicable
+on this hypothesis. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that
+elopement, or real marriage by capture, as distinguished from formal
+abduction, would, so far as we can see, have a similar effect, and the
+rise of the custom of exchange of sisters would in that case tend to
+re-establish rather than weaken the power of the woman's kin, at any
+rate in the first instance.</p>
+
+<p>However this may be, the woman's kin exercises, <i>prim&acirc; facie</i>, some kind
+of protectorship. At the present day the kinship may be matrilineal or
+patrilineal without affecting their right. But if, before kinship was
+reckoned at all, this protectorship were exercised for the benefit of
+the children, we clearly have a possible cause of matriliny.</p>
+
+<p>For a discussion of the question of the inheritance of the deceased's
+wife by his brother we have more facts at our disposal. As a matter of
+fact it is a not infrequent custom in Australia for the widow to pass to
+the deceased husband's <span class="nowrap">brother<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">17</a></span>; or if she does not become his wife,
+he decides to whom she shall be <span class="nowrap">allotted<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">18</a></span>. In no case do the woman's
+kin seem to have a voice in the selection of her new husband. On the
+whole therefore the proprietary rights found in the Boulia district seem
+to be the product of exceptional local conditions. If this is so, it is
+clear that in the matter of potestas the rights of the woman's kin are
+now absolutely restricted to protecting her from a death <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>which she has
+not according to native law deserved and to avenging such a death when
+it is inflicted by the husband.</p>
+
+<p>The so-called levirate, or right of succession to the widow, is clearly
+of much importance, so far as questions of dominion are concerned; but
+as regards the problems of descent the evidence is less easily
+interpreted. It has sometimes been assumed that the succession of the
+brother and not the son is a mark of matriliny; but it is clear that
+where the right of appropriating the widow is concerned, this is very
+far from being the case, for the simple reason that the real matria
+potestas would put her at the disposal of the kin from whom she
+originally came; on the other hand, inasmuch as the son is naturally
+debarred from marrying his own mother or his tribal mother, who commonly
+belongs to a class into which he does not marry, there might easily
+arise in a purely patripotestal and patrilineal tribe a custom of
+handing over the widow to the father's brother.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole however it seems simplest to regard the matter as one in
+which the rights are determined by no considerations of inheritance or
+descent but simply by the rule that the property in the woman remains
+vested in the body of purchasers. For it must be remembered that not
+only an own but also a tribal sister may be given in exchange for a
+wife. From this it follows that, theoretically at any rate, the
+contracting parties are corporations rather than individuals, and in
+this case the death of the individual on whose behalf the transaction
+has been effected does not extinguish the proprietary rights acquired by
+handing over a woman, standing in the relation of sister to the one
+corporation, in exchange for another woman standing in the relation of
+sister to the other corporation.</p>
+
+<p>If this solution is correct, it is unnecessary to go into the
+complicated question of the relation of brother-inheritance to matriliny
+and patriliny. For it is by no means clear that it is an exemplification
+of the former rather than the latter principle. It may, of course, be
+argued that brothers succeed as children of the same mother; but against
+this must be set the fact that they are also children of the same
+father; for uncertain paternity can only be a <i>vera causa</i> where
+<i>pirrauru</i> and similar customs are found; and even here the pre-eminence
+of the primary husband <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>might well be held to determine the legal
+paternity of the children, which is, of course, especially in Africa, a
+matter of potestas rather than procreation. However this may be, the
+position of the widow does not appear to invalidate the guardianship
+origin of matriliny.</p>
+
+<p>We now turn to the question of why male tends to take the place of
+female descent. The possible factors are (1) authority in the family,
+(2) the rise of chieftainship and inheritance generally, and (3) the
+organisation of the family group. Of the authority of father or mother
+over the children, there is not much trace in Australia except in the
+most youthful period of the pre-adult life. It is for example
+exceptional for a parent to correct a child. As to who decides in cases
+of infanticide we have unfortunately too little information to be able
+to generalise. Only in one important step&mdash;that of betrothal&mdash;have we
+anything like adequate information, and the interrelations between rule
+of descent and potestas are found to be in this case sufficiently clear,
+though it is not clear on what principle it is decided <i>who</i> shall
+exercise the right.</p>
+
+<p>Taking first tribes with matrilineal descent, we find that the Barkinji,
+the Wakelbura, the Dieri, and in some cases the Wollaroi, assign the
+right of betrothal to the mother or mother's <span class="nowrap">brother<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">19</a></span>. In other
+cases, transitional forms, the father, his elder brother, or the girl's
+brothers decide, or else the parents or two of these persons
+<span class="nowrap">jointly<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">20</a></span>. Among the Mukjarawaint the betrothal rested in part with
+the paternal <span class="nowrap">grandparents<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">21</a></span>; it may be noted that the grandfather had
+to decide also whether a child should be brought up or killed. Among the
+Kuinmurbura it falls to the mother's brother's son or the father's
+sister's son, who is, apparently, entitled to marry the girl
+<span class="nowrap">himself<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">22</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>Turning now to tribes with male descent, we find that the father, his
+brother, or the parents, almost invariably make the <span class="nowrap">decision<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">23</a></span>. Among
+the eight-class tribes, Spencer and Gillen assert in one <span class="nowrap">place<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">24</a></span> that
+the mother's brother betroths a girl; <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>but this is contradicted in two
+other <span class="nowrap">passages<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">25</a></span>, and cannot be regarded as reliable.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole therefore it appears that while there are some survivals of
+matria potestas into patrilineal descent, and in the matrilineal stage
+transitional forms are found, the right of betrothal tends to pass from
+the mother's to the father's side, when the rule of descent changes; but
+there is little to show how far a change in the right of betrothal tends
+to cause a change in the rule of descent.</p>
+
+<p>A curious fact may be noted here, which goes far to demonstrate the
+absolutely heterogeneous nature of kinship and consanguinity, and
+suggests that descent is not reckoned in the female line on account of
+any supposed specially close connection between the mother and her
+offspring. Of the four tribes among which, according to Howitt, the
+child is regarded as the offspring of the father <span class="nowrap">alone<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">26</a></span>, the mother
+being only its nurse, two, the Yuin and Kulin, have male descent; two,
+however, the Wolgal and Tatathi, have female descent, and among the
+latter, in addition, the right of betrothal lies with the mother or
+mother's brother.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole, therefore, it may be said that no questions of potestas
+seem to have exercised any influence in bringing about the transition
+from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. It does not appear necessary,
+therefore, to do more than allude in passing to a fact which may well
+have had something to do with the decay of matria potestas, at any rate,
+so far as the mother's brother is concerned, even if it did not actively
+hasten the coming of patria potestas. This fact is the considerable size
+of the area over which, with the rise of the so-called nations, it is
+possible to select a wife. The more remote geographically the mother's
+relatives, the less their influence. Allowance must of course be made
+for the opportunities of discussion afforded by the great gatherings of
+the tribes; but the wider area of bride-choice must have shaken the
+authority of the brother.</p>
+
+<p>It has been remarked above that there is no well-established case of the
+right of betrothal being assigned on patrilineal prin<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>ciples in a
+matrilineal tribe. The influence of the father's brother is not
+necessarily a mark of patrilineal tendencies, except in so far as all
+patria potestas is such. That the elder brother has authority in this
+case is no more decisive than that the elder brother has authority in
+cases of betrothal; it is no more an exemplification of the simple
+patria potestas, which has already been shown to be universal and under
+but slight limitations so far as the wife is concerned. From the point
+of view of potestas, it is a great advance that the father should be
+able to dispose of his own daughter in marriage; but if we may judge by
+the survival of matria potestas into patriliny, the cases of patria
+potestas under matriliny cannot have exercised an important influence in
+bringing about a change in the rule of descent.</p>
+
+<p>The case of the power of the girl's own brother is somewhat different.
+<i>Prim&acirc; facie</i> it appears to owe its origin to the fact that it is the
+brothers who are mainly interested in the transaction, inasmuch as it is
+to them that wives come in exchange for the sisters given in marriage.
+Consequently we cannot, as has already been the case with the so-called
+levirate, assign the practice definitely either to matripotestal or
+patripotestal customs, for father's and mother's authority are alike
+overruled.</p>
+
+<p>It has already been stated that we have but few data for estimating the
+influence of the right of betrothal on the rule of descent. Clearly the
+father has little to gain from the fact that his daughter follows him
+rather than the mother, when the inevitable effect of the marriage
+regulations is to make her children of the phratry and totem of her
+husband, and consequently to make them of a different phratry and totem
+from her father. Under matriliny on the other hand there is nothing to
+prevent the grandchildren from being of the same totem as the
+grandfather, and they are necessarily of the same class in a four-class
+tribe. If considerations with regard to the phratry and totem of the
+grandchildren played any part in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent, this must have been based on a review of the changes that would
+be brought about in the position of the son's and not the daughter's
+offspring. But this is unlikely.</p>
+
+<p>But on the other hand the father's disposal of the daughter's <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>hand is
+indirectly a means of increasing his influence both with his son and in
+general. If the son gains his wife by an exchange of sisters, the
+father's authority is obviously increased. But we do not know how far
+this factor of the right of betrothal has operated.</p>
+
+<p>Turning now to questions of inheritance, we find that properly speaking
+the hereditary chief is unknown in Australia. There is a tendency for
+the son of the tribal headman to succeed his father, but it is subject
+to exceptions. Moreover, it is by no means a universal rule for the
+tribe to have an over-headman; it may be ruled by the council of
+district headmen. In any case the influence of the quasi-hereditary
+character of the over-headmanship upon the rule of descent cannot but
+have been comparatively slight.</p>
+
+<p>It is, on the other hand, usual for the local group and the totem kin to
+have headmen. In the case of the latter, age is often the qualification,
+as among the <span class="nowrap">Dieri<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">27</a></span>; in such cases there is no possible effect on the
+rule of succession. But among some of the Victorian tribes with
+matrilineal descent the rule is for the son to follow the father in the
+<span class="nowrap">headmanship<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">28</a></span>; and the same is the case, as we should expect, among
+the patrilineal eight-class <span class="nowrap">tribes<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">29</a></span>. The most important tribe in
+which hereditary headmanship is combined with female descent is the
+<span class="nowrap">Wiradjeri<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">30</a></span>; their neighbours, the Kamilaroi, showed marked respect to
+the son of a headman, if he possessed ability, though they did not,
+apparently, make him his father's <span class="nowrap">successor<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">31</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole, then, we cannot assign much weight to this element in the
+list of possible causes of the transition.</p>
+
+<p>Of inheritance of chattels or land and fixtures we know little. From
+Spencer and Gillen we learn that among the Warramunga the mother's
+brother, or daughter's husband, succeeds to the boomerangs, and other
+moveable <span class="nowrap">property<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">32</a></span>. Among the Kulin and the Kurnai inheritance in the
+male line seems to have been the rule. In the Adelaide district, as we
+learn from <span class="nowrap">Gerstaecker<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">33</a></span>, individual property in land was known; it
+descended in the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>male line. Among the Turribul there was individual
+property in <i>bunya-bunya</i> trees; these too devolved from father to
+<span class="nowrap">son<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">34</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand on the Bloomfield property in zamia nut grounds has
+vested in women and descends from mother to <span class="nowrap">daughter<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">35</a></span>; but in this
+remarkable variant we see, of course, not the influence of the mother's
+kin, but female influence or rather the right of females to the produce
+of their labour. In respect of other property, inheritance in North
+Queensland is in the male line, for it descends to blood brothers and
+remains in the same exogamous group from generation to generation.</p>
+
+<p>This brings us to the question of the part played by the local group in
+causing the change from female to male descent. Under ordinary
+circumstances, with female descent, the local group is made up of
+persons of different phratries and totems; in any case, just as the
+phratry and totem of the members of the individual family change from
+generation to generation, the complexion of the local group is liable to
+be completely changed; though in practice the changes in one direction
+are no doubt counterbalanced by changes in the other, so that the net
+result may be nil, when the original differences were small. But we
+cannot suppose that the group was often evenly balanced; and a change in
+the rule of descent would in that case have important results for the
+local group and in any case for the individual family.</p>
+
+<p>The importance of the difference in the constitution of the local group
+under descent in the male line is seen when we reflect that in the
+normal tribe the totem kin is practically the unit for many purposes.
+If, for example, an emu man has killed, let us say, an iguana man, it is
+the duty of the iguana men to avenge the death of their kinsman. Their
+vengeance need not, however, fall on the original perpetrator of the
+deed; according to the rules of savage justice all the emu men are
+equally responsible with the culprit; consequently it suffices to kill
+the first emu person whom they can find. Conversely, those to whom an
+emu man looks for defence, when he is attacked, or assistance, when he
+wishes to abduct a wife or anything of that sort, are his fellow emu
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>men. It is therefore clear that the rule of male descent gives far
+greater security to the members of a local group; for they are
+surrounded by kinsmen. Under the rule of female descent, on the other
+hand, they probably have some kinsmen in the same group but equally a
+considerable number of members of other totem kins.</p>
+
+<p>Self-interest therefore, no less than the natural sympathy between
+fathers and children, as well as between members of the same group
+(quite apart from forays and fighting), must have tended to bring about
+a change in the laws of descent.</p>
+
+<p>The late Major J.&nbsp;W. Powell has already described the transition from
+matria potestas to patria potestas among the Pueblo peoples. He put it
+down to economic conditions, which lead the groups to scatter, each
+under the headship of a male, who is also the husband; this naturally
+resulted in a weakening of the influence of the mother's brother. It is,
+however, less clear that it would bring about the decay of the power of
+the mother herself, which in Australian tribes, at any rate, seems to be
+independent of the support she obtains from her male relatives.</p>
+
+<p>In Australia, as we have seen, the change from matria to patria potestas
+had but little influence in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent. Here, too, the change in the rule of descent may be put down in
+the main to economic causes also in a broad sense. Dumping was not in
+those days a question of practical politics; the problem was to prevent
+the neighbours from pursuing the policy of the free and open port. The
+necessity of protecting tribal and group property in land and game would
+naturally tend to bind men closer and closer, in proportion as the
+pressure from without became greater. It is perhaps hardly accidental
+that the main area of male descent is that which has also developed the
+Intichiuma ceremonies.</p>
+
+<p>If Prof. Gregory's <span class="nowrap">view<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">36</a></span> that the occupation of Victoria by the
+natives dates back no more than 300 years is correct, we may perhaps see
+in the migration one cause of the rise of patriliny. Anything which
+tended to shake the influence of the mother's kin would increase the
+father's power; and the need of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>protecting newly established groups
+from the incursions of their neighbours would be more urgent than in
+older districts. As we have seen, the first mentioned cause has
+elsewhere had little direct effect; but it may well have played a larger
+part under the novel conditions of migration and occupation of fresh
+territory.</p>
+
+<p>In South Queensland the fractionation of tribes seems to have gone
+further than elsewhere, unless we suppose that we have here an area,
+where, as in California, pressure from without has crowded together the
+remnants of many tribes. Although it is not obvious how the
+multiplication of distinct tribes has favoured patrilineal descent, we
+may, at any rate, say that the conditions in the area are exceptional;
+possibly it was more fruitful than the greater part of the continent; if
+so personal property in the shape of trees, etc., which we have already
+seen in existence in this area, would play a more important <i>r&ocirc;le</i> here,
+and may well have determined the transition to patrilineal descent.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">10</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Fortn. Rev.</i> Sept. 1905, cf. van Gennep, <i>Mythes et
+L&eacute;gendes</i>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">11</span></a>&nbsp;It
+cannot be said that the ordinary theory of the
+development of kinship in the female line is satisfactory. The
+consanguine relation of mother and child does not appear to be a
+complete answer to the question why kinship&mdash;an entirely different
+thing&mdash;was reckoned through the mother; the alleged uncertainty of
+fatherhood is in the first place closely connected with an unproven
+stage of promiscuity and consequently hardly a <i>vera causa</i>, until
+further evidence of such a stage has been produced; and again among the
+Arunta, it is rather potestas than physical fatherhood which, on their
+theory, determines the kinship of the child so far as the class is
+concerned. For the primitive group therefore we cannot assert any
+predominant interest of the mother in the children nor yet admit that it
+would necessarily be important if it were shown to exist.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">12</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Ann&eacute;e Sociologique</i> <span class="smrom">V</span>, 104 sq.; <span class="smrom">VIII</span>,
+132 sq.; Tylor in <i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XVIII</span>, 245-272.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">13</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, pp. 220, 225, 234, 248; cf. 159, 269.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">14</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> p. 234.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">15</span></a>&nbsp;P. 30 <i>infra</i>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">16</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Ethnological Studies</i>, p. 141.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">17</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, pp. 193, 224, 227, 236.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">18</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> p. 248, cf. 227.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">19</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, pp. 195, 221, 177, 217.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">20</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> pp. 210, 227, 252, 216, 177, 260.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">21</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> p. 243.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">22</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> p. 219.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">23</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> pp. 232, 257, 236.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">24</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 603.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">25</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> pp. 77 n., 114.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">26</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, pp. 263, 255, 198, 195.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">27</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 298.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">28</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> pp. 306, 308 sq.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">29</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 23.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">30</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 303.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">31</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> p. 302.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">32</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 524.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">33</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Reisen.</i> <span class="smrom">IV</span>, 347.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">34</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Petrie's Reminiscences</i>, p. 117.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">35</span></a>&nbsp;<i>N.&nbsp;Q. Ethn. Bull.</i> <span class="smrom">VIII</span>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">36</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Proc. R.&nbsp;S. Vict.</i> <span class="smrom">XVII</span>, 120.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem
+kin. "Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in
+Australia. General sketch.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>Before proceeding to deal with the Australian facts it will be well to
+define the terminology to be employed, and give a brief survey of a
+typical organisation. Looking at the population from the territorial
+point of view in the first place, we find aggregates of tribes; these
+may be termed <i>nations</i>. The component tribes are friendly, one with
+another; they may and often do hold initiation ceremonies and other
+ceremonials in common; although the language is usually syntactically
+the same, and though they contain many words in common, the vocabularies
+differ to such an extent that members of different tribes are not
+mutually intelligible. How far the occurrence of identical kinship
+organisation and nomenclature should be taken as indicating a still
+larger unity than the nation is a difficult question. <i>Prim&acirc; facie</i> the
+nation is a relatively late phenomenon; but the distribution of the
+names of kinship organisations, as will be shown later, indicates that
+communication, if not alliance, existed over a wide area at some
+periods, which it is difficult to suppose were anything but remote.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of the <i>tribe</i> has already been defined. It is a community
+which occupies a definite area, recognises its solidarity and possesses
+a common speech or dialects of the same.</p>
+
+<p>Between the tribe and the family occur various subdivisions, known as
+sub-tribes, hordes, local groups, etc., but without any very clear
+definition of their nature. It appears, however, that the tribal area is
+sometimes so parcelled out that property in it <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>is vested, not in the
+tribe as a whole, but in the <i>local group</i>, which welcomes
+fellow-tribesmen in times of plenty, but has the right of punishing
+intruders of the same tribe who seek for food without permission; for a
+non-tribesman the penalty is death. In some cases the local group is
+little more than an undivided family including three generations; it may
+then occupy and own an area of some ten miles radius. In other cases the
+term is applied to a larger aggregate, the nature and rights of which
+are not strictly defined; it may number some hundreds of persons and
+form one-third of the whole tribe; it seems best to denominate such an
+aggregate by the name of <i>sub-tribe</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The term <i>family</i> may be retained in its ordinary sense.</p>
+
+<p>Superposed on the tribal organisation are the kinship organisations,
+which, in the case of most Australian tribes, are independent of
+locality. Leaving out of account certain anomalous tribes, it may be
+said broadly that an Australian tribe is divided into two sets, called
+phratries, primary classes, moieties, etc. by various authors; the term
+used in the present work for these divisions is <i>phratry</i>. Membership of
+a phratry depends on birth and is taken <i>directly</i> from the mother
+(<i>matrilineal descent</i>) or father (<i>patrilineal descent</i>).</p>
+
+<p>In Queensland and part of N.&nbsp;S. Wales the phratry is again subdivided,
+and four <i>intermarrying classes</i> (sometimes called sub-phratries) are
+formed, two of which make up each phratry. In North Australia and
+Queensland a further subdivision of each of these classes is found,
+making eight in all. Descent in the classes is <i>indirect</i> matrilineal or
+<span class="nowrap">indirect<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">37</a></span>
+patrilineal, the child belonging to the mother's or
+father's phratry as before, but being assigned to the class of that
+phratry to which the mother or father does not belong. The classes of
+father and son together are called a <i>couple</i>. The parent from whom the
+phratry and class name are thus derived is said to be the <i>determinant
+spouse</i>.</p>
+
+<p>These phratries and classes regulate marriage. It is forbidden to marry
+within one's own phratry. This custom is termed <i>exogamy</i>. When the
+husband removes and lives in his wife's group the marriage is
+<i>matrilocal</i>; if the wife removes it is <i>patrilocal</i>.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In addition to the division into classes each phratry is further divided
+into a number of <i>totem kins</i>. A <i>totem</i> is usually a species of animals
+or plants; a body of human beings stands in a certain peculiar relation
+to the totem species and is termed the totem kin; each member of a totem
+kin is termed a <i>kinsman</i>. Membership of the totem kin usually descends
+directly from parent to child.</p>
+
+<p>The existence of these kinship organisations is universally recognised.
+Mr R.&nbsp;H. Mathews has recently asserted the existence of yet another form
+and at the same time controverted the accepted views as to the operation
+and meaning of those described above. He distinguishes in certain tribes
+of New South Wales kinship organisations running across the phratries;
+these are of two kinds, according to the author, but they do not seem to
+differ in function. They are termed by Mr Mathews "<i>blood</i>" and
+"<i>shade</i>" divisions, and are held by him to be the names of the really
+exogamous groups. The subject is discussed in detail below.</p>
+
+<p>In order to make the working of these regulations plain, let us take as
+an example the Kamilaroi tribe of N.&nbsp;S. Wales, with two phratries, four
+classes and various totem kins. The phratries are named Dilbi and
+Kupathin; Dilbi is divided into two classes, Muri and Kubi; Kupathin
+into Kumbo and Ipai. The Dilbi totems, which may belong to either of the
+classes, are kangaroo, opossum and iguana; those of Kupathin are emu,
+bandicoot and black snake. Every member of the tribe has his own
+phratry, class and totem; these all come to him by descent.</p>
+
+<p>We have little or no information as to the local grouping of the
+Kamilaroi tribes, but it was possibly not unlike that of some of the
+tribes to the north-west. In the case of the latter the tribal area was
+some 3000 sq. miles in extent, it was split up into smaller areas,
+thirty or more in number, which were the property of the local groups; a
+local group consisted frequently of three generations of relatives. When
+we come to deal below with marriage regulations it will be shown that
+husband, wife and child under the four-class system all belong to
+different classes; there were therefore in each group at least three
+classes, if not four, and consequently members of two <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>phratries. If we
+assume that the same conditions prevailed among the Kamilaroi, the local
+groups would then be made up of members of both the Dilbi and Kupathin
+phratries; and probably all four classes, Muri, Kubi, Ipai and Kumbo,
+would be found in each group, which in Australia varied in size
+according to local conditions from 20 or 30 to 200; under special
+conditions, such as prevailed in the neighbourhood of Lake Alexandrina,
+the number might run up to 600 or more, but this was exceptional.</p>
+
+<p>From the fact that the totems are divided between the phratries it is
+clear that the local group may also have members of all the six totem
+kins mentioned above, among its members.</p>
+
+<p>The rules by which marriage and descent are regulated are apparently
+very complicated but practically very simple. Taking the Kamilaroi tribe
+again, the rule is that Muri marries Butha (a female Kumbo) and their
+children are Ipai and Ipatha: Kubi marries Ipatha and their children are
+Kumbo and Butha; in each case the children belong to the same phratry as
+the mother but to the other class in that phratry. This is termed
+indirect matrilineal descent.</p>
+
+<p>The rule of descent for the totem among the Kamilaroi was simpler;
+membership of a totem kin descends directly from a mother to her child.
+The combined effect of these rules is that if, for example, a male Dilbi
+of the Muri class and iguana totem wants to marry, he must choose a wife
+of the Kupathin phratry, the Kumbo class, and either the emu, bandicoot,
+or black snake totems; suppose he marries an emu woman; then his
+children are of the Kupathin phratry, the Ipai (or Ipatha) class, and
+the emu totem. These regulations are naturally more complicated among
+the eight-class tribes; on the other hand, where only phratries and
+totems are found, but no classes, descent is much simpler; for in each
+case the child takes the phratry and totem of its mother, where
+matrilineal descent prevails, or of its father, where patrilineal
+descent is found.</p>
+
+<p>The general rule in Australia is that the wife goes to live with her
+husband; in other words, she leaves the local group in which she was
+born and becomes a member of her husband's local group. The effect of
+this is very different according as <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>descent is reckoned through the
+mother or through the father. Taking the Kamilaroi again, the
+Muri-iguana man brings into his group a Butha-emu woman; their children
+are Ipatha-emu. If, therefore, a local group is made up of the
+descendants of a single family, the phratry, class, and totem names vary
+from generation to generation; for the girls go to other groups, and the
+men bring in wives of a phratry, class, and totem different, as a rule,
+from their own; the children of the next generation take their kinship
+names directly or indirectly from the mother.</p>
+
+<p>If, on the other hand, descent is reckoned through the father, the
+phratry and totem names are always the same from generation to
+generation; from this it follows that the phratry of the wife, who comes
+from without, is also the same from generation to generation, though her
+totem name does not of necessity remain the same. The class name
+alternates both in the case of the family and of the wives in successive
+generations. It has already been pointed out that reckoning of descent
+in the male line tends to bring about local grouping of the kinship
+organisations. In the eight-class tribes, and in parts of Victoria, the
+phratries, elsewhere the totem kins, tend to be or are actually limited
+to certain portions of the tribal area.</p>
+
+<p>Our knowledge of these matters has not, of course, been gained at a
+bound. Before indicating the present extent of our information, it may
+be well to give an historical sketch of early discoveries in this field.</p>
+
+<p>Some seventy years ago the attention of students of primitive social
+institutions was drawn to the marriage regulations of the Indian tribes
+of North America by an article in <i>Archaeologia Americana</i><a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">38</a>; in which
+the author, drawing his conclusions partly from earlier writers, partly
+from his own investigations, showed that the totem kin was an exogamous
+group, while in some cases the kin bearing the name of a given totem
+were not only exogamous, but not even permitted to choose their wives
+from any of the other kins at will, being restricted in their choice to
+certain groups or, in many cases, to a single group of totem kins,
+according as the tribe was arranged in two or more phratries.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>At least two observers had detected the existence of Australian
+organisations of the same nature as the American phratries, so far as
+our scanty information from West Australia goes, even before the
+publication of <i>Archaeologia Americana</i>. The honour of being the first
+to publish information on the subject belongs to Nind, who had spent
+some time in the neighbourhood of King George's Sound in 1829, and
+published his observations on native customs in the <i>Journal of the
+Royal Geographical Society</i><a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">39</a> for 1832. Close on his heels came the
+authors of <i>Journals of Explorations in West Australia</i>, which appeared
+in 1833, and described journeys undertaken between 1829 and 1832.</p>
+
+<p>The phratries were discovered in South Australia by the Rev. C.&nbsp;W.
+Sch&uuml;rmann, whose <span class="nowrap">Vocabulary<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">40</a></span>, published in 1844, contains a mention
+of the Parnkalla phratries, without, however, any indication of their
+connection with marriage customs and exogamy. Five years earlier,
+however, Lieutenant, afterwards Sir George Grey, had observed
+institutions of the nature of totem kins, phratries, or intermarrying
+classes in West Australia, and had detected their connection with the
+marriage laws of the <span class="nowrap">natives<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">41</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>In 1841 and 1842, G.&nbsp;F. <span class="nowrap">Moore<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">42</a></span> called attention to the grouping of the
+native divisions or kins, and anticipated Sch&uuml;rmann, as will be shown
+later. Grey, before the publication of his <i>Journal</i>, had read the
+<i>Archaeologia</i>; but though he mentions the naming of "families" after
+animals, he makes no mention of any grouping, but merely distinguishes
+between "families" and "local names." Some of the names which he gives
+seem to be those of phratries, and if he had been led by his study of
+<i>Archaeologia Americana</i> to the discovery of exogamic regulations
+dealing with the relations of individual totem kins to one another, it
+seems on the whole probable that he would not have overlooked the
+grouping of the kins which is, with certain exceptions, of a more or
+less local character, common to the whole of Australia, so far as our
+information goes.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span> Singularly enough this information, very full,
+relatively, for the eastern and central tribes, has, so far as
+South-West Australia is concerned, only just been completed, although
+more than sixty years have elapsed since Grey wrote, the last twenty of
+which have seen much additional light thrown on the organisation of the
+tribes of the remainder of the continent.</p>
+
+<p>The American tribes, where simple totemic exogamy is not the rule, are
+organised in two and sometimes three or more, up to ten, phratries. It
+is possible that Grey, in spite of his attention having been drawn to
+the bi- or trichotomous organisation of American totem kins, failed to
+understand the Australian system owing to the presence of an element,
+discovered a few years later at a point remote from the scene of Grey's
+researches, to which no American analogue exists. In addition to the
+grouping of the kins into phratries, the Australian tribes over a large
+part of the continent subdivide each phratry into two or four classes or
+"castes," as they were frequently termed by the early investigators. The
+effect of the class system is to further limit the choice of a given
+individual, restricted to one-half of the women of the tribe under the
+simple phratry system, to one-fourth of them or one-eighth, as the case
+may be. Probably the first person to publish the fact of the existence
+of these classes, which he regarded as differing in rank, was C.&nbsp;P.
+<span class="nowrap">Hodgson<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">43</a></span>, who found them in 1846 among the blacks of Wide Bay. From a
+letter of Leichardt's however it appears that the discovery must have
+been made nearly simultaneously by several observers. Writing in
+<span class="nowrap">1847<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">44</a></span>, he says that the castes are the most interesting and most
+obscure feature among the tribes to the northward, and mentions F.&nbsp;N.
+Isaacs as having noticed the existence of the classes among the natives
+of Darling Downs, adding that Capt. Macarthur had also found them among
+the Monobar tribes of the Coburg Peninsula. "These castes," he adds,
+"are probably intimately connected with the laws of intermarriage."</p>
+
+<p>If Leichardt's words mean, as apparently they do, that the Monobar
+classes are regulative of marriage, and if his information was correct,
+the first mention of classes in Australia is <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>found, not in Hodgson's
+work, but in Wilson's <span class="nowrap">account<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">45</a></span>. Neither he, however, nor <span class="nowrap">Stokes<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">46</a></span>,
+who mentions them as existing among the Limba Karadjee, makes any
+mention of their connection with marriage regulations. And Earl, at a
+later period, omits in like manner to say what constituted membership of
+a caste, though he states that they differed in rank. The
+names&mdash;Manjarojally (fire people), Manjarwuli (land people), and
+Mambulgit (makers of nets, perhaps, therefore, water people), as well as
+the anomalous number of the classes, seem to indicate that they are of a
+somewhat different nature to the real intermarrying classes found
+<span class="nowrap">elsewhere<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">47</a></span>. It is of course well known that the initiation ceremonies
+and totemic system of the northern tribes on both sides of the Gulf of
+Carpentaria differ somewhat widely from the normal Australian form.</p>
+
+<p>None of the observers hitherto mentioned can be said however to have
+applied himself to the scientific study of the questions raised by the
+facts which they recorded. Anthropology was in those days in its
+infancy. The first to make a really serious effort to clear up the many
+difficult questions, some of them still matters of controversy, which a
+closer study of the native marriage customs brought to the surface, was
+a missionary anthropologist, a class of which England has produced all
+too few. In 1853 the Rev. William Ridley published the first of many
+studies of the Kamilaroi speaking tribes, and, thanks to the impetus
+given to the investigation of systems of relationship and allied
+questions by Lewis Morgan, was the pioneer of a series of efforts which
+have rescued for us at the nick of time a record of the social
+organisation of many tribes which under European influence are now
+rapidly losing or have already lost all traces of their primitive
+customs, if indeed they have not, like the tribes formerly resident at
+Adelaide and other centres of population, been absolutely exterminated
+by contact with the white man with his vices and his civilisation, or by
+the less gentle method euphemis<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>tically termed "dispersion," which, if
+other nations were the offenders, we should term massacre.</p>
+
+<p>After Mr Ridley, Messrs Fison and Howitt turned their attention to the
+Kamilaroi group of tribes. The progress of these investigations is
+traced, historically and controversially, in the second series of
+Maclennan's <i>Studies in Ancient History</i>, and it is unnecessary to deal
+with it in detail. More and more light was thrown on totemism, marriage
+regulations, and intermarrying classes by the persistent efforts of Mr
+Howitt, by Dr Frazer's little work on Totemism, and by other students,
+until it seemed that the main features of Australian social organisation
+had been clearly established, when in 1898 the researches of Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen seemed to do much to overthrow all recognised
+principles, so far as the totemic regulation of marriage was concerned.
+How far this is actually the case it is unnecessary to consider here. It
+may be said however that the work of these two investigators and the
+enquiries of Dr Roth in North Queensland make it more than ever a matter
+for regret that the British Empire, the greatest colonial power that the
+world has ever seen, will not afford the few thousand pounds needed to
+put such researches on a firm basis.</p>
+
+<p>Having defined the various terms, and shown the actual working of the
+system by the aid of the best known example, we may now pass, after this
+brief historical sketch of the development of our knowledge, to the task
+of giving the broad outlines of the phratry and class organisations.</p>
+
+<p>If our knowledge of Australian phratries and classes is far from
+exhaustive, we have at any rate a fair knowledge of the distribution of
+the various types whose existence is generally recognised; that is to
+say, we can delimit the greater part of the continent according to
+whether the tribes show two phratries only, or two phratries, which may
+be anonymous, with the further subdivision into four classes, or into
+eight classes. We also know approximately the limits of the matrilineal
+and patrilineal systems. New South Wales, Victoria, the southern portion
+of Queensland and Northern Territory, the eastern part of South
+Australia, and the coastal regions of West Australia, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span>are now known
+with more or less accuracy from the point of view of kinship
+organisations. On the other hand, from the Cape York Peninsula, and the
+part of Northern Territory north of Lat. 15&deg;, we have little if any
+information. The south coast and its hinterland from 135&deg; westwards, as
+far as King George's Sound, is virtually a terra incognita; in fact
+beyond the south-western corner and the fringe which lies along the
+coast we know little of the West Australian blacks, and the frontiers
+between the various systems must in these areas be regarded as purely
+provisional.</p>
+
+<p>Broadly speaking, the tribes of the whole of the known area of
+Australia, certain coast regions of comparatively small extent excepted,
+have a dichotomous kinship organisation. The accompanying map (<a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>)
+shows how the various forms are distributed. Along most of the south
+coast, and up a belt broken perhaps in the northern portion, running
+through the centre of the continent in Lat. 137&deg;, are found two
+phratries without intermarrying classes; for the area west of Lat. 130&deg;
+we have, it is true, only one datum, which gives no information as to
+the area to which it applies; this portion of the field therefore is
+assigned only provisionally to the two-phratry system. On the Bloomfield
+River, which runs into Weary Bay, associated with the name of Captain
+Cook, is an isolated two-phratry organisation, unless indeed we may
+assume that the class names have either been overlooked or have passed
+out of use.</p>
+
+<p>The four-class system extends over the greater part of New South Wales,
+and Queensland; a narrow belt runs through the north of South Australia
+and broadens till it embraces the whole coastline of West Australia, the
+north-eastern area excluded. An isolated four-class system, which does
+not regulate marriage, is found in the Yorke Peninsula of South
+Australia.</p>
+
+<p>The eight-class system forms a compact mass, between the Gulf of
+Carpentaria and Roebuck Bay, extending south as far as Lat. 25&deg; in the
+centre of Australia.</p>
+
+<p>In reality the rule of the eight-class system extends considerably
+further south, but the classes are nameless or altogether non-existent.
+Thus, the southern Arunta have nominally four classes, but each of these
+has two sections, so <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>that the final result is as though they were an
+eight-class tribe. In the same way the marriage regulations of the
+two-phratry Dieri are such that choice is limited among them precisely
+as it would be if they had eight classes. The same may be true of the
+remainder of the western branch of the four-class system, which is
+closely allied in name to the Arunta type; the boundary between the
+related sets of names is unknown.</p>
+
+<p>Among the Narrinyeri and the Yuin the kinship organisation, which is
+confined to totemic groups, takes a local form; here the regulation of
+marriage depends on considerations of the residence of the pair. Local
+exogamy also prevails among the unorganised Kurnai. The Chepara appear
+to have had no organisation, and among the Narrangga ties of
+consanguinity constituted the sole bar to marriage. We are not however
+concerned with the problems presented by these aberrant types of
+organisation, to which no further reference is made in the present work.</p>
+
+<p>The area covered by the dichotomous organisations is divided almost
+equally between matrilineal and patrilineal tribes. The latter occupy
+the region north of Lat. 30&deg; and west of an irregular line running from
+Long. 137&deg; to 140&deg; or thereabouts. In addition a portion of Victoria and
+the region west of Brisbane form isolated patrilineal groups. The
+problem presented by these anomalous areas has already been discussed in
+the chapter on the Rule of Descent. Where local exogamy is the rule,
+kinship is also virtually patrilineal.</p>
+
+<p>In the remainder of Australia, non-organised tribes of course excepted,
+the rule of descent is matrilineal, save that in North Queensland a
+small tribe on the Annan River prefers paternal descent. The
+accompanying map shows the distribution of the two forms.</p>
+
+
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">37</span></a>&nbsp;Save in the Anula and Mara tribes.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">38</span></a>&nbsp;Vol. <span class="smrom">II</span>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">39</span></a>&nbsp;Vol. <span class="smrom">I</span>, p. 38.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">40</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Vocabulary</i>, <i>s.v.</i> Kararu.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">41</span></a>&nbsp;Grey, <i>Journals</i>, <span class="smrom">II</span>, 228.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">42</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Descriptive Vocabulary</i>, p. 3 etc.; <i>Colonial Mag.</i>
+<span class="smrom">V</span>, 222.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">43</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Australian Reminiscences</i>, p. 212.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">44</span></a>&nbsp;Bunce, <i>23 Years Wanderings</i>, p. 116.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">45</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S.</i> <span class="smrom">IV</span>, 171, p. 88, <i>Narrative of a Voyage
+round the World</i> p. 88.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">46</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Discoveries</i> (1846), <span class="smrom">I</span>, 393; cf. <i>Kamilaroi and
+Kurnai</i>, p. 64.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">47</span></a>&nbsp;Cf. the local groups of the Yuin, the Wiradjeri and other
+tribes, Howitt, <i>passim</i>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span></p>
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 286px;">
+<a name="Map_I" id="Map_I"></a><a href="images/image02-full.jpg"><img src="images/image02.jpg" width="286" height="400" alt="MAP I. RULE OF DESCENT." title="MAP I. RULE OF DESCENT." /></a>
+<span class="caption">MAP I. RULE OF DESCENT.</span></div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<a name="Map_II" id="Map_II"></a><a href="images/image03-full.jpg"><img src="images/image03.jpg" width="400" height="381" alt="MAP II. CLASS ORGANISATIONS." title="MAP II. CLASS ORGANISATIONS." /></a>
+<span class="caption">MAP II. CLASS ORGANISATIONS.</span>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;">
+<a name="Map_III" id="Map_III"></a><a href="images/image04-full.jpg"><img src="images/image04.jpg" width="400" height="393" alt="MAP III. PHRATRY ORGANISATIONS." title="MAP III. PHRATRY ORGANISATIONS." /></a>
+<span class="caption">MAP III. PHRATRY ORGANISATIONS.</span>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.</p>
+
+
+<p>In order to facilitate reference and to diminish the necessity for
+footnotes a survey of classes and phratries is here given. It will be
+well to explain how they are arranged.</p>
+
+<p>In the two-phratry system the rule of intermarriage is clear; a man of
+phratry <i>A</i> marries a woman of phratry <i>B</i> and <i>vice versa</i>. The direct
+descent of the kinship name is obviously the rule.</p>
+
+<p>The four classes are arranged according to the phratries; the normal
+rule is that a man <i>A1</i> marries <i>B1</i>, <i>A2</i> marries <i>B2</i>; their children
+are in matrilineal tribes <i>A2</i> and <i>B2</i>, in patrilineal <i>B2</i> and <i>A2</i>.
+In the patrilineal Mara and Anula, by exception, the rule of descent is
+direct; it will be remembered that a dichotomy of the classes prevails,
+so that they really belong to the eight-class system.</p>
+
+<p>In the eight-class system and among the nominally four-class southern
+Arunta the intermarriage and descent is as follows, according to Spencer
+and Gillen;</p>
+
+<table class="tablecenter" width="40%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="Intermarriage and descent">
+<tr>
+ <td align="center" style="line-height: 0.7em; width: 2em;">A1<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />B1</td>
+ <td align="left" style="width: 4em; padding-left: 0.5em;"> = A4,</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center" style="width: 2em; line-height: 0.7em;">B1<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />A1</td>
+ <td align="left" style="width: 4em; padding-left: 0.5em;">= B3,</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="center" style="line-height: 0.7em; width: 2em; padding-top: 1em;">A2<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />B2</td>
+ <td align="left" style="width: 4em; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-top: 1em;">= A3,</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center" style="line-height: 0.7em; padding-top: 1em;">B2<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />A2</td>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-top: 1em; padding-left: 0.5em;">= B4,</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="center" style="line-height: 0.7em; width: 2em; padding-top: 1em;">A3<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />B3</td>
+ <td align="left" style="width: 4em; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-top: 1em;">= A2,</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center" style="line-height: 0.7em; padding-top: 1em;">B3<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />A3</td>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-top: 1em; padding-left: 0.5em;">= B1,</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="center" style="line-height: 0.7em; width: 2em; padding-top: 1em;">A4<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />B4</td>
+ <td align="left" style="width: 4em; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-top: 1em;"> = B4,</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center" style="line-height: 0.7em; padding-top: 1em;">B4<br />&mdash;&mdash;<br />A4</td>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-top: 1em; padding-left: 0.5em;"> = B2.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In each case the male is the numerator, the woman the denominator, and
+the = shows the child.</p>
+
+<p>Tribes with conterminous territories usually know what phratries and
+classes are equivalent in their systems. In the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>tables which follow the
+phratries and the classes of matrilineal tribes are arranged to show
+this correspondence so far as it is known. A * shows that no information
+on the point is to hand. A rearrangement of patrilineal classes is
+necessary to make them equivalent to the organisations of matrilineal
+tribes; this cannot be shown in the tables; but full details will be
+found in the works of Spencer and Gillen. A &#8224; indicates patrilineal
+descent.</p>
+
+<p>Where the names of phratries and classes are translated, the meanings
+are shown in the tables; where the authorities do not give the
+translation but a word of the same form is in use in the tribe or group
+of tribes the meanings are given in round brackets; words in use in
+neighbouring tribes are put in square brackets.</p>
+
+
+<h3 style="font-weight: normal"><a name="Table_I" id="Table_I"></a>TABLE I.</h3>
+
+<p class="center"><i>The Class Names.</i></p>
+
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, I">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;"><i>Feminine</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="I" id="I"></a>I.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Muri <span class="nowrap">(Bya)<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">48</a></span></td>
+ <td>Matha</td>
+ <td>(Red kangaroo)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kubi</td>
+ <td>Kubitha</td>
+ <td>(Opossum)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kumbo <span class="nowrap">(W&#333;mbee)<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">49</a></span></td>
+ <td>Butha</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Ipai</td>
+ <td>Ipatha</td>
+ <td>(Eaglehawk)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<p>These class names are found in the following tribes:</p>
+
+<p class="tabledesc">Kamilaroi (Howitt, p. 107); Wiradjeri (<i>ib.</i> 107); Wonghi (<i>ib.</i> 108);
+Euahlayi (Mrs L. Parker, <i>Euahlayi Tribe</i>, p. 13); Ngeumba (Mathews in
+<i>Eth. Notes</i>, p. 5); Murawari (<i>id.</i> in <i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i>, 1906, 55);
+Moree (<i>R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i> <span class="smrom">X</span>, 20); Turribul (<i>R.&nbsp;S. Vict.</i> <span class="smrom">I</span>,
+102); Wollaroi (Howitt, 109); on Narran R. (Curr, <span class="smrom">I</span>, 117);
+Pikumbul (<i>ib.</i>); Unghi (Howitt, 217); Peechera (Curr, <span class="smrom">III</span>,
+271); Wailwun (<i>ib.</i> <span class="smrom">I</span>, 116); Wonnaruah (<i>Sci. Man</i>,
+<span class="smrom">I</span>, 180); Geawegal (Howitt, 266).</p>
+
+<p>Associated with these class names are the following phratry names:</p>
+
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, I part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="I-2" id="I-2"></a>(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 17em;">Kamilaroi, etc.</td>
+ <td style="width: 1em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Dilbi</td>
+ <td>Kupathin</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>b</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Wiradjeri to N. of Lachlan</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Budthurung</td>
+ <td>Mukula</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>c</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Wonghibon</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Ngielbumurra</td>
+ <td>Mukumurra (Howitt)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>d</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">" </span><span style="margin-left: 1.7em;">&amp; Ngeumba</span></td>
+ <td><span class="double">{</span></td>
+ <td>Ngumbun<br />Numbun</td>
+ <td valign="top">Ngurrawan (Mathews)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>e</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Euahlayi</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Gwaigullean</td>
+ <td>Gwaimudthen</td></tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>f</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Murawari</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Girrana</td>
+ <td>Merugulli</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span></p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, II">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names</i></td>
+ <td><i>Feminine</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="II" id="II"></a>II.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Kurbo</td>
+ <td>Kooran</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Marro</td>
+ <td>Kurgan</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Wombo</td>
+ <td>Wirrikin</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Wirro</td>
+ <td>Wongan</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<p>The proper arrangement of these names is unknown.</p>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribe</i>: Kombinegherry (<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 304; Howitt, 105).</p>
+
+<p><i>Science of Man</i> (<span class="smrom">IV</span>, 8) gives:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, II, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="II-2" id="II-2"></a></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Carribo</td>
+ <td>Gooroona</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Maroongah</td>
+ <td>Carrigan</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Womboongah</td>
+ <td>Werrican</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Weiro</td>
+ <td>Warganbah</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>For the Anaywan, Thangatty, etc., R.&nbsp;H. Mathews gives (<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XXXI</span>, 169):</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-bottom: .75em;" summary="Table I, II, part 3">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="II-3" id="II-3"></a></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Irpoong</td>
+ <td>Matyang</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Marroong</td>
+ <td>Arrakan</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Imboong</td>
+ <td>Irrakadena</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Irroong</td>
+ <td>Palyang</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-top: .75em;" summary="Table I, III">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class name</i> (<i>Fem. termination, -an or -gan</i>)</td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="III" id="III"></a>III&#8224;<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">50</a>.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Parang (Moroon)</td>
+ <td>(Black wallaby. Emu)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bunda</td>
+ <td>[Kangaroo]</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Balgoin (Banjoor, Pandur)</td>
+ <td>(Red wallaby. Native bear)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Theirwain</td>
+ <td>(Kangaroo)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: Maryborough tribes (Howitt, 117); Kabi (Curr, <span class="smrom">III</span>,
+163): Kiabara (<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 305); ? (Hodgson, 212; Mathew,
+<i>Eaglehawk</i>, 100); Wide Bay (Curr, <span class="smrom">I</span>, 117).</p>
+
+<p>For the Emon, Howitt (p. 109) gives:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, III, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="III-2" id="III-2"></a></td>
+ <td>Barah</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bondan</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bondurr</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Taran</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>With these classes are associated the phratries:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, III, part 3">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="III-3" id="III-3"></a>(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">The Maryborough tribes and the Kiabara</td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Dilbi</td>
+ <td>Kupathin.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>b</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Dippil</td>
+ <td>Deeajee</td>
+ <td>Karpeun</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>are the forms given by Mathews (<i>Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXVIII</span>,
+329).</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span></p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, IV">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names (Fem. termination, -an)</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="IV" id="IV"></a>IV.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Karilbura</td>
+ <td>Barrimundi</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Munal</td>
+ <td>Hawk</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kurpal</td>
+ <td>Good water</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kuialla (Koodala)</td>
+ <td>Iguana</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: Kuinmurbura (<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 341; Howitt, 111). The
+Taroombul have the form Koodala (<i>Proc. R.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i> <span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 41).</p>
+
+<p>For the Kangulu, Mathews (<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXIII</span>, 111) gives:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, IV, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="IV-2" id="IV-2"></a></td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Banniar<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">51</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Banjoor</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Koorpal</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kearra</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>With these may be compared Howitt's (p. 111):</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, IV, part 3">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="IV-3" id="IV-3"></a></td>
+ <td>Kairawa</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bunjur</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bunya</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Jarbain (? Tarbain)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The phratries associated with these are:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-bottom: 0.75em;" summary="Table I, IV, part 4">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="IV-4" id="IV-4"></a></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Tribe</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;"></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Kuinmurbura</td>
+ <td>Witteru</td>
+ <td>Yungaru</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>b</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Kangulu</td>
+ <td>Wutthuru</td>
+ <td>Yungnuru</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-top: 0.75em;" summary="Table I, V">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;"><i>Fem. termination</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="V" id="V"></a>V.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Wongo</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kubaru (Ubur, Obu)</td>
+ <td>-an</td>
+ <td>(Gidea tree)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bunburi (Anbeir, Unburri, Bunbai)</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Koorgilla (Urgilla)</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: Ungorri (Howitt, 109); Kogai (Curr, <span class="smrom">I</span>, 117; <i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 337); Yuipera etc. (Curr, <span class="smrom">III</span>, 45, 64; <i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 302); Akulbura, Bathalibura (Howitt, 113, 141); Wakelbura
+(Howitt, 112); on Belyando (Curr, <span class="smrom">III</span>, 26); Dalebura (Howitt,
+113), Buntamurra (Howitt, 113, 226); Purgoma (Roth, 66); Jouon (<i>ib.</i>
+67); Pitta-Pitta, Goa, Miorli (Roth, 56-7); Ringa-Ringa (<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 337); Mittakoodi (Roth, 56-7); Woonamurra (<i>ib.</i>);
+Yerunthully (Mathews in <i>R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i> <span class="smrom">X</span>, 30); Badieri (<i>id. ib.</i>
+1905, 55).</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>With these class names are associated the phratries</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, V, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="V-2" id="V-2"></a>(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Kogai, Wakelbura etc.</td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Wuthera</td>
+ <td>Mallera</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>b</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Yuipera, Bathalibura</td>
+ <td>Wootaroo</td>
+ <td>Yungaroo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>c</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Purgoma</td>
+ <td>Naka</td>
+ <td>Tunna</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>d</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Jouon</td>
+ <td>Chepa</td>
+ <td>Junna</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>e</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Pitta-Pitta etc., Mittakoodi, Woonamura</td>
+ <td>Ootaroo</td>
+ <td>Pakoota</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>f</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Badieri</td>
+ <td>Wootaroo</td>
+ <td>Yungo</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Aberrant forms, probably inaccurate, are given by Curr (<span class="smrom">II</span>,
+424) for Halifax Bay: Korkoro, Korkeen, Wongo, Wotero; by Lumholtz (p.
+199) for the Herbert R.: Gorilla, Gorgero, Gorgorilla, Otero, by Curr
+(<span class="smrom">II</span>, 468) for the Yukkaburra: Utheroo, Multheroo, Yungaroo,
+Goorgilla.</p>
+
+<p>On the Tully R. Roth (<i>Ethn. Bull.</i> <span class="smrom">V</span>, 20) found the following:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, VI">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td><i>Class names</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="VI" id="VI"></a>VI.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Karavangi</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Chikun</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kurongon</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kurkilla</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>With these may be compared the names given by Mathews for the Warkeman
+(<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXII</span>, 109, 251):</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, VI, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="VI-2" id="VI-2"></a></td>
+ <td>Karpungie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Cheekungie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kellungie</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Koopungie</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>On the Annan R. we find (Howitt, 118) with male descent:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, VII">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="VII" id="VII"></a>VII.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Wandi</td>
+ <td>Eaglehawk</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Walar</td>
+ <td>Bee</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Jorro</td>
+ <td>Bee</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kutchal</td>
+ <td>Saltwater Eaglehawk</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>With these are associated the phratries:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-bottom: 0.75em;" summary="Table I, VII, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right">(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Walar</td>
+ <td>Murla</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-top: 0.75em;" summary="Table I, VIII">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="VIII" id="VIII"></a>VIII.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Ranya (Arenia)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Rara (Arara)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Loora</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Awunga (Arawongo)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: Wollongurma (Roth, 68); Goothanto (Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XXXIII</span>, 109).</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Connected with these forms are:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, VIII, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="VIII-2" id="VIII-2"></a></td>
+ <td><i>Class names</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Barry (Ahjereena)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Ararey (Arrenynung)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Jury [? Loory] (Perrynung)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Mungilly (Mahngal) [diamond <span class="nowrap">snake]<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">52</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: Koogobathy (<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 303); Koonjan etc.
+(Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXIII</span>, 110, <span class="smrom">XXXIV</span>, 135).
+Probably Perrynung and Ahjereenya should be transposed.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, IX">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names</i></td>
+ <td><i>Feminine</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="IX" id="IX"></a>IX.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Jimmilingo</td>
+ <td>Carburungo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Badingo</td>
+ <td>Ngarrangungo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Maringo<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">53</a></span></td>
+ <td>Munjungo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Youingo (Kapoodungo)</td>
+ <td>Goothamungo</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: Miappe (Roth, 56-7); Mycoolon (<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 302);
+Workoboongo (Roth, <i>ib.</i>).</p>
+
+<p>For the Kalkadoon, Roth (<i>ib.</i>) gives:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, IX, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"><a name="IX-2" id="IX-2"></a></td>
+ <td>Kunggilungo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Patingo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Toonbeungo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Marinungo<a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">53</a></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>With these are associated the phratries:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-bottom: 0.75em;" summary="Table I, IX, part 3">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="IX-3" id="IX-3"></a>(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Kalkadoon</td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Ootaroo</td>
+ <td>Mullara</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>b</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Miappe</td>
+ <td>Woodaroo</td>
+ <td>Pakutta</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-top: 0.75em;" summary="Table I, X">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td><i>Class names</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="X" id="X"></a>X.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Murungun</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Mumbali</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Purdal</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kuial</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribe</i>: Mara (<i>Northern Tribes</i>, 119).</p>
+
+<p>With these the phratry names:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, X, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><i><a name="X-2" id="X-2"></a>(a)</i>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Urku</td>
+ <td>Ua</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>In this tribe is male descent, and, as in the S. Arunta, the classes are
+themselves divided; for equivalence the numbers of the eight-class
+system are arranged (<i>Nor. Tr.</i> 123), 1, 4; 3, 2; 5, 7; 6, 8.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Leichardt (<i>Journal</i>, 447) reports from the Roper R., Gnangball, Odall,
+Nurumball, which from their form seem to be class names and identifiable
+with some of the Mara names.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XI">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td><i>Class names</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="XI" id="XI"></a>XI.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Awukaria</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Roumburia</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Urtalia</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Wialia</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribe</i>: Anula (<i>Nor. Tr.</i> 119).</p>
+
+<p>XII. For the eight-class system see <a href="#Table_Ia">Table Ia</a>; in which it is assumed
+that patrilineal descent prevails in all the tribes.</p>
+
+<p>With these are associated the following phratries:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XII">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="XII-2" id="XII-2"></a>(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Umbaia, Gnanji</td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Illitchi</td>
+ <td>Liaritchi</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>b</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Warramunga, Walpari, Wulmala</td>
+ <td>Uluuru</td>
+ <td>Kingilli</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>c</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Worgaia</td>
+ <td><span style="margin-left: 1.2em;">"</span></td>
+ <td>Bimgaru</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right">(<i>d</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Bingongina</td>
+ <td>Wiliuku</td>
+ <td>Liaraku</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>Spencer and Gillen, <i>Nor. Tr.</i> pp. 100-102, 119. On p. 102 is a
+statement about the Bingongina inconsistent with that on the following
+page; according to the former the phratry names are Illitchi, Liaritchi,
+as among the Umbaia.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XIII">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td><i>Class names</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="XIII" id="XIII"></a>XIII.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Panunga</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bulthara</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Purula</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kumara</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribe</i>: S. Arunta (<i>Nat. Tr.</i> 90).</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XIIIa">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="XIII-a" id="XIII-a"></a>XIII<i>a</i>.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Deringara</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Gubilla</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Koomara</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Belthara</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribe</i>: Yoolanlanya etc. (<i>R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i> <span class="smrom">XVI</span>, 75).</p>
+
+<p>The arrangement suggests that matrilineal descent prevails, but there is
+probably some error.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XIIIb">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td><i>Class names</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="XIII-b" id="XIII-b"></a>XIII<i>b</i>.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Burong (Parungo)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Ballieri (Parajerri; Butcharrie)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Banaka (Boogarloo)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kymerra (Kaiamba)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: Gnamo, Gnalluma (<i>Int. Arch.</i> <span class="smrom">XVI</span>, 12); Nickol Bay
+and Kimberley have the alternative forms of 1, 2, and 4 (Curr,
+<span class="smrom">I</span>, 296; <i>Kamilaroi</i>, 36, Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XXXV</span>, 220), Weedokarry (<i>id.</i> in <i>Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>,
+89) have third form of 2; at Murchison R. Boorgarloo comes into use
+(<i>West Australian</i>, Ap. 7, 1906).</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XIV">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="XIV" id="XIV"></a>XIV.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Tondarup (Namyungo)</td>
+ <td>Fish hawk</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Didaruk</td>
+ <td>Sea</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Ballaruk (Yangor)</td>
+ <td>(Opossum)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Naganok</td>
+ <td>(Fish)</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribes</i>: S.&nbsp;W. Australia, Tarderick etc. (<i>West. Aust.</i>, <i>loc. cit.</i>;
+Moore, <i>Desc. Voc.</i>, <i>Col. Mag.</i> <span class="smrom">V</span>, <ins class="correction" title="422).">422.</ins></p>
+
+<p>The phratries are</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XIV, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="XIV-2" id="XIV-2"></a>(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Wartungmat</td>
+ <td>Munichmat</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The equivalence is unknown.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XV">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td><i>Class names</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="XV" id="XV"></a>XV.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Langenam</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Namegor</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Packwicky</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Pamarung</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribe</i>: Joongoongie of N. Queensland (Mathews in <i>Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>, 93).</p>
+
+<p>Associated with them the phratries:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XV, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;" align="right"><a name="XV-2" id="XV-2"></a>(<i>a</i>)&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;">Jamagunda</td>
+ <td>Gamanutta</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The equivalence is unknown.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I, XVI">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 3em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 18.5em;"><i>Class names</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td align="right"><a name="XVI" id="XVI"></a>XVI.&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>Kari</td>
+ <td>Emu</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Waui</td>
+ <td>Red kangaroo</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Wiltu</td>
+ <td>Eaglehawk</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Wilthuthu</td>
+ <td>Shark</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc"><i>Tribe</i>: Narrangga of Yorke Peninsula (Howitt, p. 130).</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">48</span></a>&nbsp;The Darkinung have Bya for Muri (<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XXXI</span>, 170).</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">49</span></a>&nbsp;Some of the Wiradjeri have W&#333;mbee for Kumbo (Gribble,
+113).</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">50</span></a>&nbsp;Male descent.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">51</span></a>&nbsp;Some of the names given by Howitt and Mathews seem to be
+identical with those of the Kiabara, but there is a difficulty about the
+arrangement, for Koorpal-Keeara=Yungnuru=Bunya-Jarbain; but Banniar,
+which seems to be the same as Bunya, falls in the other moiety.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">52</span></a>&nbsp;Curr, <span class="smrom">II</span>, 478.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">53</span></a>&nbsp;Marinungo seems to be the same as Maringo but is not
+equivalent.</p>
+</div>
+
+<h3 style="font-weight: normal;"><a name="Table_Ia" id="Table_Ia"></a><a href="images/image05.jpg">TABLE I a: XII. CLASS NAMES OF EIGHT-CLASS TRIBES.</a></h3>
+
+<table class="tablecenter" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="635" summary="lines">
+ <tr>
+ <td class="bt br bl" style="line-height: 0.2em; width: 200px;"><a name="Ia-1" id="Ia-1"></a>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="line-height: 0.2em; width: 5px;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bt br bl" style="line-height: 0.2em; width: 430px;">&nbsp;</td></tr>
+ </table>
+
+<table class="tablecenter Ia" style="font-size: 90%;" width="640" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I a">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Oolawunga<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">54</a></span> etc.</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Bingongina<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">55</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Umbaia<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">56</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Yookala<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">57</a></span> etc.</td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Binbinga<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">58</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Gnanji<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">59</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Janna</td>
+ <td style="width: 40px;">Thama</td>
+ <td rowspan="2" class="br" style="width: 65px;" align="left"><span class="double">}</span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Tjinum</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Jinagoo</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Tjuanaku</td>
+ <td style="width: 110px;">Uanuku</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nanakoo</i></span></td>
+ <td style="padding-right: 0;">Tchana</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Ninum</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Niriuma</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nuanakurna</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nana</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="line-height: 0.5em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Jimidya</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br">Tjimita</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjulum</td>
+ <td class="br">Joolanjegoo</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjulantjuka</td>
+ <td>Tjulantjuka</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Namaja</i></span></td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Namita</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nulum</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nurlum</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nurlanjukurna</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="line-height: 0.5em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Dhalyeree&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br">Thalirri</td>
+ <td class="br">Paliarinji</td>
+ <td class="br">Bullaranjee</td>
+ <td class="br">Paliarinji</td>
+ <td>Paliarinji</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nalirri</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Paliarina</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Paliarina</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Paliarina</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="line-height: 0.5em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Dhongaree</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br">Thungarie</td>
+ <td class="br">Pungarinji</td>
+ <td class="br">Bungaranjee</td>
+ <td class="br">Pungarinji</td>
+ <td>Pungarinji</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nungari</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Pungarinia</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Pungarina</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Pungarinia</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="line-height: 0.5em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Joolama</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br">Tjurla</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjurulum</td>
+ <td class="br">Jooralagoo</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjurulum</td>
+ <td>Uralaku</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nowala</i></span></td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nala</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nurulum</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nurulum</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nuralakurna</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="line-height: 0.5em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Jungalla</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br">Thungalla</td>
+ <td class="br">Thungallum</td>
+ <td class="br">Jungalagoo</td>
+ <td class="br">Thungallum</td>
+ <td>Thungallaku</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nungalla</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nungallum</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nungallum</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nungallakurna</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="line-height: 0.5em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Jeemara</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br">Tjimara</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjamerum</td>
+ <td class="br">Jameragoo</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjamerum</td>
+ <td>Tjameraku</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nunalla</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Niameragun</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Niamerum</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Niamaku</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="line-height: 0.5em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Jambijana</td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="br">Tjambitjina</td>
+ <td class="br">Yakomari</td>
+ <td class="br">Yukamurra</td>
+ <td class="br">Yakomari</td>
+ <td>Yakomari</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><span class="indent"><i>Nambean</i></span></td>
+ <td colspan="2" class="bb br"><span class="indent"><i>Nambitjina</i></span></td>
+ <td class="bb br"><span class="indent"><i>Yakomarin</i></span></td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><span class="indent"><i>Yakomarina</i></span></td>
+ <td class="bb"><span class="indent"><i>Yakomarina</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablecenter" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="530" style="margin-top: 2em;" summary="lines 2">
+ <tr>
+ <td class="bt br bl" style="line-height: 0.2em; width: 304px;"><a name="Ia-2" id="Ia-2"></a>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="line-height: 0.2em; width: 226px;">&nbsp;</td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+
+<table class="tablecenter Ia" style="font-size: 90%;" width="535" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I a, part 2">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Worgaia<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">60</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Yangarella<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">61</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center" colspan="2"><span class="nowrap">Inchalachie<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">62</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Yungmunnie<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">63</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Tjingillie<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">64</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Wairgu</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Narrabalangie</td>
+ <td rowspan="2" align="right" style="width: 10px; padding-right: 0"><span class="double">{</span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 95px; padding-left: 0">Narrabalangie</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Unwannee</td>
+ <td style="width: 105px;">Thamininja</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Neonammer</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Warkie</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Imbannee</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Namininja</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Blaingunjhu</td>
+ <td class="br">Bolangie</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Bolangie</td>
+ <td class="br">Eemitch</td>
+ <td>Tjimininja</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nolangmer</i></span></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Immadena</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Truminginja</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Biliarinthu</td>
+ <td class="br">Bulleringie</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Belyeringie</td>
+ <td class="br">Uwallaree</td>
+ <td>Thalaringinja</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nulyarammer</i></span></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Imballaree</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nalaringinja</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Pungarinju</td>
+ <td class="br">Bongaringie</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Beneringie</td>
+ <td class="br">Uwungaree</td>
+ <td>Thungaringinta</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nongarimmer</i></span></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Imbongaree</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Namaringinta</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Warrithu</td>
+ <td class="br">Burralangie</td>
+ <td rowspan="2" style="padding-right: 0"><span class="double">{</span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Burralangie</td>
+ <td class="br">Urwalla</td>
+ <td>Tjurulinginja</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nurralammer</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Narechie</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Imbawalla</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nalinginja</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Kingelunju</td>
+ <td class="br">Kunuller</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Kungilla</td>
+ <td class="br">Yungalla</td>
+ <td>Thungallininja</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nungalermer</i></span></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Inkagalla</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nalangininja</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Tjameramu</td>
+ <td class="br">Kommerangie</td>
+ <td rowspan="2" style="padding-right: 0"><span class="double">{</span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Kommerangie</td>
+ <td class="br">Unmarra</td>
+ <td>Thamaringinja</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nemurammer</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Boonongoona</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Inganmarra</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Namaringinja</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">Ikamaru</td>
+ <td class="br">Yakomari</td>
+ <td class="bb" style="padding-right: 0" rowspan="2"><span class="double">{</span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0">Akamaroo</td>
+ <td class="br">Tabachin</td>
+ <td>Tjapatjinginja</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br bb">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br bb"><span class="indent"><i>Jumeyunyie</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br bb" style="padding-left: 0">Thimmermill</td>
+ <td class="br bb"><span class="indent"><i>Tabadenna</i></span></td>
+ <td class="bb"><span class="indent"><i>Nambitjinginja</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablecenter Ia" width="535" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; font-size: 90%;" summary="Table I a, part 3">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center" colspan="2">
+ <table width="100" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="Table I a, part 3, Cell 1">
+ <tr>
+ <td rowspan="4" style="padding-right: 0; width: 15px;"><a name="Ia-3" id="Ia-3"></a><span class="quadruple">{</span></td>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-left: 0; width: 85px;"><span class="nowrap">Ilpirra<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">65</a></span></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-left: 0;">Arunta</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-left: 0;">Kaitish</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-left: 0;">Iliaura</td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+ </td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center">
+ <table class="Ia" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="130" summary="Table I a, part 3, Cell 1">
+ <tr>
+ <td rowspan="3" style="padding-right: 0; width: 5px;"><span class="triple">{</span></td>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-left: 0; width: 125px;"><span class="nowrap">Warramunga<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">66</a></span></td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-left: 0;">Walpari</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td align="left" style="padding-left: 0;">Wulmala</td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+ </td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Meening<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">67</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt br bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Mayoo<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">68</a></span></td>
+ <td class="bt bb" align="center"><span class="nowrap">Koorangie<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">69</a></span> etc.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 10px;">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 95px;">Panunga</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Thapanunga</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Chowan</td>
+ <td class="br" style="width: 105px;">Chinuma</td>
+ <td style="width: 105px;">Janna</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Napanunga</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nowana</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nanagoo</i></span></td>
+ <td><span class="indent"><i>Nanakoo</i></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">Uknaria</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjinguri</td>
+ <td class="br">Choongoora</td>
+ <td class="br">Choongoora</td>
+ <td>Jamada</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Namigili</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nangili</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Narbeeta</i></span></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" colspan="2">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td rowspan="2" style="padding-right: 0;" align="right"><span class="double">{</span></td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0;">Bulthara</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjapeltjeri</td>
+ <td class="br">Chavalya</td>
+ <td class="br">Chavalya</td>
+ <td>Dhalyeree</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-left: 0;">Kabidgi</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Naltjeri</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nanajerry</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nabajerry</i></span></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br" style="padding-right: 0px;"><span class="indent"><i>Appitchana</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">Appungerta</td>
+ <td class="br">Thapungarti</td>
+ <td class="br">Chowarding</td>
+ <td class="br">Changary</td>
+ <td>Dhungaree </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Napungerta</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nabungati</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nhermana</i></span></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">Purula</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjupila</td>
+ <td class="br">Chooara</td>
+ <td class="br">Choolima</td>
+ <td>Joolam</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Naralu</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nooara</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Naola</i></span></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">Ungalla</td>
+ <td class="br">Thungalla</td>
+ <td class="br">Changally</td>
+ <td class="br">Chungalla</td>
+ <td>Jungalla </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nungalla</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nangally</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nungalla</i></span></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">Kumara</td>
+ <td class="br">Thakomara</td>
+ <td class="br">Chagarra</td>
+ <td class="br">Chapota</td>
+ <td>Jameram </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nakomara</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nagarra</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br"><span class="indent"><i>Nemira</i></span></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">Umbitchana</td>
+ <td class="br">Tjambin</td>
+ <td class="br">Chambeen</td>
+ <td class="br">Chambijana</td>
+ <td>Jummiunga </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br bb">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br bb"><span class="indent"><i>Nambin</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br bb"><span class="indent"><i>Nambeen</i></span></td>
+ <td class="br bb"><span class="indent"><i>Nambjana</i></span></td>
+ <td class="bb">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">54</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i>, <span class="smrom">X</span>, 72.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">55</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Northern Tribes</i>, 101.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">56</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Ib.</i>, 100, cf. <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXIV</span>, 121;
+<span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>, 105.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">57</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXVIII</span>, 77.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">58</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Northern Tribes</i>, 111.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">59</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Northern Tribes</i>, 101.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">60</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Northern Tribes</i>, 101.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">61</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXII</span>, 251.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">62</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXIII</span>, 111.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">63</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXIV</span>, 130.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">64</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Northern Tribes</i>, 100; cf. <i>Am. Anth.</i>, N.&nbsp;S.
+<span class="smrom">II</span>, 495; <i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i>, <span class="smrom">XVI</span>, 72, 73.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">65</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Native Tribes</i>, 90; cf. <i>Proc. R.&nbsp;S. Vict.</i>, N.&nbsp;S.
+<span class="smrom">X</span>, 19; <i>T.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;A.</i>, <span class="smrom">XIV</span>, 224; <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>,
+<span class="smrom">XXXII</span>, 72.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">66</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Northern Tribes</i>, 100; cf. <i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i>, <span class="smrom">XVIII</span>, 44;
+<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXII</span>, 73.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">67</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXIII</span>, 112;
+<span class="smrom">XXXV</span>, 217.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">68</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i>, <span class="smrom">XVI</span>, 70.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">69</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>Am. Phil. Soc.</i>, <span class="smrom">XXXVIII</span>, 78.</p>
+</div>
+
+<h3 style="font-weight: normal;"><a name="Table_II" id="Table_II"></a>TABLE II.</h3>
+
+<p class="center"><i>Phratry Names.</i></p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table II, part 1">
+<tr>
+ <td><a name="TII-1" id="TII-1"></a></td>
+ <td class="adjust" style="width: 12em;"><i>Phratries</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 9em;"><i>Meanings</i></td>
+ <td><i>Name of Tribe</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">1.</td>
+ <td>&#8224;Waa(ng)</td>
+ <td>Crow</td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Wurunjerri<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">70</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="adjust">Bunjil or Wrepil</td>
+ <td>Eaglehawk</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">2.</td>
+ <td class="adjust">Yuckembruk</td>
+ <td><span style="padding-left: 2em;">"</span></td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Ngarrego<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">71</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="adjust">Merung</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers"><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>3.</td>
+ <td class="adjust">Umbe</td>
+ <td>Crow</td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Wolgal<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">72</a></span> etc.</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="adjust">Malian or Multa</td>
+ <td>Eaglehawk</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers" valign="top">4.</td>
+ <td class="adjust" valign="top">Muquara<br />
+ Kilpara</td>
+ <td valign="top"><span style="padding-left: 2em;">"</span></td>
+ <td valign="top"><span class="nowrap">Berriait<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">73</a></span>, <span class="nowrap">Tatathi<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">74</a></span>,
+ Wathi-Wathi<a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">74</a>, <span class="nowrap">Keramin<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">75</a></span>,
+ <span class="nowrap">Waimbio<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">76</a></span>, <span class="nowrap">Barkinji<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">77</a></span>,
+ <span class="nowrap">Milpulko<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">78</a></span>, Wilya<a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">78</a>,
+ <span class="nowrap">Itchumundi<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">79</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers" valign="top">5. </td>
+ <td class="adjust" valign="top">Kumit (Gamutch, Kaputch, Kulitch)</td>
+ <td valign="top">Black cockatoo</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td class="adjust">Kroki (Krokitch, Krokage)</td>
+ <td>White cockatoo</td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Booandik<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">80</a></span>, <span class="nowrap">Wotjoballuk<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">81</a></span>,
+ <span class="nowrap">Gournditchmara<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">82</a></span> etc.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p class="tabledesc">The feminine terminations are -egor, -gurk or -jarr.</p>
+
+<p>For South-West Victoria Dawson (<i>Aborigines</i>, p. 26) gives two groups
+and an odd totem kin (?):</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table II, part 3">
+<tr>
+ <td><a name="TII-2" id="TII-2"></a></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;"><i>Phratries</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 9em;"><i>Meaning</i></td>
+ <td><i>Name of Tribe</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">6.</td>
+ <td>Kuurokeetch</td>
+ <td>Longbilled cockatoo</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kartpoerappa</td>
+ <td>Pelican</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kappatch</td>
+ <td>Banksia cockatoo</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kirtuuk</td>
+ <td>Boa snake</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kuunamit</td>
+ <td>Quail</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">7.</td>
+ <td>Kararu (Kiraru, Kararawa)</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Dieri<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">83</a></span>, Parnkalla &amp; <span class="nowrap">Nauo<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">84</a></span>, <span class="nowrap">Yandairunga<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">85</a></span>, <span class="nowrap">Urabunna<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">86</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Matteri</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">8.</td>
+ <td>Tinewa</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Yandrawontha, <span class="nowrap">Yowerawarika<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">87</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Koolpuru</td>
+ <td>(? Emu)</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">9.</td>
+ <td>Yungo</td>
+ <td>(? Kangaroo)</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Mattera</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Kurnandaburi<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">88</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">10.</td>
+ <td>Kookoojeeba</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Koocheebinga</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Geebera<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">89</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>The equivalence is not known.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table II, part 4">
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers"><a name="TII-3" id="TII-3"></a>11.</td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Koorabunna</td>
+ <td style="width: 9em;"></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Kooragula</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Goonganji<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">90</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span></p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table II, part 5">
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;"><i>Phratry</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 9em;"></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">12.</td>
+ <td>Darboo*</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Bloomfield <span class="nowrap">River<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">91</a></span></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Tooar</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>*The equivalence is unknown.</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table II, part 6">
+<tr>
+ <td><a name="TII-4" id="TII-4"></a></td>
+ <td style="width: 6.5em;"><i>Phratry names.</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 6.5em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 7em; padding-right: 0.5em;"><i>Four-class system</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">20.</td>
+ <td>Dilbi</td>
+ <td>Kupathin</td>
+ <td class="roman">Ia, IIIa&#8224;</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">21.</td>
+ <td>Budthurung (1)</td>
+ <td>Mukula</td>
+ <td class="roman">Ib</td>
+ <td>(1)=black duck</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">22.</td>
+ <td>Gwaigullean</td>
+ <td>Gwaimudthen</td>
+ <td class="roman">Ie</td>
+ <td>Light blood; dark blood</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">23.</td>
+ <td>Ngielbumurra</td>
+ <td>Mukumurra</td>
+ <td class="roman">Ic</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">24.</td>
+ <td>Ngumbun</td>
+ <td>Ngurrawan</td>
+ <td class="roman">Id</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">25.</td>
+ <td>Girana</td>
+ <td>Merugulli</td>
+ <td class="roman">If</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">26.</td>
+ <td>Deeajee</td>
+ <td>Karpeun</td>
+ <td class="roman">IIIb</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">27.</td>
+ <td>Witteru</td>
+ <td>Yungaru</td>
+ <td class="roman">IVa, b; Vb</td>
+ <td>(? Kangaroo; ? emu)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td style="padding-right: 0.5em;">27<i>a</i>.</td>
+ <td><span style="padding-left: 1.3em;">"</span></td>
+ <td>Yungo</td>
+ <td class="roman">Vf</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">28.</td>
+ <td><span style="padding-left: 1.3em;">"</span></td>
+ <td>Mallera</td>
+ <td class="roman">Va, IXa</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">29.</td>
+ <td><span style="padding-left: 1.3em;">"</span></td>
+ <td>Pakoota</td>
+ <td class="roman">Ve, IXb</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">30.</td>
+ <td>Naka</td>
+ <td>Tunna</td>
+ <td class="roman">Vc</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">31.</td>
+ <td>Walar</td>
+ <td>Murla*</td>
+ <td class="roman">VIIa</td>
+ <td>Bee; bee</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">32.</td>
+ <td>Cheepa</td>
+ <td>Junna</td>
+ <td class="roman">Vd</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">33.</td>
+ <td>Jamagunda</td>
+ <td>Gamanutta*</td>
+ <td class="roman">XIa</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">34.</td>
+ <td>Wartungmat</td>
+ <td>Munichmat*</td>
+ <td class="roman">XIVa</td>
+ <td>Crow; white cockatoo</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" style="margin-top: 0.75em;" summary="Table II, part 7">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 2.5em;"><a name="TII-5" id="TII-5"></a></td>
+ <td style="width: 6.5em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 5.5em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 8em;"><i>Eight-class system</i>&#8224;</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">40.</td>
+ <td>Illitchi</td>
+ <td>Liaritchi</td>
+ <td class="roman2">XIIa</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">41.</td>
+ <td>Uluuru</td>
+ <td>Biingaru</td>
+ <td class="roman2">XIIc</td>
+ <td>(? Curlew)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">42.</td>
+ <td><span style="padding-left: 1.3em;">"</span></td>
+ <td>Kingilli</td>
+ <td class="roman2">XIIb</td>
+ <td>(? Curlew)</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">43.</td>
+ <td>Wiliuku</td>
+ <td>Liaraku</td>
+ <td class="roman2">XIId</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="numbers">44.</td>
+ <td>Urku</td>
+ <td>Ua</td>
+ <td class="roman2">Xa</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<div class="fnline" style="margin-top: 0.75em;">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">70</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 126.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">71</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Id.</i> p. 101.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">72</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Id.</i> p. 102, Lang, <i>Secret</i>, p. 163.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">73</span></a>&nbsp;Curr, <span class="smrom">II</span>, 165.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">74</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIII</span>, 338; Howitt, p. 195.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">75</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIV</span>, 349.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">76</span></a>&nbsp;Taplin, p. 17; Howitt, p. 100.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">77</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIV</span>, 348; Curr, <span class="smrom">II</span>, 188, 195.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">78</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 98.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">79</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Id.</i> p. 106 n. For the Kurnai, Bunjil and Ngarregal were
+perhaps phratry names (Howitt, p. 135).</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">80</span></a>&nbsp;Curr, <span class="smrom">III</span>, 461; Howitt, p. 123.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">81</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Id.</i> p. 121.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">82</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Id.</i> p. 124.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">83</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 91.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">84</span></a>&nbsp;Woods, p. 222.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">85</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 187.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">86</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 60.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">87</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 97.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">88</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 92; Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXIII</span>,
+108.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">89</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>, 187.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">90</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Sci. Man</i>, <span class="smrom">I</span>. 84; Mathews in <i>Proc. Am. Phil.
+Soc.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>, 89; in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> he reports a third name in
+certain districts&mdash;Koorameenya.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">91</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>, 89.</p>
+</div>
+
+<h3 style="font-weight: normal;"><a name="Table_III" id="Table_III"></a>TABLE III.</h3>
+
+<p>Allusion has been made in Chapter <span class="smrom">III</span> to kinship organisations
+denominated "bloods" and "shades" by Mr R.&nbsp;H. Mathews. Whether it is that
+some observers have mistaken these for phratries or <i>vice vers&acirc;</i>, it
+seems that the names of the two classes of organisation are at present
+inextricably intermingled, as the following table shows:</p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table II, part 5">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 8.5em;"><i>Tribe</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 11em;"><i>Phratry</i></td>
+ <td style="width: 1em;"></td>
+ <td style="width: 13em;"><i>Blood</i></td>
+ <td><i>Meaning</i></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td valign="top" style="width: 8.5em;"><span class="nowrap">Itchmundi<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">92</a></span></td>
+ <td valign="top">Kilpara-Muquara</td>
+ <td valign="top"><span class="double">{</span></td>
+ <td>Mukulo-Ngielpuru<br />
+ Muggula-Ngipuru&#8224;</td>
+ <td valign="top">&#8224;Sluggish and swift blood</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Wiradjeri<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">93</a></span></td>
+ <td>Mukula-Budthurung</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Wonghibon<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">94</a></span></td>
+ <td>Mukumura-Ngielbumura</td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></p>
+
+<table class="tablei" cellspacing="0" summary="Table III">
+<tr>
+ <td style="width: 5em;">Wonghibon <br />
+ and<br />
+ Ngneumba</td>
+ <td style="width: 1.5em;"><span class="triple">}</span></td>
+ <td valign="top" align="left" style="width: 2em;"><a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">95</a></td>
+ <td style="width: 12em;">Ngumbun-Ngurrawan</td>
+ <td style="width: 13em;">Gwaigullimba-Gwaimudhan&#8225;</td>
+ <td>&#8225;Swift and sluggish blood</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Euahlayi<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">96</a></span></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Gwaigullean-Gwaimudthen</td>
+ <td>Light and dark blooded</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td><span class="nowrap">Murawari<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">97</a></span></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td></td>
+ <td>Girrana-Merugulli</td>
+ <td>Muggulu-Bumbirra&sect;</td>
+ <td>&sect;Sluggish and swift blood</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<div class="fnline" style="margin-top: 1em;">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">92</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 106 n.; Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>, 118.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">93</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Id.</i> p. 107.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">94</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Id.</i> p. 108.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">95</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> xxxix, 116. <i>Eth. Notes</i>, p. 5.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">96</span></a>&nbsp;Mrs Langloh Parker, <i>Euahlayi Tribe</i>, p. 11.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">97</span></a>&nbsp;Mathews in <i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i>, 1905, 52.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<h3 style="font-weight: normal;"><a name="Table_IV" id="Table_IV"></a>TABLE IV.</h3>
+
+<p>The areas covered by the different class and phratry names are not
+co-extensive, that is to say a class is associated with more than one
+phratry and <i>vice vers&acirc;</i>. The <span class="nowrap">Undekerebina<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">98</a></span> and <span class="nowrap">Yelyuyendi<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">99</a></span> have
+phratries (No. 29) which are usually associated with classes but in
+their case none have been noted. On the other hand it is not uncommon to
+find classes without the corresponding phratry names; this is the case
+in the eight class area, among the tribes of N.&nbsp;S. Wales, S. Queensland,
+etc.; but no special significance attaches to it unless we are certain
+that it is not the negligence of the observer nor the disuse of the
+names which has produced this state of things. On the other hand the
+relation of phratry and class areas is of the highest importance, as is
+shown in Chapter <span class="smrom">V</span>. The following table shows the anomalies:</p>
+
+
+<table class="tablecenter" border="0" cellspacing="0" width="70%" style="font-size: 90%" summary="Table IV anomalies">
+<tr><td><i>Tribe</i></td><td><i>Phratry</i></td><td align="center"><i>Class</i></td></tr>
+<tr><td>Wiradjeri</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">21</td><td align='center'>I</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Euahlayi</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">22</td><td align='center'>I</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Ngeumba, Wonghi</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">23, or 24</td><td align='center'>I</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Murawari</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">25</td><td align='center'>I</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Kiabara, etc.</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">20</td><td align='center'>III</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Dippil</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">26</td><td align='center'>III</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Kuinmurbura, Kongulu</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">27</td><td align='center'>IV</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Yuipera, Badieri, Yambeena, etc.</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">27</td><td align='center'>V</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Kogai, Wakelbura, etc.</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">28</td><td align='center'>V</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Woonamura, Mittakoodi, Miorli, etc.</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">29</td><td align='center'>V</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Purgoma</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">30</td><td align='center'>V</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Jouon</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">32</td><td align='center'>V</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Miappe</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">29</td><td align='center'>VIII</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Kalkadoon</td><td style="padding-left: 1em;">28</td><td align='center'>VIII</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<div class="fnline" style="margin-top: 1em;">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">98</span></a>&nbsp;Rota, p. 56.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">99</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 192.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">PHRATRY NAMES.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity
+of Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts.
+Intercommunication. Tribal Migrations.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>It has been shown in Chapter <span class="smrom">III</span> that from the point of view of kinship
+organisations Australia falls into three main areas&mdash;occupied by the
+classless two-phratry, the four-class and the eight-class organisations.
+The total number of phratry names, thirty-three pairs in all, does not
+of course fall solely to the count of the two-phratry tribes, but is
+divided between the three kinds of organisation, the two-phratry having
+twelve pairs with one anomalous area, the four-class sixteen, and the
+eight-class five such sets. As regards the relative size of the areas
+thus organised, the largest seems to be that occupied by the
+Matteri-Kiraru system, though the Muquara-Kilpara (5) probably runs it
+close, especially if we take into account the names of like meaning
+(1-4) in the East Victorian area. The remainder of the two-phratry
+systems do not range over a wide extent of country, so far as is known;
+but 10, 11, and 33 are of unknown extent.</p>
+
+<p>In the four-class area are two extensive systems, ranking next after
+those of South Australia and N.&nbsp;S. Wales; these are Mallera-Wuthera (27)
+and Pakoota-Wootaro (29); they have a single phratry name in common,
+which is also found in two other systems; if we add these together, as
+we may perhaps do on this evidence of a common basis, we have by far the
+largest phratric system in Australia as the result. Almost equal in
+extent to either of the two areas occupied by 27 and 29 <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>is that claimed
+by the better known Kamilaroi system&mdash;Dilbi-Kupathin, which spreads over
+a long, comparatively narrow region, but had possibly at one time a
+wider field from which at the present time only the corresponding class
+names can be recovered. Of the remaining thirteen in the two-class
+region, only 28, one of the Wuthera systems already mentioned, has more
+than a restricted field of influence. Of moderate size are the four
+areas in the eight-class system proper, that of the Mara being small in
+comparison.</p>
+
+<p>Taking now the native names, we find that, in addition to the Wuthera
+(Ootaroo) sets already mentioned, the Dieri and Kurnandaburi have
+Matteri (Mattera) in common, while the latter have in the Baddieri tribe
+a neighbour which shares the Yungo phratry name with them. The fact, if
+correct, that with the Badieri Yungo is associated with Wutheru, and
+takes the place of the more usual Yungaru, suggests that we may equate
+the latter with Yungo. In the eight-class area Uluuru is common to two
+systems, while a third has Wiliuku, and the fourth Illitchi, all of
+which seem to be allied, if we may take it that uru, uku, and tchi are
+suffixes; that they are is borne out by the corresponding names
+Liaritchi and Liaraku. Other possible equations are Mukula&mdash;Mukumurra,
+and Cheepa&mdash;Koocheebinga, but in the latter case, even if koo is a
+prefix, the distance of the two systems makes any such correspondence
+improbable. In Victoria the Malian-Multa equation is indisputable; it is
+interesting to note that the former is found in N.&nbsp;S. Wales as the name
+of the bird, while Multa belongs to Yorke Peninsula.</p>
+
+<p>As regards the meaning of these names, we find that of the fifty-eight
+names which remain after deducting those which occur in more than one
+system, nineteen can be translated with certainty, and we can guess at
+the meaning of some half dozen more. Of translateable names the most
+widely spread are various titles of Eaglehawk and Crow, which appear in
+five different systems in Victoria and New South <span class="nowrap">Wales<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">100</a></span>. Crow
+reappears in West Australia under the name of Wartung, with white
+cockatoo, also a Victorian phratry name, as its fellow. In North
+Queensland, as a parallel to the black and white cockatoo of the south,
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span>we find on the Annan River two species of bee giving their names to
+phratries; and the Black Duck phratry of the Waradjeri suggests that
+here too might be found another contrasting pair, if we could translate
+the other name. For the Euahlayi phratry names, on which more will be
+said in discussing the "blood" organisations, Mrs Parker gives the
+translation "Light-blooded" and "Dark-blooded," which comes near that
+suggested by Mr Mathews&mdash;slow and quick blooded. In the Ulu, Illi, and
+Wili of Northern Territory we seem to recognise Welu (curlew). Koolpuru
+(emu), Yungaru and Yungo (kangaroo), and Wutheroo (emu) are also
+possible meanings.</p>
+
+<p>The problems raised by the phratriac nomenclature are complex and
+probably insoluble. They are in part bound up with the problem of the
+origin of the organisation itself; of this nature, for example, is the
+question whether the names correspond to anything existing in the
+pre-phratriac stage, or whether the organisation was borrowed and the
+names taken over translated or untranslated into the idiom of the
+borrowers. If the latter be the solution, we have a simple explanation
+of the wide-spread Eaglehawk-Crow system as well as of other facts, to
+which reference is made below.</p>
+
+<p>If on the other hand the names have not been much spread by
+borrowing,&mdash;and the increasing number of small phratry areas known to us
+tells in favour of this, though it also suggests that the widely-found
+systems have gained ground at the expense of their neighbours,&mdash;then we
+obviously need some theory as to the origin of the organisation, before
+we can frame any hypothesis as to the origin of the names.</p>
+
+<p>The prominent part, however, played by the Eaglehawk among phratry names
+raises some questions which can be discussed on their merits. One of
+these is the age of phratry names. Some of the earliest records of
+initiation ceremonies in New South Wales mention that the eaglehawk
+figured in <span class="nowrap">them<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">101</a></span>. In West Australia this bird is the demiurge, and
+the progenitors of the phratries, of which crow is one, are his nephews.
+This is not the only case in which these birds figure in mythology.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>As the Rev. John Mathew has pointed out in his work, <i>Eaglehawk and
+Crow</i>, there are found in Australia, especially in the south-eastern
+portion, a number of myths relating to the conflicts of these birds.
+These myths he interprets as echoes of a long-past conflict between the
+aboriginal Negrito race and the invading Papuans, and traces the origin
+of the phratries to the same racial strife. As an explanation of exogamy
+the hypothesis is clearly insufficient, but it is evident that no theory
+of the origin of the phratries can leave exogamy out of the question.
+The point, however, with which we are immediately concerned is the myth
+on which in the main Mr Mathew based his theory. Unfortunately, he did
+not think it necessary to attempt to define either the area covered by
+the different phratry names&mdash;an omission which is remedied by the
+present work&mdash;nor yet the limits within which the myth in question or
+its analogues are part of the native mythology. These analogues to the
+story of the battle of Eaglehawk and Crow, ended in the Darling area
+according to tradition by a treaty between the contending birds, are
+myths in which birds are said to have destroyed the human race, or a
+large portion of it, to have contended with Baiame, or one of the other
+gods, or to have figured in some other <span class="nowrap">conflict<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">102</a></span>. The bird of this
+myth&mdash;the bird conflict myth, as it may be termed&mdash;is the Eaglehawk.
+Possibly, as I have pointed out in the note in <i>Man</i>, both bird conflict
+myths and Eaglehawk-Crow myths&mdash;they may be termed collectively bird
+myths&mdash;may go back to a common origin. So far as Mr Mathew's evidence
+goes, bird myths do not seem to be told outside the colony of Victoria
+and the Darling area of New South Wales.</p>
+
+<p>A little research, however, shows that this idea is altogether
+erroneous. There are unfortunately large areas in Australia, as to the
+mythology of which we know absolutely nothing. Therefore it must not be
+supposed that the bird conflict myth is confined to the districts in
+which we have evidence of its existence. We may rather infer that a myth
+so widely distributed&mdash;it ranges from the head of the Bight, 129&deg; E., to
+the coast north of Sydney, and probably as far as Moreton Bay; <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>to the
+north it is found among the Urabunna, and probably elsewhere&mdash;is common
+property of the Australian Tribes.</p>
+
+<p>A glance at the map will show that the eaglehawk and crow myth covers
+but a small portion of the area in which the bird conflict myth is
+found. On the other hand we find within the eaglehawk-crow myth district
+the phratry names Cockatoo, three names of unknown meaning, and the
+doubtful Kiraru&mdash;Kirarawa. Now if a racial conflict is indicated by the
+names eaglehawk and crow, this must be either because the contending
+races were already known by these names, or because the two birds in
+question are proverbially hostile to each other. In either case we are
+left without any explanation of the two cockatoo phratries. It may
+indeed be argued that the locality in which the eaglehawk-crow phratry
+names are found tells strongly in favour of the racial conflict
+hypothesis; for it is precisely in this area that the last stand of the
+aborigines against the invaders may, on the theory put forward by Mr
+Mathew and accepted by some <span class="nowrap">anthropologists<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">103</a></span>, be supposed to have
+taken place. But against this must be set the fact that in this area
+also we find two cockatoos, and on the Annan River two bees, arrayed
+against one another; unless it can be shown that these two birds are
+also proverbial foes, or that the Australian native had reached a point
+in his biological investigations at which he recognised that the
+presence of two closely allied species in a district involves a
+particularly keen struggle for existence (which they would, however,
+regard in such an advanced stage of knowledge as appropriate to the
+designation of intra-racial rather than inter-racial feuds), the two
+sets of facts balance one another, and leave us still engaged in a vain
+quest for a conclusion.</p>
+
+<p>Putting theories as to racial conflicts aside, and dealing with the
+facts as we find them, we seem to have a choice of two hypotheses.
+Either the eaglehawk-crow myths were told before the phratry names came
+into existence, or they were invented to explain the existence of the
+phratry names. Let us assume that none of the unknown names mean
+eaglehawk or crow, and that the eaglehawk-crow area has remained
+approximately the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>same size, or has, at any rate, not diminished
+(excluding, of course, those cases where it seems to have lost ground
+owing to the disappearance of phratry names altogether, as among the
+Kurnai); we must then, on the second theory, assume that the story of
+the combat spread to tribes with completely different phratry names like
+the Urabunna, and got mixed up with their ceremonies of initiation (the
+most sacred part of the mythology of the Australian natives, and one not
+likely to be much influenced by chance intruders); and that it came even
+in some cases to be told of Baiame, the creator and institutor of the
+rites of initiation, who is represented as himself taking part in the
+conflict and gaining a victory over the foes of <span class="nowrap">mankind<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">104</a></span>. On the
+whole, therefore, this view of the case appears improbable.</p>
+
+<p>To the theory that the Eaglehawk-Crow story was originally independent
+of the phratry names no such objections apply. We are indefinitely
+remote from the period at which the anthropologist will be able to do
+for Australia what Franz Boas has done for the North-West of
+America&mdash;draw up a table showing the resemblances and differences
+between the stock of folktales of the different tribes, or, which is
+more important for our present purpose, of the main divisions, eastern,
+central, and western, which the analysis of initiation ceremonies gives
+us&mdash;a tripartite division which Curr also makes on the linguistic side,
+though Mathew's map shows considerable intermixture in this respect.
+Until we know to what extent the Urabunna or the Ikula have folktales in
+common with the Victorian area, or,&mdash;which is perhaps more important,
+though we do not seem to hear of any communication on this line,&mdash;how
+far there is a stock of folktales common to the Darling district and the
+central area, it is obviously idle to speculate as to how it comes that
+an Eaglehawk myth is told in both areas. The physical anthropology of
+the Australian natives is at present a little-worked field, in which,
+singularly enough, the French have done more than the English, to our
+shame be it said. Possibly a somatological survey might disclose to what
+extent the central tribes are distinct from the eastern group, and how
+far we may assume movements of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>population, subsequent to the original
+peopling of the country by the stocks in question, in either or both
+directions. In the absence of such data, and until an Australian Grimm
+has arisen to bring order into the present linguistic chaos, the
+evidence from folktales seems to promise most light on the question of
+migrations.</p>
+
+<p>We are, of course, confronted by the difficulty that this evidence may
+simply disclose the lines along which tribal intercommunication has been
+most easy, whether in the way of simple interchange of commodities,
+evidence of which we have over considerable areas in Australia, or in
+the way of intermarriage, which, as we see by the example of the
+Urabunna and the Arunta, is found in spite of fundamental differences of
+tribal organisation. A common stock of folktales due to this cause would
+leave unexplained the prominence of the bird myth in the sacred rites,
+and leave the present hypothesis, in this regard, on a par with that of
+post-phratriac dissemination, in respect of probability. On the other
+hand we have the Scylla of tribal property in land, an idea so firmly
+rooted in our own day in the minds of the Australians as to make wars of
+conquest unthinkable to them, and to transform the practical part of
+their intertribal feuds into mere raids. If, therefore, investigation
+showed that the central and eastern tribes are in possession of a stock
+of folktales with many items in common, we should always have to take
+into consideration the possibility that these tales antedate the
+complete occupation of Australia, and go back to a period when the
+eastern and central divisions were in close relation. The probability of
+this view would, of course, depend on the extent of the resemblance
+between the two stocks of tales, or, perhaps, rather on the extent of
+the resemblance between those tales which they have in common; for it is
+clear that a close resemblance between comparatively few items would be
+more effective proof of intercommunication than a less marked general
+resemblance between the tale-stocks as a whole.</p>
+
+<p>In spite of the deficiencies of our evidence we may perhaps incline to
+the view that the bird myth dates back to a very early period. Until it
+has been shown that intrusive elements are not only taken up into the
+tribal stock of tales, but also <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>incorporated in the more sacred portion
+of those tales, which are told at the tribal mysteries, it will always
+remain more probable that the myth belongs to the two divisions as a
+result of lineal and not lateral transmission. If this is so the
+differences between the initiation ceremonies, no less than the
+anthropomorphic form of the myth in the eastern division, as compared
+with the purely theriomorphic story of the central division and the
+mixed form of the Ikula, will enable us to say that the period when the
+separation of the divisions took place must be very remote.</p>
+
+<p>There is, therefore, no inherent improbability in supposing that the
+bird myth was told before the phratry names were invented or adopted,
+and that the latter were in some cases taken from the principal
+characters in the myth. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
+the phratry names seem to be subsequent to the present grouping, if we
+may take as our guide the fact that the frontiers of the phratry names
+correspond with the boundaries between the central and eastern
+divisions. The fact that there is a cross division, if we base our
+reasoning on the class organisation, need not of course be taken into
+account, for we have every reason to believe that the classes are
+subsequent to the phratries.</p>
+
+<p>In favour of the derivation of the phratry names from the myth tells
+also the five-fold division of the eaglehawk-crow groups into Muquara
+and Kilpara, Bunjil and Waa, Merung and Yuckembruk, Multa or Malian and
+Umbe. For it is clearly more probable that the names should have been
+taken from a common object than that they should have been in their
+origin identical in form and subsequently differentiated, as the
+languages changed; we have in fact direct evidence of a tendency to
+preserve the old names, which we may perhaps regard as the sacred names,
+after the bird has been rebaptised in the terminology of daily life.
+Over and above this we have of course the fact that the sacred language
+has, generally speaking, both in Australia and elsewhere, this
+unchanging character. But this simple name-borrowing theory, it is
+clear, is equally valid as an explanation of the facts.</p>
+
+<p>Although we cannot determine the meaning of the names <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>the quadripartite
+division of the Mallera-<span class="nowrap">Wuthera<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">105</a></span> and allied phratries in the north is
+evidence of a similar tendency. It is by no means impossible that
+Mallera, Yungaroo, and Pakoota all mean the same thing. (This ignorance
+of the meaning of the phratry and class names is <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> evidence
+of their high antiquity.) In the newly-discovered phratry names of the
+eight-class tribes we have yet another instance of tripartite division.
+If we may assume that Illitchi, Uluuru, and Wiliuku are from the same
+root (which, as we have seen, is probably <i>welu</i>, the terminations
+<i>-uku</i>, <i>-itchi</i>, and <i>-uru</i> (= <i>-aree</i>) being formative suffixes), we
+have here too a single phratry name on the one side and three sister
+names on the other. While it is clear that the names cannot be in any
+sense of the term recent, from the fact that linguistic differentiation
+had already gone some distance in what we may call, for want of a better
+term, groups speaking a stock language (in proof of which we have only
+to look at the formative suffixes), it seems equally clear that the
+present phratry names must be considerably later than the final
+settlement of the country. At the same time it must not be forgotten
+that the existence of numerous small phratries, the number of which may
+yet be largely increased by more exact research, is <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> a
+proof that the groups which adopted them had not reached the stage at
+which anything like that tribal (still less national) organisation was
+known, which is at the present day characteristic of the Arunta, and,
+perhaps, we may say, of all groups organised on a class system with
+class names known and used over an area far beyond that over which the
+(in a restricted sense) tribal language extends.</p>
+
+<p>The recurrence of crow in the phratry name of the far west lends further
+support to the view that the phratry names were selected in some way,
+and were not due to some accident of savage wit. The view has been taken
+that the phratry animals were originally totems, or animals that became
+totems at a later stage. In view of the large number of totems found in
+many tribes, or even restricting their number to six or eight in each
+phratry, it is not difficult to estimate the probability that cockatoo
+and crow would recur in different areas, and that <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>an opposition of
+characters should be found in other cases. The hypothesis needs at any
+rate to be combined with a theory, firstly, of borrowing of phratry
+names, a process which must indeed have played a large part in the
+development of the present system, but which does not necessarily
+involve the supposition that the borrowed names replaced previously
+existing home-made names; and, secondly, of selection of such names as
+were not borrowed.</p>
+
+<p>It has been mentioned that the principle of tribal property in land or,
+to be strictly accurate, in hunting grounds, is, at the present day, a
+fundamental one in native Australian jurisprudence. But, as is shown by
+the map, in some cases the phratries are split into two or more
+<span class="nowrap">segments<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">106</a></span>, more or less remote from one another, geographically
+speaking. Now this apparent segmentation must be due to migration; it
+can hardly arise from the chance adoption of identical names; for the
+groups in which the names occur are, though separated by a considerable
+distance, not so remote as, on the theory of chance selection, we should
+expect them to be, in other words the probability is in favour of the
+segmentation of an original group or its cleavage by an intrusive
+element. Of the causes of this drift of population, which on a large
+scale, and under pressure of any kind, might well overrule even the
+rights of property, we have naturally no idea. In a homogeneous mass
+like the population of Australia, and especially in a mass whose level
+of culture is so low as to leave no remains behind which we could use
+for the purposes of chronology, it is hopeless to expect any solution of
+any of the problems connected with drift of population. One thing only
+seems clear, and on this point we may hope for some light from the data
+of philology, namely that the migration was long subsequent to the
+original <i>Volkerwanderung</i>; for this must have preceded the rise of
+phratry names, which again must have preceded the migration of which the
+segmentation of groups, evidenced by the names themselves, is at
+present, and in default of the aid of philology, our only proof.</p>
+
+<p>The migrations of which we are speaking must, if the possession of one
+phratry name in common be worth anything <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>as evidence of a closer
+connection between the groups, have been internal to a group or, if the
+term be preferred, to a nation occupying the south of Queensland. For in
+the absence of evidence that phratry names are to be found outside their
+own linguistic groups, we cannot but infer from the quadripartite
+division of the Wuthera phratries both the linguistic unity (and
+language must be in Australia the ultimate test of racial relationship
+on a large scale) and the internal movements of the group in which they
+occur.</p>
+
+<p>In favour of the primitive unity of the Wuthera groups, is the fact that
+with small exceptions, and those on the outskirts of the district, the
+area occupied by the assumed homogeneous pre-phratry group has the same
+class names throughout&mdash;which is at the same time a proof that the class
+names are posterior to the phratry names; for the later the date, the
+more extensive the group, may be taken to be the rule in savage
+communities; if the phratry names came later than the class names we
+should expect them to be identical, and the class names different
+instead of the reverse. But to the relative age of classes and phratries
+we return at another point of our argument.</p>
+
+<p>The available data being few, it could hardly be expected that a
+discussion of them would be very fruitful. In the present chapter we
+have, however, shown that the phratry names and organisation are
+probably of very early date, that considerable movements of population
+took place within the linguistic groups subsequent to the adoption of
+the phratry names, and that these names have been selected for some
+explicit reason and not adopted at haphazard.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">100</span></a>&nbsp;For references, meanings, etc. see <a href="#CHAPTER_IV">chap. <span class="smrom">IV</span></a>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">101</span></a>&nbsp;See <i>Man</i> 1905, no. 28.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">102</span></a>&nbsp;Cf. <i>Man</i>, 1905, no. 28.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">103</span></a>&nbsp;But see <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S. Vict.</i> <span class="smrom">XVII</span>, 120.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">104</span></a>&nbsp;See <i>Man</i>, 1905, no. 28, where I show that in the
+Wellington Valley was current a myth of the conflict between Baiame and
+Mudgegong (=Eaglehawk).</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">105</span></a>&nbsp;Chap. <span class="smrom">IV</span>, phratries, nos. 27-29.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">106</span></a>&nbsp;See <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, phratry no. 28.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split
+groups. The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation
+theory of phratriac origin.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>If a pre-phratry organisation developed into the system as we find it,
+it is a little difficult to see how selection can have operated, unless,
+indeed, as Mr Lang suggests, the phratries are <i>transformed</i> connubial
+groups, in which case they may have received new names. It is perhaps
+simpler to suppose that the cases of selection of phratry names cited
+above are those in which the organisation has been borrowed with full
+knowledge of its meaning. If this view is correct, no criticism of
+theories of the origin of phratries is possible from the point of view
+of the names actually existing, for we cannot say which, if any, are
+those which were evolved in the organisation which served as a model to
+the remainder.</p>
+
+<p>Broadly speaking the theories of origin at present in the field may be
+reduced to two: in the first place, the conscious reformation theory,
+which supposes that man discovered the evils of in-and-in breeding, a
+point on which some discussion will be found in a later portion of this
+work. In the second place, there is the unconscious evolution theory put
+forward by Mr Lang, whose criticism of the opposing view makes it
+unnecessary to deal with the objections <span class="nowrap">here<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">107</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>Mr Lang's original theory took for its basis the hypothesis, put forward
+by the late Mr J.&nbsp;J. Atkinson, in <i>Primal Law</i>, of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>the origin of
+exogamy. His starting-point was mankind in the brute stage. At the point
+in the evolution of the human race at which Mr Atkinson takes up his
+tale, man, or rather Eoanthropos, was, according to his conjecture,
+organised, if that term can be applied to the grouping of the lower
+animals, in bodies consisting of one adult male, an attendant horde of
+adult females, including, probably, at any rate after a certain lapse of
+time, his own progeny, together with the immature offspring of both
+sexes. As the young males came to maturity, they would be expelled from
+the herd, as is actually the case with cattle and other mammals, by
+their sire, now become their foe. They probably wandered about, as do
+the young males of some existing species, in droves of a dozen or more,
+and at certain seasons of the year, one or more of them would, as they
+felt their powers mature, engage the lord of their own or of another
+herd in single combat, until with the lapse of time the latter either
+succumbed or was driven from the herd to end his days in solitary
+ferocity, his hand against everyone, just as we see the rogue elephant
+wage war indiscriminately on all who approach him.</p>
+
+<p>In process of time, so Mr Atkinson suggests, with the lengthening
+childhood conditioned by the progress of the race, maternal love of a
+more enduring kind developed, than is found among the non-human species
+of the present day. This led eventually to the presence of a young male,
+perhaps the youngest born of a given mother, being permitted to remain,
+on conditions, in the herd after he had attained maturity. The original
+lord and master of the herd retained, Mr Atkinson supposes, his full
+sovereignty over the females born in the herd as well as over those whom
+his prowess had perhaps added to it from time to time. The young male on
+the other hand was not condemned to a life of celibacy as a condition of
+his non-enforcement of the traditional decree of banishment. He was
+permitted to find a mate, but she must be a mate not born in the herd,
+nor one of the harem of his sire; he had, if he wished to wed, to
+capture a spouse for himself from another herd. For the detailed working
+out of this ingenious theory we must refer our readers to Mr Atkinson's
+work, <i>Primal Law</i>. Here it <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>suffices to state the primal law which
+resulted from the process sketched above. This primal law was "thou
+shalt not marry within the group." This law, at first enforced by the
+superior strength of the sire, came in the process of time to be a
+traditional rule of conduct, almost an instinct. And with this we reach
+the theory put forward in <i>Social Origins</i> by Mr Andrew Lang, according
+to which local groups received animal names, perhaps from their
+neighbours. These local groups being exogamous for the reason just
+given, and the group name being <span class="nowrap">eventually<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">108</a></span> given, not only to the
+actual members of the group, but also to the women, captured or
+otherwise, who became the mates of the men of the adjoining groups, it
+necessarily resulted that the men of a group, so long as the mother's
+group name did not descend to her children, were of one name, while
+their wives were of another, or more probably of many other names. The
+group became definitely heterogeneous when the maternal group name
+descended to the children born in the alien group, and in process of
+time these maternal group names became totem names.</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile the original group names had been retained and applied, along
+with the totem or quasi-totem names, to the members of the group; the
+name being probably, in the first place, that of the group in which they
+were born, but, with the rise of the matrilineal descent, which has been
+discussed above, eventually taken from the group to which the mother
+belonged.</p>
+
+<p>During these processes the custom had sprung up to select a wife, not at
+random from any of the probably more or less hostile surrounding groups,
+but from one particular group with which the group of the candidate for
+matrimony had in the course of time come to be on friendly terms.</p>
+
+<p>The names of these two groups, which drew in other smaller groups,
+became the phratry names of the newly-formed aggregate, the largest unit
+known to primitive society at that stage of its evolution, and
+corresponding roughly to what we have defined as a tribe; for it was
+united by bonds of friendship, and in the course of time the language,
+originally very different no doubt, how different we can, indeed, hardly
+say, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>must have so far coalesced, owing to the interchange of wives (in
+so far as a distinct woman's language, traces of which are found among
+some savage tribes, was not developed), as to produce a single tongue.</p>
+
+<p>This theory Mr Lang has now fortified and elaborated in <i>The Secret of
+the Totem</i>, the most important new point being the demonstration of the
+fact that totem kins which bear names of the same significance as the
+phratry names are almost invariably in the eponymous phratries&mdash;a clear
+proof that law and not chance has determined their position.</p>
+
+<p>As an explanation of the distribution of phratry names Mr Lang adopts a
+theory which combines the hypotheses of evolution and borrowing, and
+thus explains both the wide area covered by some systems, and the
+increasing multitude of organisations confined to small districts, which
+more minute research reveals. This does not, it is true, explain the
+geographical remoteness of different parts of the same system or of
+allied systems, shown to be so by the identity of phratry animal or
+name. Not only is Wuthera-Mallera split into two sections; but a portion
+of Wuthera-Yungaru seems to be in the same position; if we may take the
+Badieri Yungo as equivalent to Yungaru, dispersion alone suffices to
+explain the case; but if Yungo is derived from the Kurnandaburi, who
+have Mattera as the sister phratry, then we have the Badieri phratry
+names borrowed each from a different tribe, at any rate in appearance.</p>
+
+<p>In reality this state of things affords the strongest possible support
+to Mr Lang's hypothesis, if only we can suppose that the formation of
+tribes is subsequent to the elaboration of the phratriac system. For it
+might well happen that an original Yungo local group divided, from
+economic causes, but that each half retained its original name. Under
+these circumstances the two portions formed connubial alliances with
+other groups; and in the tribes as we see the names of these split
+groups are found as phratry names, combined in each case with a
+different sister phratry name. We find for example Wuthera-Yungo,
+Yungo-Mattera, Matteri-Kiraru in the central area. The same theory will
+explain the appearance of Wuthera beside three other sister names,
+though here we must call in the borrowing and migration <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>theories as
+well, to explain the wide area over which the names are found. We have
+seen that in the northern tribes one of the phratry names appears to be
+in each case from the same root; if this is so, we can apply to them too
+the split-group hypothesis.</p>
+
+<p>The case of Eaglehawk-Crow is less simple. Separated from the Darling
+area by a considerable space lie four systems of the same name in the
+east of Victoria. Here it is hardly possible to assume that the latter
+systems have migrated; on the other hand the area covered by the Darling
+group suggests that it is unlikely to have been forced from its original
+home by pressure from outside. Perhaps it is simplest to suppose that
+the Wiradjeri have gradually forced their way in, wedge fashion, between
+the different sections, and either swallowed up the intervening members
+or driven them before them; this would account for the existence of the
+anomalous groups to the south-west.</p>
+
+<p>In this area, too, we seem to have a case of the split group; but the
+identity of meaning of the other phratry names (Malian and Multa both
+mean Eaglehawk) makes it clear that it is simply a case of
+translation&mdash;a possibility which must be kept in mind in the other cases
+also. It is a common phenomenon for two tribes to have the name of one
+animal in common, while for that of another entirely different words are
+in use. The four Victorian groups appear to have borrowed the phratry
+names, but the centre from which they took them must remain uncertain.</p>
+
+<p>It may be noted in passing that the view of Prof. Gregory, who holds
+that the occupation of Victoria by the blacks dates back no more than
+300 years, is hardly borne out by the distribution of the phratriac
+systems. It is clearly improbable that they were developed <i>in situ</i>,
+for this would make the organisation of very much more recent date than
+we have any warrant for supposing. On the other hand it is improbable
+that four tribes, all with the same phratriac names, should have taken
+their course in the same direction, and settled in proximity to one
+another, at any rate, unless the natural features of the country made
+this course the only possible one.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>To return to Mr Lang's theory, it obviously suggests, if it does not
+demand, that such phratries as are spread over wide areas should in the
+main follow the lines of linguistic or cultural areas. Our knowledge of
+these is hardly sufficient to enable us to say at present how far the
+presumption of coincidence is fulfilled; but it is certain that in more
+than one large area the facts are as Mr Lang's theory requires them to
+be.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand in New South Wales we find an area in which we fail to
+discern the lines on which the phratriac systems are distributed. Here,
+however, we are at a disadvantage in consequence of the uncertainty
+introduced by the unsettled question of "blood" <span class="nowrap">organisations<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">109</a></span>.
+Further research may show that the supposed phratriac areas, which are
+apparently only portions of the Wiradjeri territory, are in reality to
+be assigned to the "blood" organisations, which we may probably assign
+to a later date than the phratries and classes.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps Mr Lang's theory hardly accounts for the fact that eaglehawk and
+crow figure not only as phratry names but also in the myths and rites.
+It is not apparent why eaglehawk and crow groups should take the lead
+and give their names to the phratries unless it was as contrasted
+colours; on the other hand, if they were selected as the names from
+among a number of others this difficulty vanishes, but then we do not
+see why these names are not more widely found, unless indeed the
+untranslated names mean eaglehawk and crow; but possibly all express a
+contrast of some sort.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole, however, it may be said that Mr Lang's theory holds the
+field. Not only is it internally consistent, which cannot be affirmed of
+the reformation theory, but it colligates the facts far better. This may
+be illustrated by a single point.</p>
+
+<p>On the reformation theory, unaccompanied, as it is, by any hypothesis of
+borrowing of phratry names, we should <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> find the latter,
+where they are translateable, to be those of the animals which are most
+frequently found as totems. Now in the area covered by Dr Howitt's
+recent work, omitting those tribes for which our lists of totems are
+admittedly not complete, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span>we find that emu, kangaroo, snake, eaglehawk,
+and iguana are found as totems in about two-thirds of the cases; then,
+after a long interval, come wallaby and crow, less than half as often,
+with opossum rather more frequently, in half the total number. But it is
+clearly outside the bounds of probability that four of the commonest
+totems should not give their names, so far as is known, to phratries,
+while eaglehawk recurs five, crow six, and cockatoo three times, the two
+latter in one case in a remote area. Not only so, but the opposition
+between the phratry names&mdash;black and white or the like&mdash;is
+unintelligible, if, as on Dr Durkheim's theory, the phratries are simply
+the elementary totem groups which intermarried and threw off secondary
+totem kins. But criticism of other theories opens a wide field, into
+which it is best not to diverge.</p>
+
+<p>On the development theory the phratries came into existence perhaps as
+the result of the persistence of an old custom of exogamy, non-moral in
+its inception, or, it may be, as a result of the rise of totemic tabus.
+The reformation theory, on the other hand, makes the conscious
+attainment of a better state of society the object of the institution of
+a dichotomous organisation. It will therefore be well to see what
+results in practice from the phratriac organisation.</p>
+
+<p>In the two-phratry area (other rules, which usually exist, apart) it is
+impossible for children of the same mother or father, or of sisters or
+of brothers, to marry, nor can one of the parents, either mother or
+father, according to the rule of descent, take her or his own child in
+marriage. Now if the object of the reformation was to prevent parents
+from marrying children, it was clearly not attained. If, on the other
+hand, it was intended to prevent children of the same mother or father
+from intermarrying, the result could have been attained far more simply,
+either by direct prohibition, such as is found in other cases, or by the
+institution of totemic exogamy, which, in the view of some authorities,
+already existed, and consequently made the phratry superfluous.</p>
+
+<p>According to Dr Frazer's 1905 theory, phratries were introduced to
+prevent brother and sister marriage and exogamous bars began in the
+female <span class="nowrap">line<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">110</a></span>. Against this hypothesis may be <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>urged not only the
+objections first stated but also the fact that for Dr Frazer the Arunta
+are primitive and yet reckon descent (of the class) in the <i>male</i> line.
+If, as he conceives, conceptional totemism was transformed in the
+central tribes into patrilineal totemism, I fail to see why the
+phratries or classes should descend in the female line.</p>
+
+<p>If in the third place, it was proposed to prevent children of sisters or
+of brothers from intermarrying, it is completely mysterious why children
+of brothers and sisters should not only not have been prevented in the
+same way, but absolutely be regarded as the proper mates for each other.
+Even if a single community reformed itself on these lines, it is hardly
+conceivable that many should have done so, even if we suppose that the
+advantages of prohibition were preached from tribe to tribe by
+missionaries of the new order of things. <i>Ex hypothesi</i>, cousin marriage
+was not regarded as harmful; and it is highly improbable that any people
+in the lower stages of culture should have discovered that in-and-in
+breeding is harmful, for the results, especially in a people which
+contained no degenerates, would not appear at once, even if they
+appeared at all.</p>
+
+<p>On this point therefore the probabilities are wholly on the side of
+development as against reformation.</p>
+
+<p>An additional reason against the reformation theory is found in the fact
+that phratries, on this theory, would never exceed two in number, but in
+practice there are, as shown in Chapter <span class="smrom">II</span>, wide variations.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">107</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Secret of the Totem</i>, pp. 31, 91 sq.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">108</span></a>&nbsp;Mr Lang's view is that the women from the first retained
+their original group names wherever they went. <i>Letter of July 27th</i>,
+1906.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">109</span></a>&nbsp;See pp. 31, 50.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">110</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Fortn. Rev.</i> <span class="smrom">LXXVIII</span>, 459.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">CLASS NAMES.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the
+Names: Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>The priority of phratries over classes is commonly admitted and it is
+unnecessary to argue the question at length. The main grounds for the
+assumption are: (1) that it is <i>a priori</i> probable that the fourfold
+division succeeded the twofold division, exactly as the eightfold
+division has succeeded, and apparently is still gaining ground, at the
+expense of the four-class system. (2) Over a considerable and compact
+area phratries alone are found without a trace of named classes, if we
+except the anomalous organisation recorded by Dawson in S.&nbsp;W. Victoria.
+On the other hand, while we find certain tribes among whom no phratry
+names have yet been discovered, it is inherently probable that this is
+due to their having been forgotten and not to their never having
+existed. It is possible that the encroachments of an alien class system
+have in some cases helped on the extinction of the phratry names. (3) We
+find classes without phratry names, not in a compact group, but
+scattered up and down more or less at random, suggesting that chance and
+not law has been at work to produce this result. (4) Where class names
+are found without corresponding phratry names, they are invariably
+arranged in what may be termed anonymous phratries; that is to say, in
+pairs or fours, so that the member of one class is under normal
+circumstances not at liberty to select a wife at will from the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>other
+three, but is usually limited to one of the other classes. This state of
+things clearly points to a time when the phratries were recognised by
+the tribes in question.</p>
+
+<p>(5) While the classes are arranged in pairs or fours, according to
+whether the system is four- or eight-class, the totems, on the other
+hand, are distributed phratry fashion; in other words, one group of
+totems belongs to each pair or quadruplet of classes. This divergent
+organisation of the classes (four or eight for the whole tribe) and
+totems (two groups for the whole tribe) can only be explained on the
+supposition that the phratry everywhere preceded the class organisation.</p>
+
+<p>The spatial relations of the phratries and classes are sufficiently
+clear from the map; and a table shows how far cross divisions are found.</p>
+
+<p>The main area of disturbance of the normal relations is, as shown in
+Table IV (p. <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>), the district occupied by the Koorgilla class-system
+and its immediate neighbourhood. The Yungaroo-Witteru group has three
+representatives in the Koorgilla class and one in the Kurpal class. The
+Pakoota-Wootaroo phratry has likewise three in the Koorgilla class, a
+fourth being in the Yowingo organisation. A large area is occupied by
+the Mallera-Witteru phratry in the Koorgilla class, and one tribe is
+again found in the Yowingo group. No class names are recorded for the
+Undekerebina in the Pakoota group, and no phratry names for the Mycoolon
+and Workobongo in the Yowingo group, nor for the Yerunthully in the
+Koorgilla group, which in addition to tribes belonging to the three
+Wuthera phratries also embraces within its limits the small Purgoma and
+Jouon tribes.</p>
+
+<p>The only other anomaly recorded in addition to those mentioned is among
+the tribes on the south and south-east of the area just dealt with,
+which have the Barang class names with the Kamilaroi phratry names, or
+the Kamilaroi class names with tribal phratry names. In four cases
+therefore the phratry is found outside the limits of the class usually
+associated with it, or, in other words, it is associated with a strange
+class system. In one case, that of the Kalkadoon, this is sufficiently
+explained by the fact that the tribe is itself now remote geographically
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>speaking from its fellows, owing to the interposition of Pitta-Pitta
+and allied tribes. In the other three cases the facts seem to point to a
+change in the intertribal relationships in the period intervening
+between the adoption of phratry names and the introduction of the class
+system. If the lines of intercourse and intermarriage had suffered a
+revolution in the interval, the names, the origin of which we have yet
+to consider, would naturally show a different grouping of the tribes;
+for it is on the grouping of the tribes that the spread of the names,
+whether of phratries or classes, must have depended.</p>
+
+<p>The main mass of the tribes organised on the four-class system lies in
+Queensland and New South Wales, and whereas only two sets of names are
+found in the latter colony, no less than fifteen (some of which are,
+however, of more than doubtful authenticity) are reported from various
+parts of Queensland. From Northern Territory two (Anula and Mara) of
+small extent are <span class="nowrap">reported<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">111</a></span>; a considerable area of this colony, as
+well as of South and West Australia, is occupied by the Arunta system,
+and the closely allied classes to the north-west of them. The only other
+four-class system in West Australia of which we have definite
+information is that west and north of King George's Sound and eastwards
+for an unknown distance.</p>
+
+<p>Covering nearly the whole of New South Wales outside the area occupied
+by the two-phratry tribes of the Darling country, and extending far up
+into Queensland, we find the well-known Muri-Kubbi, Ippai-Kumbo classes
+(1) of the Kamilaroi <span class="nowrap">nation<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">112</a></span>. The Kamilaroi system appears to have
+touched the sea in the neighbourhood of Sydney. According to Mr Mathews,
+the Darkinung, who inhabited this part of New South Wales, substituted
+Bya for Muri. (1<i>a</i>) In like manner the Wiradjeri are stated by Gribble
+to have replaced Kumbo by Wombee; this may however be no more than a
+dialectical variant.</p>
+
+<p>Lying along the sea coast north-east of the Darkinung and east of the
+main mass of Kamilaroi tribe were the Kombinegherry and other tribes,
+whom Mr Mathews denominates the Anaywan. Their classes are given by him
+as Irrpoong, Marroong, Imboong, and Irrong; but an earlier authority
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>gives the forms Kurbo, Marro, Wombo, and Wirro (2); at Wide Bay we find
+Baran, Balkun, Derwen, and Bundar (3) with an alternative form Banjoor.</p>
+
+<p>North of them, still on the coast, we find the Kuinmurbura with Kurpal,
+Kuialla, Karilbura, and Munal (4); for the Taroombul, which I am unable
+to locate, Mr Mathews gives Koodala in place of Kuialla and Karalbara
+for Karilbura. For the Kangoollo, lying inland from this group, Mr
+Mathews gives Kearra, Banjoor, Banniar, and Koorpal. This suggests that
+there is some confusion, for the names include two from 4, and one or
+two from 3.</p>
+
+<p>A very large area is occupied by tribes with the classes (5) Koorgila,
+Bunburi, Wunggo, and Obur (and variants). They include the Yuipera and
+allied tribes, the Kogai, the Wakelbura and allied tribes, the Yambeena,
+the Yerunthully, the Woonamurra, the Mittakoodi, the Pitta-Pitta, etc.,
+together with the Purgoma of the Palm Islands and the neighbouring
+Jouon, whose headquarters are at Cooktown. In the southern portion of
+this group a correspondent of Curr's has reported the classes Nullum,
+Yoolgo, Bungumbura, and Teilling. We have class names analogous in form
+to the third of these names, it is true, but it resembles tribal names
+so closely as to suggest that the observer in question was really
+referring to a tribe and not to a class. If this is so we may perhaps
+identify Teilling with the Toolginbura. There seems to be no reason for
+admitting these four names to a place among the other groups of class
+names. In like manner we may dismiss the class names assigned to the
+Yukkaburra by an inaccurate correspondent of Curr's, who gives Utheroo,
+Multheroo, Yungaroo, and Goorgilla. It seems clear that the first and
+third of these are really phratry names; possibly the second is a
+dialectical form for Utheroo.</p>
+
+<p>From Halifax Bay and Hinchinbrook Island are reported the names Korkoro,
+Korkeen, Wongo, and Wotero (with variants). Among the Joongoongie of
+North Queensland we find Langenam, Namegoor, Packewicky, and Pamarung
+(15); and among the Karandee Curr gives an anomalous and probably
+defective set, Moorob, Heyanbo, Lenai, Roanga, and Yelet.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>The Goothanto and Wollungurma have Ranya, Rara, Loora, and Awunga (8);
+allied to these perhaps are the Jury, Ararey, Barry, and Mungilly of the
+Koogobathy; the Ahjeerena, Arrenynung, Perrynung, and Mahngal of the
+Koonjan are clearly variants of the latter set. East of the Koogobathy
+lie the Warkeman with Koopungie, Kellungie, Chukungie, and Karpungie
+(6), with an allied tribe on the Tully River with classes, Kurongon,
+Kurkulla, Chikun, Karavangie, the two latter obviously corresponding to
+Warkeman classes, the second to Koorgilla.</p>
+
+<p>The Miappe, Mycoolon, Kalkadoon, and Workoboongo have Youingo, Maringo,
+Badingo, and Jimmilingo (9), with alternatives Kapoodingo, Kungilingo,
+and Toonbeungo.</p>
+
+<p>The Yoolanlanya and others have Deringara, Gubilla, Koomara, and
+Belthara, possibly a defective list, for Mr Mathews adds to these for
+the Ullayilinya Lookwara and Ungella (probably a defective set) in
+another communication. Two of these are obviously identical with the
+Arunta Koomara and Bulthara, with which are associated Purula and
+Panungka (13), while Ungilla and Gubilla are taken from the eight-class
+system to which we may probably assign the tribe. North-west of the
+Arunta, outside the eight-class area, the class names are almost
+identical with, though they differ widely in form from the Arunta names.
+They are Burong, Ballieri, Baniker, and Caiemurra (13). The form
+Boorgarloo is given as a variant. Mrs Bates has found a system (14) in
+S.&nbsp;W. Australia.</p>
+
+<p>On the western shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria we find the Mara with
+Purdal, Murungun, Mumbali, and Kuial (10); and the Anula with Awukaria,
+Roumburia, Urtalia, and Wialia (11).</p>
+
+<p>The only two remaining four-class systems of which the names are known
+are on the Annan River with Wandi, Walar, Jorro, and Kutchal (7)&mdash;the
+Ngarranga of Yorke Peninsula, with Kari, Wani, Wilthi, and Wilthuthu.</p>
+
+<p>Attention has been called in the course of the above exposition to
+various cases in which the class names found among one group of tribes
+are in part if not entirely identical with those found among their
+neighbours. A close examination <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>discloses other possible though hardly
+probable points of contact besides those already enumerated. The variant
+form Banjoora in 3 seems to be the same as the Banjoor of the Kangulu,
+which again has Koorpal in common with 4, and also Kearra, if we may
+equate the latter with Kuialla. This again is perhaps the Kuial of the
+Mara tribe (9).</p>
+
+<p>The Marroong of 2 seems to be the Maringo of 9, and we may perhaps also
+equate the Kurbo of this group with the Kurpal of 4. Irroong resembles
+the roanga of the Karandee which is probably the Arawongo of the
+Goothanto.</p>
+
+<p>In 5 Wongo suggests the Youingo of 9; it reappears in the Halifax Bay
+list, as also does Koorgilla in one of the variants. Again Kubi (1)
+corresponds to Koobaroo (5), and Kumbo (Wombee) to Bunburi (Unburi), but
+we can hardly regard them as the same words. Koodalla and Koorpal (4)
+may be the same as Kellungie and Koopungie (6); the other pair shows no
+resemblance.</p>
+
+<p>Possibly the Wiradjeri Wombee is the Kombinegherry Wombo; it is at any
+rate significant that the name is found in the portion of the tribe
+nearest the Kombinegherry.</p>
+
+<p>We have seen that the Arunta and their north-western neighbours have a
+four-class system, the component names of which are found with little
+variation over a range of nearly 25&deg; of longitude. In the forms
+Kiemarra, Palyeri, Burong, and Baniker, the class names in vogue among
+the southern Arunta meet us again near the North-West Cape, thus
+covering a larger area than even the widespread Koorgila-Bunburi class
+names of Queensland, and forming a striking contrast to the narrow
+limits of the majority of the four-class system. This peculiarity is
+reproduced in the compact area of the central eight-class tribes, north
+and north-east of the Koomara four-class area, though with much greater
+variations in the names. Bulthara however in the form Palyeri is found
+in more or less disguised shapes in the whole of the eighteen tribes,
+whose class names are shown in Table Ia; Koomara is found in shapes
+which are on the whole harder to recognise, and Panunga and Purula in
+two or three cases, either replaced by another word or so changed as to
+be unrecognisable. Of the supplementary names <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>belonging to the
+eight-class Arunta, Uknaria, Ungalla, Appungerta, Umbitchana, Ungalla is
+found in the whole of the tribes under consideration, and Appungerta
+undergoes on the whole but little change; Uknaria is practically not
+found outside the Arunta area, and Umbitchana is in six cases replaced
+by Yacomary, which seems to be a form of Koomara (to this point we recur
+later).</p>
+
+<p>Although this suggests that the names were in the first case taken from
+the Arunta a comparison of them shows that it is not among this tribe
+that the greatest number of forms common to the whole group and the
+greatest general resemblance of the names is to be found, as is shown by
+the comparative tables below. Judged by the standard of resemblance the
+Oolawunga of the north-west, on the Victoria River, have preserved the
+names nearest their original forms. Judged by the standard of least
+deviation from the common stock of names and basing the comparison, not
+on resemblances but on differences, the Koorangie of the upper waters of
+the same river take the first place, with the Oolawunga not far behind.
+In each case the Inchalachee, the most easterly of the group, take the
+last place, followed in the table of resemblances by the Walpari and the
+Worgaia; and in the table of differences by the Worgaia and, though at a
+considerable distance, the Mayoo and the Walpari.</p>
+
+<p class="center" style="margin-top: 2em;"><i>Figure of Resemblance</i><a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><span style="font-size: 0.9em;"><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor" >113</a></span>.</p>
+
+
+<table class="tablecenter" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 90%" summary="Figure of Resemblance">
+<tr><td style="width: 15em;">Oolawunga</td><td align="right">55</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Bingongina</td><td align="right">54</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Umbaia</td><td align="right">51</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Koorangie</td><td align="right">50</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Yookala, Binbinga</td><td align="right">48</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Gnanji</td><td align="right">47</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Meening</td><td align="right">43</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Warramunga, Yungmunni</td><td align="right">41</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Arunta, Mayoo</td><td align="right">40</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Kaitish, Yungarella, Tjingilli</td><td align="right">39</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Worgaia</td><td align="right">37</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Walpari</td><td align="right">31</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Inchalachee</td><td align="right">28</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="center" style="margin-top: 2em;">
+<i>Figure of Difference</i><a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><span style="font-size: 0.9em;"><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">114</a></span>.</p>
+
+
+<table class="tablecenter" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" style="font-size: 90%" summary="Figure of Difference">
+<tr><td style="width: 15em;">Koorangie</td><td align="right">31</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Oolawunga</td><td align="right">33</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Umbaia</td><td align="right">35</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Bingongina</td><td align="right">37</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Yungmunni</td><td align="right">42</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Gnanji, Tjingilli</td><td align="right">44</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Warramunga</td><td align="right">45</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Arunta</td><td align="right">46</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Binbinga</td><td align="right">49</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Yookala</td><td align="right">50</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Meening</td><td align="right">52</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Kaitish</td><td align="right">54</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Yungarella, Walpari</td><td align="right">56</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Mayoo</td><td align="right">57</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Worgaia</td><td align="right">69</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Inchalachee</td><td align="right">84</td></tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<p>Attention has already been drawn to the resemblance between the Arunta
+four-class names and the names of the eight-class group. It is clearly
+of high importance to determine whether the resemblance is on the whole
+between the names of the western group and the eight-class names, or
+whether the latter can more readily be derived from those of the Arunta.
+In the latter case it is obvious that the position of the Oolawunga and
+Koorangie in the comparative tables is due, not to their having been the
+tribes from which all the others derived their names, but rather to
+movements of population subsequent to the adoption of the class names.
+If on the other hand it appears that the names came in the first
+instance from the more western portion of the Koomara group, we have
+some grounds for supposing that the names and the system reached the
+eight-class area from the west and not from the south.</p>
+
+<p>We have already seen that in the case of Palyeri-Bulthara all the
+evidence points to the name having come from the west. In the case of
+Panunga the evidence is weaker, certain of the forms being derivable
+from either Baniker or Panunga, but with the exception of the
+Warramunga, and possibly the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span> Tjingili, there are no tribes of whom we
+can definitely say that they took the name from the Arunta, whereas
+there are at least four cases where the resemblance is distinctly with
+the western class names, and several more in which it can more readily
+be derived from them. The resemblance between Koomarra and Kiemarra or
+Kiamba is already considerable, and makes it difficult to estimate the
+probabilities in most cases; the problem is complicated by the question
+of prefixes, which will come up for discussion later, and on the whole
+there appears to be no certain solution of the problem, though the Mayoo
+seem to have taken over and varied the western form. In the case of
+Purula-Burong there appear to be indeterminate cases; six seem to tell
+in favour of a southern origin; three suggest a western origin; and one
+word Chupil (f. Namilpa) seems to be from a different root.</p>
+
+<p>The problem is further complicated by the anomalous class name Yakomari,
+to which allusion has already been made. As will be seen later, <i>cha</i> or
+<i>ja</i> seem to be prefixes, and if that is so we can hardly avoid the
+conclusion that Yakomari is Koomara or Kiemara. But in the table it
+takes the place of Umbitchana, with which it is not even remotely
+connected philologically; Jamara and its various forms take the place in
+the table occupied by Koomara among the Arunta when Yakomari holds the
+eighth place as well as in other cases. If therefore <i>ku</i>, <i>ja</i>, and
+<i>ya</i> are simply prefixes, as seems to be the case, we have this class
+name duplicated among five of the tribe&mdash;the Umbaia, Yookala, Binbinga,
+Worgaia, Yangarella, and Inchalachee, of which one comes near the top,
+and two fairly high in the comparative table. It is however worthy of
+notice that these six tribes form the eastern group, and are
+consequently precisely those among which we should, on the hypothesis
+that the class names originated in the western portion of the area,
+expect to find the greatest amount of variation and the most numerous
+anomalies. Dividing the six tribes into two groups, western and eastern,
+each of three tribes, we find that the cumulative resemblance of the
+western group to the Arunta is 132, to the Oolawunga 186; the same
+figures for the eastern group, more remote from the Oolawunga, but
+practically equidistant with the western group from <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>the Arunta, are 91
+and 112. This again seems to lend support to the hypothesis of a western
+origin. It is perhaps simplest to suppose that the majority of the names
+came from the west; but that Yakomari, travelling upwards from the
+south-west, displaced the more usual eighth class name, or perhaps we
+should say, replaced it, when the eight-class system was adopted, for a
+name is not likely to have gone out of use when it had once been applied
+as a designation.</p>
+
+<p>Attention has been called in connection with the phratries to the
+suffixes such as <i>um</i>, <i>itch</i>, <span class="nowrap"><i>aku</i><a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">115</a></span>, etc. Their precise meaning is
+usually uncertain. An attentive consideration of the class names seems
+to show that similar suffixes have been used in forming them. If we
+compare Panunga and Baniker, it seems a fair conclusion that the <i>ban</i>
+or <i>pan</i> is compounded with <i>iker</i> (<i>aku</i>) or <i>unga</i>, for among the
+Yookala, the nearest neighbours of the Bingongina, who have it as a
+phratriac suffix, the <i>-agoo</i> of the class names is unmistakeably
+independent of the root word, whatever that may be. In addition to
+<i>unga</i> we find <i>inginja</i>, <i>angie</i>, <i>inja</i>, <i>itch</i> (recalling the <i>itji</i>
+of the phratries), <i>itchana</i>, and the form <i>anjegoo</i> which seems to have
+a double suffix. <i>Ara</i>, <i>yeri</i>, <i>aree</i>, <i>um</i>, <i>ana</i>, <i>ula</i> (as we see by
+comparing Purula with Burong), <i>ta</i>, and the possibly double form
+<i>tjuka</i>, seem to be further examples.</p>
+
+<p>The feminine forms Nalyirri for Thalirri (=&nbsp;Palyeri), Nala for Chula,
+Ninum for Tjinum, Nana for Tjana or Thama, etc. suggest that prefixes
+are also to be distinguished. They seem to be <i>choo</i>, <i>joo</i>, <i>ja</i>, <i>ya</i>,
+<i>n-</i>, <i>yun</i>, <i>u-</i>, <i>ku</i>, <i>pu</i>, <i>bu</i>, <i>nu</i>, etc. We are however on very
+uncertain ground here, for the feminine forms may be deliberate
+creations. Allowance has to be made too for the personal equation of the
+observer, which is by no means inconsiderable. Possibly this factor,
+together with ordinary laws of phonetic change, the most elementary
+principles of which have yet to be established for the Australian
+languages, will suffice to account for the variations in the names as
+recorded. Otherwise the words are in most cases reduced to monosyllabic
+roots from which it seems hopeless to attempt to extract a meaning.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>These questions of suffixes and prefixes are intimately connected with
+the very difficult problem of the origin of the classes. The languages
+of these tribes are at present, if not distinct linguistic stocks, at
+any rate very far from being mere dialectical variations of a common
+tongue, for the members of two tribes appear to be mutually
+unintelligible, unless, contrary to the custom of the American Indians,
+they are bilingual. But if each tribe added a suffix, and thus adopted
+into their own language words which, from the general agreement among
+the class names of this group, seem to have come to them from outside,
+it is a reasonable hypothesis that the word which they adopted had some
+meaning for them. Of course we may suppose that the class names were all
+adopted in the far off time when all spoke a common language. But apart
+from the difficulty that this presupposes the existence of an
+eight-class system at that early period, it is clear from the Queensland
+evidence that class names have been handed on from tribe to tribe, and
+it is reasonable to suppose this to have been the case with the northern
+tribes. This conclusion is borne out by the forms of the suffixes, which
+do not appear to have been developed from one root determinative, as
+must have been the case if we suppose that the names originated when the
+language spoken by these tribes was undifferentiated; and by the facts
+as to the apparent duplication of Koomara, to which allusion has already
+been made.</p>
+
+<p>The important point about the class, as distinguished from the phratry
+systems, is the great extent covered by the former. The north-west area
+of male descent is virtually one from the point of view of class names;
+two other areas are very large, six are of medium size, three are small,
+and the remaining one is probably medium.</p>
+
+<p>Although the question of the meaning of the class names is closely bound
+up with that of their origin, the problem is closely bound up with some
+of the points discussed in this chapter. The meaning of the eight-class
+names is connected with the area of origin of the system, and linguistic
+questions, such as those relating to suffixes, come in. We may therefore
+briefly discuss at this point the meaning of the class names.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>On the whole it may be said that we know the meaning of the class names
+only in exceptional cases. The Kiabara, Kamilaroi, Annan River,
+Kuinmurbura, Narrang-ga, and two of the West Australian names can be
+translated (see <a href="#Table_I">Table I</a>). But with these exceptions we have no certain
+knowledge of the meaning of the single class names.</p>
+
+<p>Conjectures are of comparatively little value. For in the first place
+the number of words recorded from any given tribe is as a rule very
+small, and little or no indication of the pronunciation is given even in
+the latest works on Australian ethnography. The variations, evidently
+purely arbitrary and due to the want of training in phonetics, are
+frequently very considerable. And finally the area over which the names
+prevail is sufficiently great to give us our choice from half a dozen or
+more different tribal languages, which combined with the variation in
+the form of the words, adds very considerably to the probability that
+there will be found somewhere within the area a word or words bearing a
+deceptively close resemblance to the class names. How far this is the
+case may be made clear by one or two instances of chance resemblances
+between animal names (it seems on the whole probable that if the names
+are translateable they will turn out to be animal names) in the same or
+neighbouring tribes. The meaning of Arunta seems to be white
+<span class="nowrap">cockatoo<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">116</a></span>, but we also find a word almost indistinguishable from it
+in sound&mdash;eranta&mdash;with the meaning of <span class="nowrap">pelican<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">117</a></span>. Kulbara means emu
+and koolbirra <span class="nowrap">kangaroo<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">118</a></span>. Malu (=&nbsp;kangaroo), mala (=&nbsp;mouse), and male
+(=&nbsp;swan) are found in tribes of West Australia, though not of tribes
+living in immediate proximity one to <span class="nowrap">another<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">119</a></span>. But perhaps the best
+example is that of Derroein, which, as we have seen, means kangaroo. In
+addition to durween (young male kangaroo) we find at no great distance
+the words dirrawong (=&nbsp;iguana) and deerooyn (=&nbsp;whip snake), either of
+which bears a sufficiently close resemblance to the class name to be
+accepted as a translation for it in the absence of other
+<span class="nowrap">competitors<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">120</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>With these facts in mind such suggestions as an attentive study of
+vocabularies has disclosed are naturally put forward with a full sense
+of their uncertainty, they are of a purely tentative nature.</p>
+
+<p>For the Koobaroo (var. Obur) of the Goorgilla set I find in the same
+group the homophone <i>obur</i> (gidea tree), which is also a totem of the
+group of tribes in <span class="nowrap">question<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">121</a></span>. The Wotero of Halifax Bay suggests
+Wutheru, for which I am unable to find a meaning, unless it be emu, as
+given by one observer, who however on another occasion gave a different
+translation. Korkoro in the same set may be the same as korkoren
+(opossum) of a tribe some 150 miles <span class="nowrap">away<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">122</a></span>. The <span class="nowrap">muri<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">123</a></span> and kubbi
+of the Kamilaroi and Turribul (?) mean kangaroo and opossum in the
+latter language, and ibbai means Eaglehawk in <span class="nowrap">Wiraidhuri<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">124</a></span>. The
+Kamilaroi bundar (=&nbsp;kangaroo) may give us a clue to the meaning of the
+Dippil <span class="nowrap">Bundar<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">125</a></span>; the Kiabara Bulcoin has a homophone in the Peechera
+tribe, where it means kangaroo; on the Hastings River it means red
+wallaby. Balcun however means native bear according to <span class="nowrap">Mathew<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">126</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>If we turn to the eight-class tribes the results are hardly more
+striking. The Dieri Pultara, Palyara and <span class="nowrap">Upala<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">127</a></span>, are homophones of
+the class names which we have seen as alternative forms; but this very
+fact makes it certain, or nearly so, that one of the homophones is due
+to chance coincidence. Bearing in mind that the Arunta alone have the
+form Bulthara, we may perhaps see in the change undergone by the word in
+their language the result of attraction, though it must be confessed
+that the hypothesis is far-fetched in the case of a non-written
+language. On the other hand it tells against the Palyeri&nbsp;=&nbsp;Palyara
+equation that the Arunta, who are by far the nearest to the Dieri, use
+the form Bulthara. The equation Kanunka&nbsp;=&nbsp;Panunga is not backed by any
+evidence that the p-k change is <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>admissible. Finally three of the four
+words mentioned seem to be compounded with a suffix; and if this is so
+it is clearly useless to equate them with words in which this suffix is
+a component part.</p>
+
+<p>One class name only, Ungilla, is found in the Arunta area itself (and
+far beyond it, as far as the Gulf of Carpentaria) with the meaning
+<span class="nowrap">crow<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">128</a></span>. If we may regard the <i>j</i> and <i>k</i> of the forms jungalla,
+kungalla, as a prefix, the equation seems justified; otherwise it seems
+an insuperable difficulty that not the original form of the class name,
+but the derivative and shortened form is the one to which the equation
+applies. Our very defective knowledge of the languages of the
+eight-class tribes makes it possible that when we know more of them
+other root words may be discovered. At present it can only be said that
+in very few instances have we either in the four-class or the
+eight-class areas any warrant for saying that we know the meaning of the
+class names, much less that we know them to be derived from the names of
+animals.</p>
+
+<p>One piece of evidence on the subject we need mention only to reject. The
+Rev. H. Kempe, of the Lutheran Mission among the southern Arunta, has on
+two occasions stated that the classes in signalling to each other use as
+their signs the gestures employed to designate <span class="nowrap">animals<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">129</a></span>. On one
+occasion however he assigns to the Bunanka class the eaglehawk gesture,
+on another the lizard gesture; the remaining three, which he added only
+on the second occasion, were ant, wallaby and eaglehawk. It may be noted
+that the eaglehawk sign is attributed by him to the two classes which
+would form the main part of the population of a local group; in the
+second place all four animals are among the totems of the tribe; it
+seems therefore probable that Mr Kempe has merely confused the sign made
+to a man of the given kin with a sign which he supposed to be made to a
+man of a certain class. If he paid little attention to the subject, and
+especially if on the second occasion he gained his information at a
+large tribal meeting, the large number of totems would <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>render it
+improbable that conflicting evidence would lead him to discover his
+mistake. If he pursued his enquiries far enough he might, it is true,
+get more than one sign for a given class; but if he contented himself
+with asking four men, one of each class, the probability would be that
+he would get four separate gestures. In any case we have no warrant for
+arguing that the gesture in any way translates the class name.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">111</span></a>&nbsp;In practice they are eight-class.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">112</span></a>&nbsp;The numbers refer to those used in chapter <span class="smrom">IV</span>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">113</span></a>&nbsp;These are merely rough percentages based on arbitrary
+values for partial resemblances.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">114</span></a>&nbsp;This table shows what percentage of names is completely
+different; partial differences are not allowed for.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">115</span></a>&nbsp;Possibly a prefix also; cf. <i>Koocheebinga</i>, <i>Koorabunna</i>
+and their sister names.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">116</span></a>&nbsp;Curr, vocab. no. 37.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">117</span></a>&nbsp;ib. no. 39. Spencer and Gillen give "loud voiced" as the
+meaning.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">118</span></a>&nbsp;ib. nos. 34, 40, 49 <i>a</i>, 104.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">119</span></a>&nbsp;Moore, <i>Vocab.</i>; Mathew, p. 226.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">120</span></a>&nbsp;Mathew, p. 232; Curr, nos. 164, 170, 178.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">121</span></a>&nbsp;ib. no. 143.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">122</span></a>&nbsp;ib. no. 110.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">123</span></a>&nbsp;Elsewhere muri means red kangaroo.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">124</span></a>&nbsp;ib. nos. 168, 181, 190; Mathew, <i>Eaglehawk</i>, p. 227.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">125</span></a>&nbsp;Curr, no. 181.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">126</span></a>&nbsp;Mathew, <i>Eaglehawk</i>, p. 100; Curr, no. 177.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">127</span></a>&nbsp;ib. no. 55.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">128</span></a>&nbsp;Roth, <i>Studies</i>, p. 50; Curr, nos. 37, 38, 39.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">129</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Halle Verein fur Erdkunde</i>, 1883, p. 52; <i>Aust. Ass.
+Adv. Sci.</i> <span class="smrom">II</span>, 640.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in
+grouping of totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr
+Cunow's theory of classes.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>In dealing with the origin of the classes it is important to bear in
+mind that they are undoubtedly later than the phratries. This is clear,
+not only from the considerations urged on p. <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, but also from the fact
+that the areas covered by the same classes are in the three most
+important cases immensely larger than any covered by a phratriac system.
+We may therefore dismiss at the outset Herr Cunow's theory, which makes
+the classes the original form of organisation.</p>
+
+<p>To explain the origin of the classes, as of the phratries, two kinds of
+theories have been put forward, which are in this case also classifiable
+as reformatory and developmental respectively. The former labour under
+the same disadvantages, so far as they assume that particular marriages
+were regarded as immoral or objectionable, as do the similar hypotheses
+of the origin of phratries.</p>
+
+<p>What is the effect of dividing a phratry into two classes? Firstly and
+most obviously, to reduce by one half the number of women from whom a
+man may take his spouse. Secondarily, to put in the forbidden class both
+his mother's generation and his daughters' generation. It must however
+not be overlooked that it is the whole class of individuals that are
+thus put beyond his reach and not those only who stand to him in the
+relation of daughters in the European sense. Now it is certain that the
+savage of the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>present day distinguishes blood relationship from tribal
+relationship; of this there are plenty of examples in Australia
+<span class="nowrap">itself<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">130</a></span>. In fact the hypothesis that the introduction of class
+regulations was due to a desire to prevent the intermarriage of parents
+and children, more especially of fathers and daughters, the mothers
+being of course of the same phratries as their sons in the normal tribe,
+depends for its existence on the assumption that consanguinity was
+recognised. But it is clearly a clumsy expedient to limit a man's right
+of choice to the extent we have indicated solely in order to prevent him
+from marrying his daughter, when the simple prohibition to marry her
+would, so far as we can see, have been equally effective.</p>
+
+<p>Dr Durkheim has suggested that phratries and classes originated
+together.</p>
+
+<p>If we start with two exogamous local groups in which the determinant
+spouse removes, the result is two groups in which both phratries are
+found, as is evident from the following graphic representation. The two
+sides represent the local grouping, the letters A and B the phratry
+names, and m or f male or female; the = denotes marriage, the vertical
+lines show the children, the brackets show that the person whose symbol
+is bracketed removes, and the italics that the symbol in question is
+that of a spouse introduced from without.</p>
+
+<table class="tablecenter" width="40%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="marriages">
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td style="padding-right: 0.5em;">mA=<i>fB</i></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td style="width: 5em;">mB=fA</td>
+ <td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td colspan="2" style="padding-left: 0.6em;">
+ <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="lines">
+ <tr>
+ <td class="br bb" style="width: 4em; line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td class="bl br" style="line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+ </td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" style="padding-left: 1.5em;">
+ <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="lines">
+ <tr>
+ <td class="bl bb" style="width: 4em; line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td class="bl br" style="line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+ </tr>
+ </table>
+ </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>[fB]</td>
+ <td style="padding-left: 0.5em;">mB=<i>fA</i></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td><i>fB</i>=mA</td>
+ <td>[mB]</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td colspan="2" style="padding-left: 0.6em;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="lines">
+<tr>
+ <td class="br bb" style="width: 4.5em; line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bl br" style="line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+ </td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" style="padding-left: 1em;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="lines">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bl bb" style="width: 4.5em; line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bl br" style="line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+ </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>[fA]</td>
+ <td>mA=<i>fB</i></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td><i>fA</i>=mB</td>
+ <td>[fB]</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td colspan="2" style="padding-left: 0.6em;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="lines">
+<tr>
+ <td class="br bb" style="width: 4.5em; line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bl br" style="line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+ </td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td colspan="2" style="padding-left: 1em;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="lines">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bl bb" style="width: 4.5em; line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bl br" style="line-height: 0.3em;">&nbsp;</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+ </td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td>[fB]</td>
+ <td>mB=<i>fA</i></td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td><i>fB</i>=mA</td>
+ <td>[fA]</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td></td>
+ <td style="padding-left: 1em;">etc.</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>&nbsp;</td>
+ <td>etc.</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>We see from this that the alternate generations are in each group A and
+B, whose spouses are in the same alternation B and A, the male remaining
+in the group, the female removing in each case, if we assume that the
+matrilineal kinship is the rule. The permanent members of each group
+therefore, and in like manner the imported members, are by alternate
+generations<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span> A and B, though of course there is no difference of age
+actually corresponding to the difference of generation.</p>
+
+<p>By the simple phratry law that A can only marry B, and may marry any B,
+local group mates are marriageable. The law however which forbids the
+marriage of phratry mates is on Mr Lang's original theory founded on the
+prohibition to marry group mates. If we suppose that the primal law or
+the memory of it continued to work, we have at once a sufficient
+explanation of the origin of the four-class system. The tribes or
+nations in which the instinct against intra-group marriage was strong
+enough to persist as an active principle after the law against
+intra-phratry marriage had become recognised, may have proceeded to
+create four classes at a very early stage, while those in whom the
+feeling for the primal law was less strong adhered to the simple phratry
+system.</p>
+
+<p>But it is an insuperable objection to this theory that it makes the
+four-class system originate simultaneously with, or at any rate shortly
+after, the rise of the phratries. For we cannot suppose that the feeling
+for the primal law remained dormant for long ages and then suddenly
+revived. On the other hand we have seen that if the difference in the
+distribution of the phratry and class names is any guide, a considerable
+interval must have separated the rise of the one from the rise of the
+other. Unless therefore it can be shown that some other explanation
+accounts for the non-coincidence of phratry and class areas, we can
+hardly accept any explanation of the origin of classes which makes them
+originate at a period not far removed from the introduction of the
+phratries.</p>
+
+<p>The fact that a certain number of class names are in character totemic,
+that is, bear animal names, suggests that the class system may be a
+development of the totem kins, which in certain cases are grouped within
+the phratries or otherwise subject to special regulations. In the
+Urabunna the choice of a man of one totem is said to be limited to women
+of the right status in a single totem of the opposite phratry. Among the
+similarly organised Yandairunga the limitation is to certain totems, and
+Dr Howitt gives other examples of the same order. In the Kongulu tribe
+these totemic classes seem to have been <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>known by special names. In the
+Wotjoballuk tribe there are sub-totems, grouped with certain totems,
+which again seem to be collected into aggregates intermediate between
+the phratry and the simple totem kin. But it is difficult to see why, if
+the classes have arisen out of such organisations, there should be found
+over the great part of Australia four, and only four, classes from which
+the eight have obviously developed. In any case we have no parallel in
+these modifications to the alternate generations of the class system.</p>
+
+<p>These find an analogue, according to an old report, not subsequently
+confirmed, in the Wailwun tribe, where, however, it is supplementary to
+the classes. We are told that there are four totems in this tribe,
+though this does not agree with other reports, and that they are found
+in both phratries indiscriminately. A woman's children do not take her
+totem, nor, apparently, the totem of her brother, who belongs to a
+different kin, but are of the remaining two totems according to their
+<span class="nowrap">sex<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">131</a></span>. From this it follows that the totems alternate, precisely as
+do the classes; the difference in the arrangement consists in the
+distinction of totem falling to males and females, which has no analogue
+in the class system. But such arrangements, even if we may take them as
+established facts, are clearly of secondary origin, and can hardly give
+a clue to the origin of the classes.</p>
+
+<p>There is an important difference between the four-class and eight-class
+organisations in respect of the totem kins. In the former systems the
+kins are almost invariably divided between the phratries; but within
+them they do not belong to either of the classes, though certain classes
+claim <span class="nowrap">them<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">132</a></span>; but on the contrary, of necessity are divided between
+them. In the eight-class tribes this seems to be the case in some tribes
+also; in others, like the Arunta, abnormalities of development cause the
+totems to fall in both phratries. But in the Mara, the Mayoo, and the
+<span class="nowrap">Warramunga<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">133</a></span> they fall, or are stated to fall, in the first case into
+groups according to the four classes, in the other cases according to
+the "couples," i.e. the two classes which stand in <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>the relation of
+parent and child (the son of Panunga is Appungerta, his son is again
+Panunga, and so for the other pairs). This suggests that totemism has
+something to do with the division of the four classes into eight, as was
+pointed out by Dr Durkheim in <span class="nowrap">1905<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">134</a></span>. His argument is that as long as
+descent was in the female line, the rule was that a man could not marry
+a woman of his mother's totem. When the change to male descent took
+place, the mother's totem, as we see by actual <span class="nowrap">examples<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">135</a></span>, did not
+lose the respect which it formerly enjoyed; there is in more than one
+tribe a tabu of the mother's as well as of the father's totem. That
+being so, it is natural to suppose that the new marriage organisation
+according to male descent might be modified to take account of this
+fact. By dividing the classes and arranging that one member of a couple
+should be debarred not only from intermarrying with the class of his
+mother, for which the four-class system also provides, but also from
+intermarrying with the second member of the same couple too, this result
+was attained, in the view of Dr Durkheim.</p>
+
+<p>It remains however to be established that this segregation of totems is
+actually found in the tribes in question. For the Warramunga Spencer and
+Gillen distinctly <span class="nowrap">state<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">136</a></span> that the arrangement is dichotomous, in
+which case the alleged result would not be brought about. The Anula and
+Mara are exceptional tribes with direct male descent; it is hardly
+likely that the eight-class system spread from them. The Mayoo have not
+yet been reported on by an expert. Finally some of the tribes have not
+even the dichotomous arrangement of totems but distribute them in both
+phratries. The basis of the hypothesis, therefore, is hardly
+established.</p>
+
+<p>Singularly enough, Dr <span class="nowrap">Durkheim<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">137</a></span> expresses his adherence to a
+previous theory of his own as to the method of effecting the change from
+female to male descent in four-class tribes. This he supposes to have
+been done by transferring one of the two classes from each phratry to
+the opposite one; and in the former discussion (<i>Ann&eacute;e Soc.</i> <span class="smrom">V</span>,
+82 sq.) he showed that this <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>procedure would result in scattering the
+totems through both phratries, as we find them to be in the case of the
+Arunta. It is therefore singular to find that he adheres to this theory
+when his new hypothesis demands that the totems, so far from being more
+widely distributed, should be actually confined to the members of one
+couple. Beyond the Urabunna custom in intertribal marriages, however,
+which is hardly decisive evidence, there does not appear to be any proof
+that the transference from one phratry to the other ever took place.</p>
+
+<p>The further support claimed by Dr Durkheim for his hypothesis from the
+alleged male descent of the totem in tribes where female descent of the
+class names prevails, rests on too uncertain a basis to make it
+necessary to deal with it at length; some criticism of the evidence will
+be found elsewhere.</p>
+
+<p>We have seen above that the Dieri rule is precisely parallel to that of
+the eight-class tribes in practice; it is however expressed, not by a
+class system, but by enacting that people standing in a certain degree
+of kinship or consanguinity shall marry. If Dr Durkheim's theory of the
+origin of the eight-class system is correct, it should also apply to the
+Dieri. Now the rule that a man must marry his maternal great-uncle's
+daughter clearly prevents intermarriage with one of the mother's totem;
+but this cannot be the object of the rule, for it is prevented already
+by the phratry system. Dr Durkheim's theory therefore finds no support
+in the Dieri rule.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, unless the totems have been scattered through the
+phratries since the southern Arunta divided their classes, Dr Durkheim
+will have difficulty in explaining why a tribe where the totem does not
+concern marriage at all has found it necessary to split the classes; and
+that though the child does not take its totem from mother or father.</p>
+
+<p>Herr Cunow has advanced the view that the classes correspond to
+distinctions of age; but he took as his basis, not the differentia of
+elder and younger, but the distinction made by the initiation customs,
+which divide the community, in his view, into three strata&mdash;young, adult
+and old. Into the difficulties created by this theory we need not here
+enter. Suffice it to say that the theory depends on the supposition that
+an <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span>age-grade had to marry within itself. Now the age-grade is not a
+fixed body, but is continually changing its personnel; not only so, but
+it is difficult to see how marriage could take place, given the
+initiation ceremonies, in any other way; unions of "old men" with adult
+women apart, which are not, in fact, prohibited, so far as is known, the
+only marriages possible are those within the adult grade. Although
+father and son can rarely belong to the adult grade simultaneously,
+mother and daughter can readily do so. If not, these grades are clearly
+generation classes, and what Herr Cunow really takes as the basis of his
+theory is the generation in each family. This can readily be shown by a
+consideration of the kinship terms.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">130</span></a>&nbsp;Roth, <i>Eth. Stud.</i> p. 182; Spencer and Gillen, <i>Nor. Tr.</i>
+p. 616; Howitt, p. 262; <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXI</span>, 166.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">131</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">VII</span>, 249, cf. <i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXI</span>, 172.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">132</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 110.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">133</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 167; <i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i> <span class="smrom">XVI</span>, 70;
+<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXX</span>, 111, 112.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">134</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Ann. Soc.</i> <span class="smrom">VIII</span>, 118.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">135</span></a>&nbsp;Spencer and Gillen, <i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 166.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">136</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 163.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">137</span></a>&nbsp;p. 142.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX"></a>CHAPTER IX.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">KINSHIP TERMS.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of
+Wathi-Wathi, Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential
+features. Urabunna. Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>Some classless two-phratry tribes observe in practice the same rules as
+the four and eight class tribes when they are deciding what marriages
+are permissible. The Dieri and Narrangga follow the eight-class rule;
+the position of the Urabunna is somewhat uncertain owing to the
+obscurity of our authorities, which again is probably due to their lack
+of intimate acquaintance with the tribe; and the Wolgal, Ngarrego and
+Murring have the simple four-class rule that a man marries his mother's
+brother's daughter.</p>
+
+<p>We have seen in an earlier chapter that kinship and consanguinity are
+distinct in their nature, though among civilised peoples they are not in
+practice distinguishable. In the lower stages of culture it is
+otherwise, as will be shown in detail below. Corresponding to this
+distinction of consanguinity and kinship but not parallel to it we have
+two ways of expressing these relationships&mdash;the descriptive and the
+classificatory. The terminology of the former system is based on the
+principle of reckoning the relationship of two people by the total
+number of steps between them and the nearest lineal ancestor of both.
+The latter does not concern itself with descent at all but expresses the
+status of the individual as a member of a group of persons. Thus, to
+take a single example, in a typical Australian tribe the word applied by
+a child to its father is not used of him alone but of all the other
+males on the same level of a generation provided they belong to the same
+phratry; to the other half of the generation is applied the term usually
+translated "mother's brother."</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately but few Australian lists of kinship terms have been drawn
+up, and the anomalous tribes like the Kurnai have absorbed a large share
+of attention. It is however possible to give tables for the three
+classes of tribes with which we have been in the main concerned. Those
+given are in use among the Wathi-Wathi of Victoria, the
+Ngerikudi-speaking people of North Queensland and the <span class="nowrap">Arunta<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">138</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p class="center"><i>Wathi-Wathi Tribe: two-phratry.</i></p>
+
+<table class="tablecenter bt bb" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="font-size: 90%" summary="Wathi-Wathi tribe">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center" colspan="2"><i>Phratry A</i> </td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center" colspan="2"><i>Phratry B</i></td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">Generation</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Naponui</i><br />(mother's father)<br /><i>Miimui</i><br />(father's mother)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Kokonui</i><br />(mother's mother)<br /><i>Matui</i><br />(father's father)</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">I</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Mamui</i> (father)<br /><i>Niingui</i> (father's<br />sister=<br /><i>Nalundui</i>, wife's<br />mother)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Kukui</i> (mother)<br /><i>Gunui</i> (mother's<br />brother=<br /><i>Nguthanguthu</i><br />wife's father)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">II</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Malunui</i><br />(father's<br />sister's son)<br /><i>Neripui</i><br />(father's sister's<br />daughter=wife)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">EGO<br /><i>Wawi, mamui</i><br />(elder brother,<br />sister)<br /><i>Tatui, minukui</i><br />(younger do.)</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">III</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br" style="vertical-align: top"><i>Waipui</i><br />(son, daughter)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Ngipui</i><br />(sister's son)<br />? (sister's dau.<br />=<i>Boikathui</i>,<br />son's wife)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">IV</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><i>Naponui</i><br />(daughter's son)<br /><i>Miimui</i><br />(sister's son's<br />son)</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><i>Kokonui</i><br />(sister's<br />daughter's son)<br /><i>Matui</i><br />(son's son)</td>
+ <td align="center">V</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="center" style="margin-top: 2em;"><i>Ngerikudi: Four-class.</i></p>
+
+<table class="tablecenter bt bb" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="font-size: 90%" summary="Wathi-Wathi tribe">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Phratry A: Class a</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Class a</i><span class="subs">1</span></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Phratry B: Class b</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Class b</i><span class="subs">1</span></td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">Generation</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Daida</i><br />(mother's father)<br /><i>Baida</i><br />(father's mother)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Mite</i><br />(mother's mother)<br /><i>Laeta</i><br />(father's father</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">I</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Naider</i><br />(father)<br /><i>Waita</i><br />(father's brother)<br /><i>Niata</i><br />(elder sister)<br /><i>Wiata</i><br />(younger do.)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Naibeguta</i><br />(mother)<br /><i>Miata</i><br />(brother)<br /><i>Goete</i><br />(elder sister)<br /><i>Datu</i><br />(younger do.)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">II</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Danuma</i><br />(wife=mo. bro.<br />dau.)<br /><i>Lanti ngenuma</i><br />(sister's husband<br />=mo. bro. son)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">EGO<br /><i>Maneinga</i><br />(elder brother)<br /><i>Goete</i><br />(elder sister)<br /><i>Otro</i><br />(younger brother<br />or sister)</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">III</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Yuta</i> (son<br />or daughter)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">? (sister's son<br />or daughter)<br /><i>Yamaanta</i> (dau's<br />husband)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb" align="center">IV</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><i>Yudanta</i><br />(daughter's child)</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><i>Yuunta</i><br />(son's child)</td>
+ <td align="center">V</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+
+<p>So far as deficiencies in our information would allow, these tables have
+been drawn up on corresponding lines, and the first point which strikes
+us is the great similarity between the three tables, in spite of the
+apparent wide divergence in the kinship organisation of the tribes. To
+facilitate comparison the Wathi-Wathi terms have been arranged, not only
+according to the system in use in the tribe, but in such a way as to
+show how the terms would be arranged under the four-class system.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span></p>
+
+<p class="center"><a href="images/image06.jpg"><i>Arunta: Eight-class.</i></a></p>
+
+<table class="tablecenter bt bb" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="font-size: 90%" summary="Arunta">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Panunga</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Uknaria</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Bulthara</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Appungerta</i></td>
+ <td align="center">Generation</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Ipmunna</i> (mother's<br />mother, wife's<br />mother's father)</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Arunga</i> (father's<br />father)</td>
+ <td align="center">I</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Oknia</i> (father)<br /><i>Uwinna</i><br />(father's sisters)</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Mura</i> (wife's<br />mother, wife's<br />mother's<br />brothers)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center">II</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Ipmunna</i> (father's<br />sister's daughter's<br />husband, son's<br />wife's mother)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">EGO<br /><i>Okilia</i> (elder<br />brothers)<br /><i>Ungaraitcha</i><br />(elder sisters)<br /><i>Itia</i> (younger<br />brothers and<br />sisters)</td>
+ <td align="center">III</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Allira</i> (children,<br />brother's<br />children)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center">IV</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><i>Arunga</i> (son's<br />son)</td>
+ <td align="center">V</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<table class="tablecenter bt bb" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" style="font-size: 90%; margin-top: 2em;" summary="Arunta">
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Purula</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Ungalla</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Kumara</i></td>
+ <td class="bb br" align="center"><i>Umbitchana</i></td>
+ <td align="center">Generation</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Tjimmia</i><br />(mother's father)</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Aperla</i> (father's<br />mother)</td>
+ <td align="center">I</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Mia</i> (mother,<br />mother's sister)<br /><i>Gammona</i><br />(mother's brother)</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Ikuntera</i><br />(wife's father)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center">II</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Unkulla</i> (father's<br />sister's sons)</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Unawa</i> (wife,<br />wife's sisters)<br /><i>Umbirna</i> (wife's<br />brother=sister's <br />husband)</td>
+ <td align="center">III</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Gammona</i> (son's<br />wife)</td>
+ <td class="bb br"><i>Umba</i> (sister's<br />children)</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="bb br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center">IV</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td class="br"><i>Tjimmia</i><br />(daughter's child)</td>
+ <td class="br">&nbsp;</td>
+ <td align="center">V</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>In the Wathi-Wathi system, we observe that in each generation there are
+two groups of males and two of females, corresponding to the two-phratry
+system, which are distinguished by names differing for each generation.
+Precisely the same arrangement is found in the four-class tribe. The
+four-class are therefore simply a systematisation of the terms of
+kinship in use under the two-phratry system.</p>
+
+<p>Comparing now the eight-class with the four-class system, we do not see
+at a glance the essential principle of the former. The clue is given by
+the fact that classes I and IV, II and III in phratry A, I and II, III
+and IV in phratry B, are what we have termed a couple, that is to say
+stand in the relation of parent and child alternately. Marriage being
+between classes of corresponding numbers, it follows that
+Kumara-Bulthara and Appungerta-Umbitchana are the maternal and paternal
+grandparents of the man EGO. The grandparents of his wife are in the
+same classes but with reversal as regards the sex. Bulthara is the
+cousin of Appungerta, Kumara of Umbitchana and so on. We see therefore
+that, just as among the Dieri, a man may not marry his cousin, but must
+marry his second cousin, to use ordinary terms, which in this case are
+not misleading.</p>
+
+<p>Looking now at the Ngerikudi system, we see that elder and younger
+sisters are distinguished in the generations of EGO and his parents.
+Possibly they are the eight-class tribe of Queensland to which Dr Howitt
+alludes. If not, we have in them a tribe one stage earlier than the
+southern Arunta, who have their four classes divided but as yet without
+any corresponding names.</p>
+
+<p>The Dieri rule is that of the eight-class tribes. The person designated
+as the proper spouse for a male is his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter, in other words, the grandchildren of brother and
+sister intermarry. This, as we have already seen, is precisely the
+effect of the eight-class rules. We are therefore confronted with three
+possibilities. Either the Dieri regulations are aberrant or they have
+introduced these rules under the influence of the neighbouring
+eight-class system; or the eight-class organisation is a systematisation
+of the Dieri rule, adopted perhaps to facilitate the determination of
+marriageableness or otherwise in the case of persons residing at some
+distance from each other and therefore less likely to be ac<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span>quainted
+with genealogical niceties than the members of a small community. Now if
+the second of these hypotheses is correct, it is by no means clear why
+the Dieri, having in view the attainment of the object of the
+eight-class system, did not simply adopt it; for this we can find no
+reason; and it is clearly more reasonable on other grounds to suppose
+that these regulations are of independent origin. But we know the
+eight-class rule to have arisen from a division within a generation,
+which the Dieri rule is not. Therefore the latter must be sporadic.</p>
+
+<p>The same is probably true of the Urabunna, but here our information is
+very scanty and the precise working of the rules is far from clear. What
+happens is that an elder brother (A) of a woman (B) marries an elder
+sister (D) of a man (C); the daughter of this elder sister (D) is the
+proper mate for the son of the younger sister (B) of her husband; this
+younger sister's husband is the younger brother, C. Now the term elder
+brother, elder sister, does not seem to refer to age; the rule appears
+to be&mdash;once an elder brother, always an elder brother from generation to
+generation.</p>
+
+<p>We learn from Spencer and Gillen, that all the women of a generation in
+the one phratry, and presumably within the right totem only, are to a
+man either <i>nupa</i> (=&nbsp;marriageable) or <i>apillia</i>. In the case given by Dr
+Howitt the younger sister is <i>nupa</i> to the younger brother, the elder to
+the elder brother; but we do not learn how elder and younger are
+distinguished, if it is not by descent. Apparently it cannot be by
+descent, however; for we find that the son of the younger brother and
+sister marries the daughter of the elder brother and sister. As to what
+would happen if the younger brother and sister have a daughter, the
+elder a son, we have no information; but apparently they cannot marry.
+Such a daughter must find the son of two people who stand to her father
+and mother as they stood to A and D.</p>
+
+<p>From this example it is clear that the boundaries of the <i>nupa</i> and
+<i>apillia</i> groups are not fixed in a given group of women; it is not
+possible to divide the women and the men into elder brothers and sisters
+on the one hand, younger brothers and sisters on the other. But if this
+is the case, we are quite in the dark as to the meaning of the marriage
+regulations.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>One thing however seems certain; viz., that the Urabunna regulations do
+not give the same result as the four-class regulations. With them the
+division is within the generation. There is no class of women, who, with
+their descendants, are the normal spouses of a class of men, with their
+descendants. That being so, the Urabunna case can hardly throw light on
+the genesis of the four-class system.</p>
+
+<p>Among the Urabunna, however, like the Wathi-Wathi, we find the rule that
+a man must marry in his own generation; and this is <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> the
+meaning of the four-class rule. It is true that the origin of the
+eight-class rule was not what its <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> meaning suggests, viz.,
+the desire to prevent the marriage of cousins, for we know that it
+originated in the distinction between elder and younger sisters. But no
+similar theory appears to fit the case of the four-class tribes. No
+division within the generation could possibly produce an alternation of
+generations.</p>
+
+<p>The Red Indians have in many cases different names for the elder and
+younger sister; the Hausa impose on persons standing in these relations
+certain prohibitions and avoidances, which are not the same for both
+elder and younger; in Australia a man may speak freely to his elder
+sisters in blood, but only at a distance to his tribal <i>ungaraitcha</i>. To
+his younger sisters, blood and tribal, he may not speak save at such a
+distance that his features are indistinguishable. In many parts the
+elder brother has special rights with regard to the younger, and many
+similar customs might be <span class="nowrap">quoted<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">139</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>The question why marriage within the generation&mdash;the rule of four-class
+and two-phratry tribes alike&mdash;should have come into existence is a
+complicated one and involves that of the origin of kinship terms. If we
+take a crucial case of kinship terminology, we find that a child applies
+the same term to its actual mother as to all the women whom its father
+might have married, to its potential mothers in fact. If therefore we
+have to choose between the gradual extension of the terms from the
+single family to the group or their original application to a group,
+this instance seems decisive in favour of the latter theory.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Now if marriage was originally not "group" but individual, a question to
+be fully discussed in later chapters, we can hardly doubt that
+parent-child marriage was forbidden or perhaps instinctively avoided.
+But this would be equivalent to prohibiting marriage with one of a
+number of men or women embraced under a common kinship term. In the
+lower culture generally and especially among the Australians there is a
+tendency to follow things out to their logical conclusions. If this were
+done in the present case, the result would be to extend the prohibition
+to all the persons embraced under the kinship term.</p>
+
+<p>In any case the natural tendency in a small group would be to marry
+within the generation, and this might readily become crystallised in the
+kinship terms.</p>
+
+<p>The eight-class system, as we have seen, resulted from the distinction
+between elder and younger sister. What is the meaning of this and what
+analogies do we find to it?</p>
+
+<p>Widely extended also are the systems of age-grades. In all parts of the
+world the men, and sometimes the women, are or have been divided into
+associations, to which reference was made in Chapter <span class="smrom">I</span>, which
+begin by being co-extensive with the tribe for all practical purposes,
+since all pass through the initiation ceremonies. The various initiation
+ceremonies during what may be termed the involuntary stage of these
+associations, no less than in their later form of secret societies,
+determine the rights and duties of the individuals who undergo them. The
+period at which they take place is determined, broadly speaking, by the
+age of the individual. It is therefore clear that for the peoples in the
+lower stage of culture considerations of age are of the highest
+importance.</p>
+
+<p>We find that in practice the elder brother has much authority, both over
+the younger brother and the sister. In Victoria he decides whom they are
+to marry. As we have seen in the tables of terms, the Wathi-Wathi man
+distinguishes both elder and younger of either sex by special terms,
+which points to their having special rights or <span class="nowrap">duties<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">140</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>If therefore we cannot see why primitive man should have <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>enacted that
+the elder rather than the younger, or the daughter of the elder rather
+than the daughter of the younger, should be preferred, it is at any rate
+of a piece with his other customs.</p>
+
+<p>From the terms of kinship tabulated above various conclusions have been
+drawn. It will be seen that a man applies to all the women in the other
+phratry on the level of his generation the same term as he applies to
+his actual wife. On this basis it has been argued that at one time all
+the men in one phratry were united in marriage with all the women in the
+other within the limits of the generation. Before this again a stage of
+absolute promiscuity is supposed to have existed. This alternative
+explanation of the kinship organisations demands to be considered.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">138</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XIV</span>, 354; <i>N. Queensl. Eth. Bull.</i>
+<span class="smrom">VI</span>, 6; Spencer and Gillen, <i>Northern Tribes</i>, p. 90.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">139</span></a>&nbsp;Morgan, in <i>Smithsonian Contr.</i> vol. <span class="smrom">XVII</span>;
+<i>Globus</i>, <span class="smrom">LXIX</span>, 3; <i>Nat. Tribes</i>, pp. 88-9.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">140</span></a>&nbsp;For lists of tribes where this distinction is found see
+Mathew, <i>Eaglehawk</i>, p. 223-4.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X"></a>CHAPTER X.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types.
+Hypothetical and existing forms.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>Students of the sociology of white races enjoy conspicuous advantages
+over those who devote themselves to the investigation of the
+organisation of races in the lower stages of culture. In the first place
+they deal with conditions and forms with which they are personally
+familiar; and this familiarity is shared by those who form the audience,
+or the reading public, of these investigators, who may thus count on
+making themselves understood. Even should they find the already existing
+terminology insufficient, the knowledge of the phenomena enables them to
+introduce suitable modifications or innovations without fear of causing
+misunderstanding. It is true that terminology is often loose, but it
+exists and can be made to express what is meant.</p>
+
+<p>The student of primitive sociology, on the other hand, is called upon to
+digest the reports of other observers, who have not always understood
+the conditions which they describe, who have failed to define to
+themselves what they are endeavouring to make clear to others, and who
+make use of a terminology created for an entirely different set of
+conditions, as if exact definition and care in the use of terms were the
+last and not the first duty of the observer when he frames his report.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, to take a concrete example, there is not much danger that a writer
+who discusses the question of marriage in civilised communities will
+deal with one form of union of the sexes, while his readers may imagine
+that he is dealing with another <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span>form. For marriage is the form of
+sexual union recognised by the law of the land, and its legal sanction
+distinguishes it from all other forms of sexual union, however permanent
+they may be, and however short may be the period before the marriage is
+dissolved by an appeal to the courts of law. In fact in civilised
+communities the fulfilment of legal forms and ceremonies constitutes
+marriage, whatever might be said of a union sanctioned by legal forms
+but unaccompanied by the cohabitation of the parties. When, however, we
+are dealing with a people ruled by custom and not by law, the case is
+far different. The force of custom may and usually does in such cases
+far exceed the force of law in civilised communities. In the lower
+stages of culture there is far more reluctance to overstep the
+traditional lines of behaviour than is felt by the ordinary member of a
+European state, and this though there are penalties in the latter which
+do not necessarily exist in the former case. But law, in the sense of a
+rule of conduct, promulgated by a legislator and enforced by penalties
+inflicted by law courts and carried out by the agents of the state, does
+not necessarily exist, and, at most, exists only in a very inchoate
+state. If therefore we read of marriage among such a people, we are left
+in complete uncertainty whether it is a union corresponding to marriage
+in civilised lands, or whether it belongs to a different category. The
+difficulty of the case lies partly in the inability of the observer to
+distinguish <i>de jure</i> from <i>de facto</i> unions, partly in the fact that
+one may be transformed into the other, and no ceremony of any sort mark
+the change. An Australian may, for example, have a wife who is
+recognised as his by tribal custom and tradition; if she is abducted the
+aggrieved husband may vindicate his rights but will not necessarily be
+supported by even his own kin, and will certainly not find anything to
+correspond to the tribunal before which an Englishman would sue for the
+restitution of conjugal rights. If the aggrieved husband proves the
+weaker, he necessarily abandons his wife, and she becomes <i>ipso facto</i>
+the wife of the aggressor; divorce is in fact pronounced by the issue of
+an ordeal by combat. So far the matter is clear to the observer.</p>
+
+<p>But if the aggrieved husband take no steps to vindicate his rights, the
+woman will equally pass to the aggressor, and in this <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span>case there will
+be no customary ceremonial to mark for the benefit of the observer the
+exact moment of the transition from a marriage, recognised by public
+opinion, or tribal custom, with the first husband A to the same kind of
+union with B.</p>
+
+<p>Again, even where no second mate intervenes to complicate the question,
+the observer may be confronted with delicate problems; at what point,
+for example, does a mere liaison pass into something worthy of the name
+of marriage? What is the status of a union in which the parties are more
+or less permanently associated, but which confers no rights as against
+aggressors? If by native custom the union is not of such a nature as to
+confer on the male party to it any rights over the female, such as the
+liberty to chastise or punish without fear of the intervention of the
+woman's kin, are we to regard the tie as equivalent to marriage if only
+it is permanent? At what point does mere cohabitation pass into
+marriage?</p>
+
+<p>All these are questions which have to be debated and decided before we
+are in possession of a suitable terminology for dealing with the unions
+of the sexes in the lower stages of culture. But they are commonly
+neglected in controversies as to the origin and history of human
+marriage.</p>
+
+<p>We have seen above that in a European community we mean by marriage a
+union between two persons of opposite sexes, entered into with due legal
+formalities, and not dissoluble simply at the will of either or both the
+parties concerned. When we go further afield the connotation of the term
+is extended to embrace (1) polygyny, in which one male is associated
+with two or more females, (2) polyandry, in which one female is
+similarly associated with more than one male, and (3) the condition
+which I propose to term polygamy, in which both these conditions are
+found. In all these cases the union is properly termed marriage, in so
+far as it cannot be entered upon without due formalities nor be
+dissolved without the concurrence of the authority upon the carrying out
+of whose conditions in the preliminary steps the union depends for its
+marriage-character.</p>
+
+<p>When however we come to the so-called group marriage, using the term in
+its original sense of limited promiscuity, we are dealing with an
+entirely different state of things, and it is <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span>difficult to see any
+justification for the use of the term marriage in this connection at
+all. By group marriage is meant a condition only removed from absolute
+promiscuity by the existence of age-classes or of two or more exogamous
+classes in the community; it demands no special ceremonies prior to the
+individual <span class="nowrap">union<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">141</a></span>, it permits this union to be dissolved at will,
+and it consequently confers no rights on either of the parties to it,
+other than perhaps the right to the produce, or some of the produce, of
+each other's labour.</p>
+
+<p>If the confusion did not extend beyond the terminology, the advance of
+knowledge would perhaps be but little impeded; but experience shows that
+confusion in terminology is apt to go hand in hand with confusion in
+ideas. As will be shown later, this seems to be particularly true of
+investigations into the history of marriage and sexual relationships. It
+seems desirable therefore to clear the way by classifying the ideas with
+which we have to deal, and by defining the terms corresponding to them.</p>
+
+<p>Before classifying the various forms of sexual relationships, it may be
+well to say a few words on the definition of marriage in general. Dr
+Westermarck has defined it from the point of view of natural history as
+a more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting
+beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the
+offspring.</p>
+
+<p>It may not be possible to propose a better definition from the point of
+view selected by Dr Westermarck, which is certainly the one from which
+anthropology must regard sexual relationships. At the same time it is
+not entirely free from objection. In the first place we are employing
+the word marriage in a sense which has but little in common with its
+ordinarily accepted meaning. Suppose, for example, we are dealing with
+marriage in Europe, it is confusing to be compelled by our definition to
+regard as a marriage the <i>faux m&eacute;nage</i>, not to speak of the not uncommon
+fairly permanent unions in which there is no common residence. Such
+monogamous relationships may be, technically speaking, marriages, in Dr
+Westermarck's sense, but <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>it seems desirable to make use of some other
+term for them and reserve marriage for the unions sanctioned by legal
+forms. Or take the union of two people, each of whom has prior
+matrimonial engagements. Such a union may, as the records of the divorce
+court show, be anything but impermanent; but it does not make for
+clearness to call such an union marriage. Let us take a third example&mdash;a
+New Hebridean girl purchased, or in Upa stolen, for the use of the young
+men, who, of course, reside in their club-house. If any of the bachelors
+there resident chooses to recognise her children, they are regarded as
+his children; if not, they are supported by the whole of the residents
+in the club-house. How are we to classify the position of the mother of
+these children? The union is obviously fairly permanent, although some
+of the group enter into sexual relationships of an ordinary type and
+join the ranks of the married men, and others enter the club-house from
+the ranks of those hitherto shut out from the enjoyment of the
+privileges of the adult unmarried male. But the relationship established
+with the whole body of unmarried men and indistinguishable, so far as
+definition goes, from polyandry, hardly seems to be a permanent union of
+the type which Dr Westermarck had in mind when he framed his definition,
+much less a marriage in any accepted sense of the term.</p>
+
+<p>For Dr Westermarck's general term marriage it would be well to
+substitute <i>gam&eacute;</i> or gamic union, to express all kinds of sexual
+relationships other than temporary ones. As sub-heads under this we
+have:</p>
+
+<p>(1) Marriage, a union recognised by law or custom, which imposes duties
+and confers rights on one, both, or all the parties to it.</p>
+
+<p>(2) Free union, a relationship not recognised by the community as
+conferring rights, but at the same time not punished and not necessarily
+regarded as immoral. Temporary unions we may classify as (<i>a</i>)
+promiscuity where marriage does not exist or is temporarily in abeyance:
+(<i>b</i>) free love, the relationships of the unmarried: (<i>c</i> i.) temporary
+polyandry or polygyny of married people, where the unions are limited
+and recognised by custom: (<i>c</i> ii.) marital licence where the husband is
+complai<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span>sant in the face of public opinion: (<i>c</i> iii.) adultery where
+neither the husband nor public opinion permits them.</p>
+
+<p>(3) Liaison, a union in which one or both parties have other ties, which
+renders them liable to punishment, or to some kind of atonement.</p>
+
+<p>Ten various possible forms of sexual relationship actually found or
+assumed to have existed may now be classified.</p>
+
+
+<h3 style="font-weight: normal; margin-top: 2em;">A. PROMISCUITY.</h3>
+
+<p>I. Unregulated Promiscuity. (<i>a</i>) Primary unregulated promiscuity is the
+hypothetical state assumed by Morgan and others to be the primitive
+state of mankind. It may be noted that promiscuity <i>de jure</i>, which is
+all that is implied by Morgan's hypothesis, is not necessarily also <i>de
+facto</i> promiscuity. Unless it be assumed that jealousy was absent at
+this stage, it is clear that free unions must have been the rule rather
+than the exception. But if this be so, the only distinction between
+Morgan's promiscuity and the ordinary state of things in an Australian
+tribe is constituted, intermarrying rules apart, by the fact that the
+Australian husband is at liberty to reclaim his wife, if he can, without
+fear of blood feud if perchance he slays his successor in the
+affections, or perhaps rather in the possession, of his wife, whereas in
+Morgan's primitive stage might was right and the abductor was on an
+equal footing with his predecessor and successor. (<i>b</i>) Secondary
+unregulated promiscuity is distinguished from primary promiscuity by the
+co-existence of other forms of sexual relations. It may temporarily
+supersede these as in Australia; or it may take their place, as among
+the Nairs.</p>
+
+<p>II. Regulated Promiscuity. This again falls into (<i>a</i>) primary regulated
+promiscuity, the hypothetical stage postulated for Australia before the
+introduction of individual marriage; and (<i>b</i>) secondary regulated
+promiscuity, which is found in certain tribes as an exceptional
+practice. With this custom I deal in greater detail below.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span></p>
+
+
+<h3 style="font-weight: normal; margin-top: 2em;"><a name="sect_b" id="sect_b"></a>B. MARRIAGE.</h3>
+
+<p>III, Polygamy. This state is constituted by the union of several men
+with several women. It may be distinguished, as before, into primary and
+secondary polygamy. We may further distinguish (<i>&#945;</i>) simple
+and (<i>&#946;</i>) adelphic polygamy; and the latter may be (i)
+unilateral or (ii) bilateral, according as either the males or females,
+or both males and females, are brothers and sisters. A further
+sub-division is constituted by the relations of the groups of males or
+females, or both, within themselves. I distinguish these unions by the
+names of dissimilar (M.) and dissimilar (F.) according as one husband or
+one wife has a position superior to the <span class="nowrap">others<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">142</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>IV, Polyandric and V. polygynic unions fall into the same divisions,
+save that they are naturally always unilateral. As a designation for the
+hypothetical stage postulated by Mr Atkinson in <i>Primal Law</i>, we may
+take "patriarchal polygyny," meaning thereby the state in which (<i>a</i>) in
+the earlier stage all the females of the <span class="nowrap">horde<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">143</a></span> are <i>ipso facto</i>
+mates of the one adult male of the horde; or (<i>b</i>) in the second stage
+all females born in the horde are equally allotted to him.</p>
+
+<p>Finally we have VI, monogamy.</p>
+
+<p>To the three forms of marriage we can apply the determinants "regulated"
+and "unregulated," <span class="nowrap">"temporary<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">144</a>,"</span> "permanent," as in the case of
+promiscuity.</p>
+
+<p>We have further two well-marked types of marriage and a mixed form in
+which (<i>a</i>) the husband goes to live with the wife; (<i>b</i>) he lives with
+the wife for a time and then removes to his own village or tribe; and
+(<i>c</i>) the wife removes to the husband. For the first of these Maclennan
+has proposed the name <i>beena</i> marriage; Robertson Smith has proposed to
+call the third type <i>ba&#8216;al</i> marriage, and to include both <i>beena</i> and
+<i>mot&#8216;a</i> marriages under the general name of <i>&#7779;ad&#299;ca</i>. This
+terminology is unnecessarily obscure and has the further disadvantage of
+con<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span>noting the domination or subjection of the husband, a feature not
+necessarily bound up with residence. I therefore propose to term the
+three types matrilocal, removal, and patrilocal marriages. I suggest
+compounds of <i>pater</i> and <i>mater</i>, not as being specially appropriate,
+but as being parallel to matrilineal and patrilineal, denoting descent
+in the female and male lines respectively.</p>
+
+<p>For the somewhat complicated relationships of <i>potestas</i> in the family I
+propose two main divisions, (<i>a</i>) patri-potestal, (<i>b</i>) matri-potestal;
+the latter may be further subdivided according as the authority is in
+the hands (1) of the actual mother, (2) of the maternal uncles, (3) of
+the mother's relatives in general, and so on.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">141</span></a>&nbsp;The <i>pirrauru</i> union is preceded by a ceremony, but this
+is no proof that primitive group marriage, if it existed, was contracted
+in the same way.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">142</span></a>&nbsp;Dissimilar polygamy is, in respect of the inferior
+spouses, hardly to be distinguished from promiscuity, save that the
+number of them is limited. But in Australia the lending of <i>pirraurus</i>
+sweeps away even this distinction.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">143</span></a>&nbsp;He says family, or Cyclopean family. Harem in fact is the
+idea.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">144</span></a>&nbsp;i.e. not life-long.</p>
+</div>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_XI" id="CHAPTER_XI"></a>CHAPTER XI.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>The arguments for group marriage in Australia are of two kinds&mdash;(1) from
+the terms of relationship, that is to say of a mixed philological and
+sociological character, and (2) from the customs of the Australian
+tribes.</p>
+
+<p>The argument from the terms of relationship is so intimately connected
+with the theories of Lewis Morgan that it may be well to give a brief
+critical survey of Morgan's hypotheses. I therefore begin the treatment
+of this part of the subject by a statement of Morgan's views on the
+general question of the origin and development of human marriage.</p>
+
+<p>As a result of his enquiries into terms of relationships, mainly in
+North America and Asia, Morgan drew up a scheme of fifteen stages,
+through which he believed the sexual relations of human beings had
+passed in the interval between utter savagery and the civilised family.
+We are only concerned with the earlier portion of his scheme. It is not
+even necessary to discuss that in all its details. Morgan's first eight
+(properly five) stages are:</p>
+
+<p>I. Promiscuous Intercourse.</p>
+
+<p>II. Intermarriage or Cohabitation of Brothers and Sisters.</p>
+
+<p>III. The Communal Family (First stage of the Family).</p>
+
+<p>IV. The <ins class="correction" title="Hawaiian">Hawaian</ins> Custom of <span class="nowrap">Punalua<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">145</a></span>, giving the Malayan Form of the
+Classificatory <span class="nowrap">System<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">146</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>V. The Tribal Organisation, i.e. totemic exogamy plus promiscuity,
+giving the Turanian and Ganowanian <span class="nowrap">System<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">147</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>VI. Monogamy.</p>
+
+<p>The objections to this theory or group of theories are numerous, and it
+will not be necessary to consider them all here. Were it not that no one
+has since Morgan's day attempted to trace in detail the course of
+evolution from promiscuity to monogamy, it would be almost superfluous
+to discuss the theories of a work on primitive sociology dating back
+nearly thirty years.</p>
+
+<p>With some points Morgan has failed to deal in a way that commends itself
+to us in the light of knowledge accumulated since his day; with others
+he has not attempted to deal, apparently from a want of perception of
+their importance.</p>
+
+<p>First and foremost among the points with which Morgan has failed to deal
+is that of the constitution of the primitive group. Was it composed of
+parents and children only or were more than two generations represented?
+If the former, why were the children expelled? if the latter, how are
+brother and sister marriages introduced, when <i>ex hypothesi</i> the father
+of any given child was unknown and may have been any adult male? If
+Morgan and his supporters evade this difficulty by defining brother and
+sister as children of the same mother, they are met by the obvious
+objection that no revolution in a promiscuous group would result in the
+marriage of children of the same mother. <i>Ex hypothesi</i> there were
+several child-bearing women in the group, and their children, if a
+reform were introduced prohibiting marriage outside one's own
+generation, would intermarry; but the children of these women are, on
+the definition adopted, not brothers and sisters.</p>
+
+<p>If brother and sister does not mean children of the same mother, what
+does it mean?</p>
+
+<p>By what process are these names supposed to have come into existence in
+a promiscuous group? If brother in this sense is taken to imply common
+parentage, the name must clearly denote the relation between two males
+because, although a whole group of men had access to the mother, the
+male parent <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>was or may have been the same person in each case, and this
+whether the mother was the same or not. Now, quite apart from the fact
+that primitive man was unlikely to have evolved a term for such an
+indefinite relationship, except in so far as it involved rights or
+duties, it is obvious that great complications would arise which would
+in practice make the nomenclature unworkable. For to call two boys
+brothers because they have the same group of men as possible fathers is
+only practicable in a society which has already evolved a system of age
+grades, and has established restrictions on intercourse between
+different generations, to use a somewhat indefinite term. For it is
+clear that in a state of promiscuity the class of adults is continually
+being recruited and that the boy passes at puberty, in so far as
+restrictions in the nature of initiation ceremonies are not imposed,
+from the class of sons to that of fathers. In other words, if a group
+consists of M<span class="subs">1</span> M<span class="subs">2</span> M<span class="subs">3</span> M<span class="subs">4</span>, and they have male children of all
+ages N<span class="subs">1</span> N<span class="subs">2</span> N<span class="subs">3</span> N<span class="subs">4</span>, as soon as N<span class="subs">1</span> reaches puberty he
+becomes a possible father of the children O<span class="subs">1</span> O<span class="subs">2</span> O<span class="subs">3</span> O<span class="subs">4</span>, who
+differ in age from N<span class="subs">4</span> only by a few years at most and reckon as his
+brothers. But this means that N<span class="subs">1</span> is the son of M<span class="subs">1</span>, for example,
+but at the same time the father of O<span class="subs">1</span>, who is likewise the son of
+M<span class="subs">1</span>; in the same way O<span class="subs">1</span> is the brother of N<span class="subs">4</span>, who is the brother
+of N<span class="subs">1</span>; but O<span class="subs">1</span> is not the brother of N<span class="subs">1</span>. The extraordinary
+complexity of the relations that would arise is at once obvious, and it
+seems clear that relationship terms could never come into existence
+under such circumstances unless they implied something beyond mere
+relationship and denoted rights and <span class="nowrap">duties<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">148</a></span>. But if they denoted
+rights and duties, these must have preceded the relationship term, which
+consequently need not be held to apply to kinship in any proper sense of
+the term.</p>
+
+<p>It is clear that the same difficulties apply when we try to work out the
+development on the hypothesis that a group of mothers existed. We are
+therefore reduced to the supposition that the term brother denoted
+originally a person born within a given period of time, and that this
+period was the same for <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>whole sections of the community; in other words
+that the name brother was given to all males born between, let us say,
+<span class="smrom">B.C.</span> 10,000 and <span class="smrom">B.C.</span> 9,990. This is of course equivalent to the
+establishment of age grades and is in itself not unthinkable; age grades
+are of course perfectly well known among primitive peoples; but the
+establishment of age grades implies a degree of social organisation;
+and, what is more important, this hypothesis makes the term brother
+quite meaningless as a kinship term; for at the present day a common
+term of address for members of an age grade does not imply any degree of
+consanguinity, and unless it be proved that age grades are a product of
+the period of "group marriage" it cannot be argued that they ever did
+imply kinship.</p>
+
+<p>It is sufficiently clear from these examples that Morgan entirely failed
+to work out the process by which the transition from pure to regulated
+promiscuity came about. But if the process is uncertain the causes are
+equally obscure. In Mr Morgan's view, or at any rate in one of the
+theories on which he accounted for the change, it was due to "movements
+which resulted in unconscious reformation"; these movements were, he
+supposes, worked out by natural selection. These words, it is true,
+apply primarily to the origin of the "tribal" or "gentile" organisation,
+as Mr Morgan terms totemism, but they probably apply to the original
+passage from promiscuity to "communal marriage," and I propose to
+examine how far such a theory has any solid basis.</p>
+
+<p>Natural selection is a blessed phrase, but in the present case it is
+difficult to see in what way it is supposed to act. The variation
+postulated by Mr Morgan as a basis for the operation of natural
+selection is one of ideas, not physical or mental powers. Now under
+ordinary circumstances we mean by natural selection the weeding out of
+the unfit by reason of inferiorities, physical or psychical, which
+handicap them in the struggle for existence. But it cannot be said that
+the tendency to marry or practice of marrying outside one's own
+generation is such a handicap to the parents. How far is it injurious to
+the children of such unions? Or rather, how far have children who are
+the offspring of brothers and sisters or of cousins a better <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span>chance of
+surviving than the offspring of unions between relatives of different
+generations?</p>
+
+<p>It is at the outset clear that savages are not in the habit of taking
+account of such matters. Even if it were otherwise, it is not clear how
+far they would have data as to the varying results of unions of near
+kin. For though on this question, so far as the genus homo is concerned,
+we have very few data on which to go, such data as we have hardly bear
+out his view. Modern statistics relate almost exclusively to the
+intermarriage of cousins, and apply, not to primitive tribes, such as
+those with which, <i>ex hypothesi</i>, Mr Morgan is dealing, but to more or
+less civilised and sophisticated peoples, among whom the struggle for
+existence is less keen owing to the advance of knowledge and the
+progress of invention, and among whom possibly the rise of humanitarian
+ideas not only tends to counteract the weeding out of the unfit, but
+even makes it relatively easy for them to propagate their species. What
+the result of the intermarriage of cousins is when war, famine, and
+infanticide are efficient weeders out of the unfit, we cannot say.
+Possibly or even probably the ill results would be inappreciable. It
+must not be forgotten that the marriage of near relatives is only
+harmful because or if it hands on to the children of the union an
+hereditary taint in a strengthened form, a result which is likely to
+follow in civilised life because hereditary taints are allowed to
+flourish unchecked by prudence and controlled by natural selection only
+so far as humanitarianism will permit it. These hereditary degeneracies
+however are probably largely if not entirely absent among savages. It is
+therefore open to question how far intermarriage of cousins would prove
+harmful under such conditions.</p>
+
+<p>Statistics of the influence of cousin-marriage are not however what Mr
+Morgan wants. It is essential for him to prove that father-daughter
+marriage is more harmful than brother-sister unions.</p>
+
+<p>It might be imagined that the data for estimating the effect of the
+union of father and daughter would be non-existent, but this is not so.
+Within the last few years it has been stated that such unions are common
+in parts of South America, and that <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>the children, so far from being
+degenerates, are remarkably healthy and <span class="nowrap">vigorous<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">149</a></span>. This is of
+interest in connection with Mr Atkinson's speculations as to the history
+of the family. In this connection it may be pointed out that such
+unions, <i>ex hypothesi</i>, are unlikely to result in continual in-and-in
+breeding, and would in all probability seldom be continued beyond the
+first alliance of this nature.</p>
+
+<p>We are practically in complete darkness as to the results of brother and
+sister marriage in the human species. We have of course various cases of
+ruling families who perpetuated themselves in this way, but the data
+from such peoples refer to an advanced stage of culture and to a
+favoured class. They are not therefore applicable to similar unions
+among savages where they formed, as Mr Morgan suggests, the invariable
+practice. It is however possible to deduce from very simple
+considerations the probabilities as to the respective effects of
+adelphic and father-daughter unions. In the first place, as has been
+already pointed out, the father-daughter union implies only one family
+of in-and-in-bred children; in the case of brother and sister marriage,
+on the other hand, this state of things may go on indefinitely. If this
+is not enough to turn the scale against adelphic unions there is the
+further fact that, taking the descendants of the first pair of
+intermarrying descendants of common parents, whose tendency to disease
+or deformity is we will suppose x<span class="super">1</span> on both sides, and assuming that
+this tendency increases in a simple ratio, the offspring have the same
+tendencies to the second power of x. If their children marry each other
+the measure of degeneracy in the third generation is x<span class="super">4</span>. Suppose now
+a father and mother with index of degeneracy each x<span class="super">1</span>; a daughter of
+this union will have as her index x<span class="super">2</span>; if the daughter bears children
+to the father, their index will be not x<span class="super">4</span>, but x<span class="super">3</span>, if the simple
+law which I have assumed for the purposes of argument holds good.</p>
+
+<p>It is therefore clear that the offspring of adelphic unions, so far from
+being at an advantage compared with the offspring of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span>father-daughter
+unions, are at a disadvantage in the proportion of 4 to 3. In the third
+place, in father-daughter unions the male is physically as well as
+sexually mature. In adelphic unions both parties are probably immature.
+Consequently from this point of view also the advantage is with the
+supposed injurious type of union. Now if the father-daughter union was
+less harmful than the brother-sister union, <i>a fortiori</i> are uncle-niece
+and similar unions less harmful. Yet Morgan supposes them to have been
+prohibited in favour of brother and sister unions.</p>
+
+<p>Mr Morgan's reformation therefore turns out to have been no reformation
+at all, but a retrograde step. Assuming however that the facts were as
+he supposed them to be, and that the reformation was a real one, it is
+by no means clear how he supposes it to have been brought about. It was,
+as we have seen, an <span class="nowrap">unconscious<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">150</a></span> reformation; it is not supposed
+therefore that the primeval savage detected more pronounced signs of
+degeneracy in the offspring of one class of union and by the force of
+public opinion caused such unions to fall into disrepute and ultimately
+into desuetude. So far as can be seen the method which Mr Morgan had in
+his mind was this: certain unions resulted in offspring less able to
+maintain the struggle for existence, and these families consequently
+tended to die out. Other unions&mdash;those of sisters and brothers&mdash;on the
+other hand produced more vigorous children, and tended to perpetuate
+themselves. Whereas originally there was no tendency either one way or
+the other, some families developed from unknown causes, which, whatever
+they were, were neither moral nor utilitarian, the practice of brother
+and sister marriage. This diathesis followed the ordinary laws of
+descent, and eventually those families which were fortunate enough to be
+affected in that way exterminated their rivals.</p>
+
+<p>Now, as will be shown immediately, this course of events seems to be in
+contradiction with the facts of savage society at the present day and
+with all probability. Apart from that however, how does Mr Morgan
+suppose his eugenic diathesis to be transmitted? It can hardly be
+maintained that this was <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>the result of the different social conditions
+of the families in which brothers and sisters intermarried. Obviously
+there would be nothing to prevent the male in one of these unions from
+reverting to the other type of marriage. This would indeed be highly
+probable for reasons to be developed in the next paragraph. But if
+social conditions were not the determining factor, we are left with the
+somewhat grotesque theory of innate ideas. It is hardly necessary to
+refute this origin of social evolution.</p>
+
+<p>Perhaps the strongest objection, however, to Mr Morgan's theory is the
+fact that in the most primitive communities the female tends to be
+younger, often much younger, than her mate. It is a readily
+ascertainable fact, though it seems to have been neglected by Mr Morgan,
+that the age of puberty does not coincide with the greatest development
+of the physical powers, but precedes it in the human subject by many
+years. The result of this is that the younger males are, as a rule, in
+the case of many mammals, held in subjection by the patriarch of the
+herd, the result being what I have termed above patriarchal polygyny, as
+long as the old male retains his powers. We have, it is true, no
+evidence of any such conditions among the anthropoids; but it must not
+be forgotten that we have no evidence of the consanguine family either
+among anthropoids, other mammals or human beings.</p>
+
+<p>It tells against the hypothesis of patriarchal polygyny that both among
+horses and among camels there is evidence of the existence of actual
+sexual aversion between both sire and filly and dam and colt in the
+first case; and, as Aristotle tells us, at least between dam and colt in
+the case of camels; but we can hardly argue from Ungulata to Primates.</p>
+
+<p>However this may be, the objections to Morgan's theories do not lose
+their strength. Enough has perhaps been said of them from the point of
+view of theory. We may look at them in the light of the known facts of
+social evolution among races of low stages of culture.</p>
+
+<p>If we now turn for a moment to see what light Australian facts throw on
+the first two stages postulated by Mr Morgan, we find that the
+theoretical objections are amply supported by the course of evolution
+which can be traced in Australian social <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>regulations. It will be
+recollected that in his view father-daughter marriage disappeared first,
+then brother and sister marriage. Totemism apart, there are in
+Australia, as we have seen, two kinds of organisation for the regulation
+of marriage&mdash;phratries, the dichotomous division of the southern tribes,
+and classes, the four-fold or eight-fold division of the other areas as
+to which we have any knowledge. Of these the phratry is demonstrably
+older than the class. But the result of the division of a tribe into two
+phratries is to prevent brother and sister marriage, while, so far as
+phratry rules are concerned, father and daughter are still free to marry
+in those tribes where the descent is matrilineal. The result (though not
+necessarily the original object) of the class-system, on the other hand,
+is to prevent the marriage of fathers and daughters and generally of the
+older generation with the younger, so far as the classes actually
+represent generations. In actual practice the class into which a man may
+marry includes females of all ages, so that he is only debarred from
+marrying young females if they are his own daughters. But if we may
+assume that the original object of the classes was to prevent the
+intermarriage of different generations, it is at once obvious that in
+Australia the evolution postulated by Mr Morgan, if it took place at
+all, took place in reverse order, the brother and sister marriage being
+the first to be brought under the ban.</p>
+
+<p>The objections to which attention has been called seem to make it
+difficult if not impossible to accept Morgan's explanations either of
+the processes or of the causes which led to the passage from promiscuity
+to communal marriage.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">145</span></a>&nbsp;This is not really material.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">146</span></a>&nbsp;Properly speaking these are not stages in the same sense
+as the other forms.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">147</span></a>&nbsp;See note 2 on previous page.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">148</span></a>&nbsp;We find that in practice change of age grade, i.e. of
+relationship term, does exist; a clearer proof could not be given that
+the term of relationship has nothing to do with descent.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">149</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Wiener Med. Wochenschrift</i>, 1904; cf. <i>Fort. Rev.</i>
+<span class="smrom">LXXXIII</span>, 460, n. 18. There is, as Mr Lang informs me, a curious
+Panama case in records of the Darien expedition, 1699.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">150</span></a>&nbsp;Sometimes but usually not, for Morgan is utterly
+inconsistent.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII"></a>CHAPTER XII.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. <i>Noa.</i> Group
+Mothers. Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language.
+Terms express status. The savage view natural.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>We may now turn to consider the terms of relationship from the point of
+view of marriage, more especially in connection with Australia. We have
+already seen that there are great difficulties in the way of Morgan's
+hypothesis that the names accurately represent the relations which
+formerly existed in the tribes which used them. I propose to discuss the
+matter here from a somewhat different standpoint.</p>
+
+<p>It seems highly probable that if any individual term came into use,
+whether monogamy, patriarchal polygyny, "group marriage," or promiscuity
+prevailed, it would be that which expresses the relationship of a mother
+to her child. The only other possibility would be that in the first two
+conditions mentioned the relation of husband to wife might take
+precedence.</p>
+
+<p>In actual practice we find that the name which a mother applies to her
+own child is applied by her equally to the children of the women whom
+her husband might have married. This state of things may obviously arise
+from one of three causes, (<i>a</i>) In the first place the name may have
+been originally that which a mother applied to her own son, and it may
+have been extended to those who were her nephews in a state of monogamy,
+or stepsons (=&nbsp;sons of other women by the same father) in a state of
+polygyny either with or without polyandry. (<i>b</i>) The theory that a name
+was applied originally <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>to own and collateral relatives has already been
+discussed, so far as it refers to the "undivided commune." The case of
+regulated promiscuity is different and must be considered here. (<i>c</i>) On
+the other hand the name which she uses may have been expressive of
+tribal status or group status, and may have had nothing to do with
+descent.</p>
+
+<p>It is unnecessary to say much about the first of these possibilities.
+First, there is no evidence to show that such a thing has taken place;
+secondly, we can see no reason why such a thing should take place;
+thirdly, if such a change of meaning did take place, it is quite clear
+that we have no grounds for regarding the philological evidence for
+group marriage as having the slightest significance.</p>
+
+<p>In connection with the second hypothesis&mdash;that the names actually
+represent the relations formerly existing, it may be well to preface the
+discussion by a few remarks on the regulation of marriage in Australia.
+The rules by which the Australian native is bound, when he sets out to
+choose a wife, make the area of choice as a rule dependent on his
+status, that is to say, he must, in order to find a wife, go to another
+phratry, class, totem-kin, or combination of two of these, membership of
+which depends on descent, direct or indirect; on the other hand he may
+be limited by regulations dependent on locality, that is to say he may
+have to take a wife from a group resident in a certain area. There is
+reason to suppose that the latter regulations are the outcome of earlier
+status regulations which have fallen into desuetude. However this may
+be, all that we are here concerned with is the fact that regulations in
+this case also are virtually dependent on descent, inasmuch as a man is
+not in practice free to reside where he likes, but remains in his own
+group, though occasionally he joins that of his wife (this does not
+apparently affect the exogamic rule). The groups are therefore to all
+intents and purposes totem-kins with male descent.</p>
+
+<p>Taking the Kurnai as our example of the non-class-organised groups, we
+find that the fraternal relationship once started goes on for ever; the
+result of this is that with few exceptions the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span>whole of the
+intermarrying groups, so far as they are of the same generation, are
+brothers and sisters. Dr Howitt, whose authority on matters of
+Australian ethnology is final, recognises that on the principles on
+which group marriage is deduced from terms of relationship, this fact
+should point to the Kurnai being yet in the stage of the undivided
+commune (why, it is difficult to see, when they are definitely
+exogamous), but regards the argument from terms of relationship as
+untrustworthy in this instance. If it is not reliable in one case it may
+well be unreliable in all; we are entitled to ask supporters of the
+hypothesis of group marriage what differentiates this case from those in
+which they have no doubt of the validity of the philological argument.</p>
+
+<p>Now if Dr Howitt's doubts as to the interpretation to be put upon the
+Kurnai terms of relationship are correct, we may reasonably, in the
+absence of proof that they originated in a different way from the
+Malayan terms, ask ourselves upon what basis the case for promiscuity
+rests. Beyond a few customs, and it will be shown below that it is
+unnecessary to regard them as survivals of a period when marriage was
+unknown, the proof is purely philological, and on examination the
+philological proof is found to be wanting.</p>
+
+<p>Dr Howitt, in his recent book, rests the case for the undivided commune
+(i.e. promiscuity) on the Australian terms of relationship which he
+discusses, viz. those of the Dieri and the Kurnai. He will not admit
+that the Kurnai terms point to the undivided commune; we are therefore
+left with the Dieri terms. But the Dieri organisation, so far from being
+that of an undivided commune, is the two-phratry arrangement by which a
+man is by no means free to marry any woman in his tribe, but is limited
+to one-half of the women; further, tribal customs limit his choice still
+further and compel him to marry his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter (these terms do not refer to blood but so-called
+"tribal" relationship, i.e. it is a woman with a certain tribal status
+whom he has to marry). Where then does Dr Howitt find his proof of
+promiscuity?</p>
+
+<p>We have, it is true, a certain number of tribal legends, according to
+which the phratry organisation was instituted to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span>prevent the marriage
+of too near kin. But, quite apart from the fact that tribal legends are
+not evidence, the legends merely point to a period when marriage was
+unregulated, when a man was free to marry any woman, not when he was <i>de
+facto</i> or <i>de jure</i> the husband of every woman. Even if it be proved
+beyond question that marriage was once unregulated, it does not follow
+that promiscuity prevailed.</p>
+
+<p>The existence of the undivided commune is a proof of promiscuity only
+for those who discover proofs of group marriage in the divided commune,
+in other words in the terms of relationship and the customs of the
+ordinary two-phratry tribe of the present day. We may therefore let the
+decision of the question of the validity of terms of relationship as a
+proof of extensive connubial activities rest upon the discussion of the
+evidence to be drawn from the tribes selected by Dr Howitt and Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen, viz. the Dieri and the Urabunna.</p>
+
+<p>It may however be pointed out that neither of these writers has dealt
+with the passage from promiscuity to "group marriage," nor shown how
+under the former system terms of relationship could come into existence
+at all. With the difficulties we have dealt above.</p>
+
+<p>We must now revert to the question of the origin of the so-called "terms
+of relationship." Are they expressive of kinship or only of status and
+duties? Neither Lewis Morgan nor the authorities on Australian marriage
+customs&mdash;Dr Howitt and Messrs Spencer and Gillen&mdash;discuss the question
+at length, but seem to regard it as an axiom (although they warn us that
+all European ideas of relationship must be dismissed when we deal with
+the classificatory system) that all these terms may be interpreted on
+the hypothesis that the European relationships to which they most nearly
+correspond actually existed in former times, not, as in Europe, between
+individuals, but between groups. The case on which Spencer and Gillen
+rely is that of the <i>unawa</i> relationship. They argue that a man is
+<i>unawa</i> to a whole group of women, one of whom is his individual wife;
+for this individual wife no special name exists, she is just <i>unawa</i>
+(=&nbsp;<i>noa</i>) like all the other women he might have married. Consequently
+the marital relation must have existed formerly <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span>between the man in
+question and the whole group of <i>unawa</i> women. The reasoning does not
+seem absolutely conclusive, and our doubts as to the validity of the
+argument are strengthened when we apply it to another case and find the
+results inconsistent with facts which are known to the lowest savage.
+Not only has a man only one name for the women he might have married,
+and for the woman he actually did marry, but a mother has only one name
+for the son she actually bore, and for the sons of the women who, if
+they had become her husband's wives, would have borne him sons in her
+stead. From this fact by parity of reasoning we must draw the obvious
+conclusion that during the period when group marriage was the rule,
+individual mothers were unknown. If we are entitled to conclude from the
+fact that a man's wife bears the same name for him as all the other
+women whom he might have married, that he at one time was the husband of
+them all, then we are obviously equally entitled to conclude, from the
+fact that a woman's son is known to her by the same name as the sons of
+other women, either that during the period of group marriage she
+actually bore the sons of the other women or that the whole group of
+women produced their sons by their joint efforts. Finding that the term
+which is translated "son" is equally applied by the remainder of the
+group of women to the son of the individual woman, whose case we have
+been considering, we may discard the former hypothesis and come to the
+conclusion that if there was a period of group marriage there was also
+one of group motherhood. This interesting fact may be commended to the
+attention of zoologists.</p>
+
+<p>It is perhaps unnecessary to pursue the argument any further. The single
+point on which Spencer and Gillen rely is sufficiently refuted by a
+single <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>. If more proof is needed it may be found
+in Dr Howitt's <span class="nowrap">work<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">151</a></span>. We learn from him that a man is the younger
+brother of his maternal grandmother, and consequently the maternal
+grandfather of his second cousin. Surely it is not possible in this case
+to contend that the "terms of relationship" are expressive of anything
+but duties and status. It seems unreasonable to maintain in the
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span>interests of an hypothesis that a man can be his own great uncle and
+the son of more than one mother.</p>
+
+<p>From the foregoing discussion it will be clear that there are very
+grave, if not insurmountable, difficulties in the way of regarding the
+"terms of relationship" as being in reality such. In reply to those who
+regard them as status terms it is urged that if they are not terms of
+relationship, then the savages have no terms of any sort to express
+relationships which we regard as obvious, the implication being that
+this is unthinkable.</p>
+
+<p>Now in the first place it may be pointed out that the converse is
+certainly true. Civilised man has a large number of terms of
+relationship, but he has none for such ideas as <i>noa</i>; a boy has no term
+for all men who might have been his father; a woman has no name for the
+children of all women who might have married her husband, if she had not
+anticipated them. To the savage this is just as unthinkable as the
+converse seems to be to some civilised men.</p>
+
+<p>In the second place it is perfectly obvious that the savage has, as a
+matter of fact, no names for the quite unmistakeable relationship of
+mother and child. The name which an Australian mother applies to her
+son, she applies equally to the sons of all other women of her own
+status; the name which a son applies to his mother, he applies equally
+to all the women of her status, whether married or unmarried, in old
+age, middle life, youth, or infancy. If there is no term for this
+relation we can hardly argue that the absence of terms for other
+relations is unthinkable.</p>
+
+<p>Morgan attempted to meet this objection by urging that in a state of
+promiscuity a woman would apply the same name to the children of other
+women as to her own, because they were or might be by the same father.
+But in the first place this assumes that the relationship to the father
+was considered rather than the relationship to the mother, and this is
+against all analogy. In the second place, even granting Morgan's
+postulate, the relation of a mother to her son is not that of a wife to
+the children of other wives of a polygynous husband. Poverty of language
+is therefore established in this case, and may be taken for granted
+where the obvious relationships are concerned.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>It has been pointed out more than once that there are grave difficulties
+in the way of any hypothesis which assumes that terms of relationship,
+properly so called, were evolved in a state of pure promiscuity. It has
+now been shown that no intelligible account of the meaning of such terms
+can be given, even if we dismiss the difficulties just mentioned and
+assume that terms were somehow or other evolved, and a transition
+effected to a state of regulated promiscuity. If on the other hand we
+regard the "terms of relationship" as originally indicative of tribal
+status and suppose they have been transformed in the course of ages into
+"descriptive" terms such as we use in everyday life, the difficulties
+vanish.</p>
+
+<p>For one proof of this hypothesis we need look no further than the terms
+of relationship applied by a mother to her own (and other) children, an
+illustration which has already done duty more than once. It is
+abundantly clear that what this term expresses is not relationship but
+status, the relation of one generation to the next in the Malayan
+system, of the half of a generation to the next generation in the same
+moiety of the tribe among the Dieri, and so on.</p>
+
+<p>It is admitted even by believers in group marriage that the terms of
+relationship do not correspond to anything actually existing; beyond the
+"survivals" which we shall consider below, they can produce no shadow of
+proof that the terms ever did correspond to actual relationships, as
+they understand them. They can give no proof whatever that they did not
+express status.</p>
+
+<p>It is therefore a fair hypothesis that <i>unawa</i> (<i>noa</i>) and similar terms
+express status and not relationship. From the example of mother and son
+we see that the Australian does not select for distinction by a special
+term that bond which is most obvious both to him and us. It is therefore
+by no means surprising that by <i>unawa</i> he should mean, not the existence
+of marital relations, but their possibility, from a 'legal' point of
+view. Just as he is struck, not by the genetic relation between mother
+and son, but by the fact that they belong to different generations, so
+in the case of husband and wife the <i>existence</i> of marital relations
+between them is neglected, and <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span>the point selected for emphasis is the
+<i>legality</i> of such marital relations, whether existent or not.</p>
+
+<p>It is singular that anyone should regard this savage view of life as
+anything but natural. For the Australian the due observance of the
+marriage regulations is a tribal matter; their breach, whether the
+connection be by marriage or free love, is a matter of more than private
+concern. The relations of a man with his legal wife however concern
+other members of the tribe but little. Public opinion among the Dieri,
+it is true, condemns the unfaithful wife, but her punishment is left to
+the husband; among the Kamilaroi the tribe indeed takes the matter up
+but only on the complaint of the husband; and generally speaking it is
+the husband who, possibly with his totemic brethren, pursues the
+abductor. We have therefore in this insistence on the legal status of
+the couple and the comparative indifference to the husband's rights a
+sufficiently exact parallel to the insistence on status and not marital
+relations in the use of the term <i>unawa</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The course of evolution has been, not, as group-marriagers contend, from
+group to individual terms of relationship but from terms descriptive of
+status to terms descriptive of relationship.</p>
+
+<p>It is, in fact, on any hypothesis, impossible to deny this. Whatever
+terms of relationship may have meant in the past, no believer in group
+marriage contends that they represent anything actually existing. But
+this is equivalent to admitting that they express status and not
+relationship, and no proof has ever been given that they were ever
+anything else.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">151</span></a>&nbsp;p. 163.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_XIII" id="CHAPTER_XIII"></a>CHAPTER XIII.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">PIRRAURU.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs.
+Tippa-malku marriage. Obscure points. <i>Pirrauru.</i> Obscure points.
+Relation of <i>pirrauru</i> to <i>tippa-malku</i>unions. Kurnandaburi.
+Wakelbura customs. Kurnai organisation. Position of widow.
+<i>Piraungaru</i> of Urabunna. <i>Pirrauru</i> and group marriage. <i>Pirrauru</i>
+not a survival. Result of scarcity of women. Duties of <i>Pirrauru</i>
+spouses. <i>Piraungaru</i>: obscure points.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>We now come to the marriage customs of the Australian natives of the
+present day and the supposed survivals of group marriage. In dealing
+with the question of group marriage we are met with a preliminary
+difficulty. No one has formulated a definition of this state, and the
+interpretations of the term are very diverse.</p>
+
+<p>Fison, for example, <span class="nowrap">says<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">152</a></span> group marriage does not necessarily imply
+actual giving in marriage or cohabitation; all it means is a marital
+right or rather qualification which comes by birth. He argues however on
+a later <span class="nowrap">page<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">153</a></span> that Nair polyandry, which is more properly termed
+promiscuity, is group marriage. Much the same view is taken by A.&nbsp;H.
+<span class="nowrap">Post<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">154</a></span>, who regards the theory of pure promiscuity and the undivided
+commune as untenable.</p>
+
+<p>Kohler, on the other <span class="nowrap">hand<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">155</a></span>, speaks of group marriage as existing
+among the Omahas, a patrilineal tribe, be it remarked; but means by that
+no more than adelphic polygyny.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Spencer and Gillen criticise Westermarck's use of the term "pretended
+group marriage" and assert it to be a fact among the Urabunna. On the
+very next page group marriage is spoken of as having preceded the
+present state of things. Both statements cannot be true.</p>
+
+<p>For the purposes of the present work I understand group marriage to mean
+promiscuity limited by regulations based on organisations such as
+age-grades, phratries, totem-kins, or local groups.</p>
+
+<p>The fact is that Spencer and Gillen and other writers on Australia use
+the term group merely as a noun of multitude. They do not mean by group,
+in one sense, anything more than a number of persons. In this sense they
+speak of group marriage (=&nbsp;polygamy) at the present day&mdash;a fact which is
+not peculiar to Australia and which no one is concerned to deny. By a
+quite illegitimate transformation of meaning they also apply the term
+group to a portion of a tribe distinguished by a class name and (or or)
+term of relationship and mean by group marriage class promiscuity. They
+do not even perceive that they make this transition, for otherwise
+Messrs Spencer and Gillen could hardly assail Dr Westermarck for using
+the term "pretended group marriage" which is quite accurate as a
+description of group (=&nbsp;class) marriage or promiscuity. Even if there
+were justification for assuming that group marriage (=&nbsp;polygamy) is a
+lineal descendant of group marriage (=&nbsp;class promiscuity), nothing would
+be gained by using the term group marriage of both. In the subsequent
+discussion it will be made clear that whatever their causal connection,
+there is hardly a single point of similarity between them beyond the
+fact that the sexual relations are in neither case monogamous. It is
+therefore to be hoped that the supporters of the hypothesis of group
+marriage will in the future encourage clear thinking by not using the
+same term for different forms of sexual union.</p>
+
+<p>I now proceed to discuss the alleged survival of group marriage and
+other Australian marriage customs.</p>
+
+<p>Taking the Dieri tribe as our example the following state of things is
+found to prevail. The tribe is divided into exogamous moieties, Matteri
+and Kararu; subject to restrictions dependent <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>on kinship, with which we
+are not immediately concerned, any Matteri may marry any Kararu. A
+reciprocal term, <span class="nowrap"><i>noa</i><a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">156</a></span>, is in use to denote the status of those who
+may marry each other. This <i>noa</i> relationship is sometimes cited as a
+proof of the existence of group marriage. As a matter of fact it is no
+more evidence of group marriage than the fact that a man is <i>noa</i> to all
+the unmarried women of England except a few, is proof of the existence
+of group marriage in England; or the fact that <i>femme</i> in French means
+both wife and woman is an argument for the existence of promiscuity in
+France in Roman or post-Roman times.</p>
+
+<p>A ceremony, usually performed in infancy or childhood, changes the
+relationship of a <i>noa</i> male and female from <i>noa-mara</i> to
+<i>tippa-malku</i>. The step is taken by the mothers with the concurrence of
+the girl's maternal uncles, and is in fact betrothal. Apparently no
+further ceremony is necessary to constitute a marriage. At any rate
+nothing is said as to that.</p>
+
+<p>In connection with this form of marriage there are two points of
+importance to be noted. The first is that whereas a man may have as many
+<i>tippa-malku</i> wives as he can get, a woman cannot have more than one
+<i>tippa-malku</i>husband, at any rate not at the same time. After the
+husband's death she may again enter into the <i>tippa-malku</i> relation. The
+second point is that the <i>tippa-malku</i> relation must precede the
+<i>pirrauru</i> relation, of which I shall speak in a moment, and cannot
+succeed <span class="nowrap">it<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">157</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>There are unfortunately many points in Dr Howitt's narrative which
+demand elucidation. He says, for example, that <i>noa</i> individuals become
+"<i>tippa-malku</i> for the time <span class="nowrap">being<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">158</a></span>." This suggests, probably
+erroneously, that the <i>tippa-malku</i> relation is merely temporary; but I
+am unable to say whether it in reality means that the <i>tippa-malku</i>
+relation is terminated by the capture of the woman, or that divorce is
+practised and may terminate the relationship at the will of the man only
+or of both parties.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Another point on which we have no information is the position of the
+unmarried girls and widows. Free love is permitted, the only
+<span class="nowrap">limitation<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">159</a></span> given by Dr Howitt being that the man (who must of
+course have passed through the Mindari ceremony) must not be
+<i>tippa-malku</i> to the girl, but must be <i>noa-mara</i>. It would be
+interesting to know whether girls in the <i>tippa-malku</i> relation before
+actual marriage are at liberty to have sexual relations with any men of
+the right status or only with unmarried men, or whether the privilege is
+restricted to those who are not yet <i>tippa-malku</i> to any one, and how
+far the same restriction applies to the men.</p>
+
+<p>Any man who has been duly initiated, whether he is married to a
+<i>tippa-malku</i> wife or not, and any woman who has a <i>tippa-malku</i>
+<span class="nowrap">husband<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">160</a></span>, can enter or be put into a relation termed <i>pirrauru</i> with
+one or more persons of the opposite sex. The effect of the
+ceremony&mdash;termed <i>kandri</i>&mdash;is to give to the <i>pirrauru</i> spouses the
+position of subsidiary husbands and wives, whose rights take precedence
+of the <i>tippa-malku</i> rights at tribal gatherings, but at other times can
+only be exercised in the absence of the <i>tippa-malku</i> spouse, or, when
+the male is unmarried, with the permission of the <i>tippa-malku</i> husband
+of the <i>pirrauru</i> spouse.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>pirrauru</i> relation is, for the woman, a modification of a
+previously existing <i>tippa-malku</i> marriage; that being so, it cannot be
+quoted as evidence of a more pristine state of things in which she was
+by birth the legal and actual spouse of all men of a certain tribal
+status.</p>
+
+<p>The <i>pirrauru</i> relation falls under two heads of the classification I
+have given above, according as the man has or has not a <i>tippa-malku</i>
+wife. In the first case, it is, taken in combination with the
+<i>tippa-malku</i> marriage, a case of bi-lateral adelphic dissimilar (M. and
+F.) polygamy. In the latter it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal)
+polyandry, adelphic being taken here, be it noted, in the sense of
+tribal, and possibly, but not necessarily, own brother.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes
+contradictory. We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a <i>pirrauru</i>
+is always a brother's wife or a wife's sister (they are usually the
+same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their
+<span class="nowrap">wives<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">161</a></span>. But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can
+also become <i>pirraurus</i>. It appears further that a woman may ask for a
+<i>pirrauru</i>, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear. It
+is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the
+arrangement. Further we find that important men have many <i>pirrauru</i>
+wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention.
+Then again we are told that when two new <i>pirrauru</i> pairs are allotted
+to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted. Are we to understand
+from this that the allocation of new <i>pirraurus</i> is a rare event or that
+the <i>pirrauru</i> relationship is a very temporary affair? Or does
+re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over? If the latter,
+the terminology is very unfortunate. Gason's statement is perfectly
+clear: once a <i>pirrauru</i>, always a <span class="nowrap"><i>pirrauru</i><a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">162</a></span>. Again does it imply
+that the <span class="nowrap">wishes<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">163</a></span> of the already existing <i>pirraurus</i> are consulted
+in the matter or not? If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy
+between <i>pirraurus</i>, especially when one of them (the male) is
+unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one
+another. Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother's wife
+as his <i>pirrauru</i>, giving presents to his brother. Does this imply that
+the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse
+it, or that it is purchased? Again we read "a man is privileged to
+obtain a number of wives from his <i>noas</i> in common with the other men of
+his group, while a woman's wish can only be carried out with the consent
+of her <i>tippa-malku</i> husband." This latter statement clearly implies
+that a man can obtain a <i>pirrauru</i> without <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span>the consent of the
+<i>tippa-malku</i> husband, but this contradicts what has already been told
+us about the exchange by brothers of their wives. Exchange is clearly
+not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the
+matter, it is rather a transfer. These are by no means all the unsettled
+questions on which light is needed. What, for example, is the position
+of a <i>pirrauru</i> wife whose <i>tippa-malku</i> husband dies? Does she pass to
+a new <i>tippa-malku</i> husband? If so, must he be an ex-<i>pirrauru</i>? Does
+she continue in the <i>pirrauru</i> relation to her former <i>pirraurus</i>,
+regardless of her new husband's wishes? Can the <i>pirrauru</i> relationship
+be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?</p>
+
+<p>With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves
+fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special
+ceremony is necessary to make the <i>pirrauru</i> relation legal; this is
+performed by the head or heads of the men's totems, and need not be
+described here.</p>
+
+<p>With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the
+<i>tippa-malku</i> spouse always takes precedence of the <i>pirrauru</i> spouse.
+Where two men are <i>pirrauru</i> to the same woman, the <i>tippa-malku</i>
+husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share
+his rights and duties with the younger. It is the duty of the <i>pirrauru</i>
+husband to protect a woman during the absence of her <i>tippa-malku</i>
+husband.</p>
+
+<p>A woman cannot refuse to take a <i>pirrauru</i> who has been regularly
+allotted to her. In her <i>tippa-malku</i> husband's absence the <i>pirrauru</i>
+husband takes his place as a matter of right. He cannot however take her
+away from the <i>tippa-malku</i> husband without his consent except at
+certain ceremonial <span class="nowrap">times<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">164</a></span>. One other fact may be noted. An
+influential man hires out his <i>pirraurus</i> to those who have none.</p>
+
+<p>Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well
+to mention the analogous customs of the only two tribes outside the
+Dieri nation where the same relation is asserted to exist, and certain
+cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span>probability, as on the same
+level as the <i>pirrauru</i> custom. In the Kurnandaburi, according to an
+informant of Dr Howitt's, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers
+and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united,
+apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe
+assembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other <span class="nowrap">times<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">165</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with
+his sister-in-law (wife's sister or brother's wife), although they are
+in the relation of <i>Kodi-molli</i> and practise a modified avoidance. This
+he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage. It is not however clear
+that it is more than what we have called a liaison. Our authority does
+not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet
+that any ceremony initiates the <span class="nowrap">relations<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">166</a></span>. In the absence of these
+details we cannot regard his view as probable. It may however be noted
+that the widow in this tribe passes to the brother.</p>
+
+<p>The only other case of "group marriage" which Dr Howitt <span class="nowrap">gives<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">167</a></span> is in
+the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland. Here however, so far from being
+group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic
+polyandry. A man's unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties,
+the child is said to term them its father. It may however be pointed out
+that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would
+do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any
+other man besides the primary husband.</p>
+
+<p>It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we
+have is neither precise nor free from contradiction.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span> A most essential
+point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the
+<i>pirrauru</i> relationship. Among the Dieri the men may be of different
+totems. Is this the case among the Wakelbura? Was it always the case
+among the Dieri?</p>
+
+<p>Before we leave Dr Howitt's work it is necessary to refer again to the
+Kurnai. The most important point in connection with the Kurnai, so far
+as the present work is concerned, is that, contradictory to Bulmer's
+<span class="nowrap">statement<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">168</a></span> that unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives,
+and sometimes even married men, Dr Howitt <span class="nowrap">mentions<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">169</a></span> as a singular
+fact that he recalls one instance of a wife being lent in that tribe.</p>
+
+<p>Dr Howitt however holds that there are traces of group marriage in the
+tribe, and refers to the fact that the term <span class="nowrap"><i>maian</i><a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">170</a></span> is applied to a
+wife by her husband and by his brother, whose "official <span class="nowrap">wife<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">171</a></span>" she
+is thus declared to be, and that a brother takes his deceased brother's
+widow. He regards this rather unfortunately named custom of the levirate
+as having its root in group marriage. Now <i>maian</i> is applied, not only
+by a husband to a wife, but by a wife to her husband's sister, and by a
+sister to her brother's wife. If therefore the use of the term proves
+anything, it proves, not group marriage, as Dr Howitt understands it,
+but promiscuity, the prior existence of the undivided commune, and this,
+as we have seen, Dr Howitt declines to accept on the strength of the
+philological argument.</p>
+
+<p>We are therefore reduced to the levirate as a proof of the former
+existence of group marriage. But there is nothing whatever to show that
+it is not a case of inheritance of property. For the Australians, as for
+many other savage peoples, the married state is the only thinkable one
+for the adult, and that being so it is natural for the widow to remarry.
+She has however been purchased by the exchange of a woman in the
+relation of sister to the deceased, and if the widow were allowed to
+pass to another group, the property thus acquired would be alienated.
+Moreover the marriage regulations require the woman <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span>to marry only a
+tribal brother of the deceased. It is therefore in every way natural for
+a brother to succeed to a brother. No arguments for the prior existence
+of group marriage can be founded on the levirate, any more than an
+argument for primitive communism can be founded on other laws of
+inheritance. At most the <i>maian</i> relationship is evidence of adelphic
+<span class="nowrap">polygyny<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">172</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>For the Urabunna we depend on the information gained by Spencer and
+Gillen on their first expedition. Here the circle from which a man takes
+his wife is much more restricted than among the Dieri. Not only is he
+bound to choose a woman of the other moiety of the tribe, but he is
+restricted to a certain <span class="nowrap">totem<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">173</a></span> in that moiety, and to the daughters
+of his mother's elder brothers (tribal) in that totem. Hence although
+the <i>kami</i> relationship of the Dieri is unknown among the Urabunna, the
+choice among the latter is more limited.</p>
+
+<p>The marriageable group is termed <i>nupa</i> by both men and women; in
+addition to the <i>nupa</i> relationship and the unnamed individual marriage,
+into which a man enters with one or more of his <i>nupa</i>, there is the
+<i>piraungaru</i> relationship, corresponding to the <i>pirrauru</i> of the Dieri.
+In each case the elder brothers of the woman decide who are to have the
+primary and who the secondary right to the female. In the case of the
+<i>piraungaru</i> however the matter requires confirmation by the old men of
+the tribe. The circumstances under which the <i>piraungaru</i> claims take
+the first rank are not stated by Messrs Spencer and Gillen; the
+statement that a man lends his <i>piraungaru</i> need not, of course, refer
+to times at which he himself cannot claim the right of <span class="nowrap">access<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">174</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>We may now turn to a discussion of the bearing of the facts just cited
+on the question of "group marriage." The first point is naturally that
+of nomenclature, and we at once recognise that among the Dieri the
+relations of the <i>pirrauru</i> are not marriage, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span>either on the definition
+suggested by Dr Westermarck or on that given in Chapter <span class="smrom">XI</span> of
+the present work. If two <i>tippa-malku</i> pairs are reciprocally in
+<i>pirrauru</i>, the only relations between them, unless the <i>tippa-malku</i>
+husbands absent themselves or are complaisant, are, strictly speaking,
+those of temporary regulated polygamy or promiscuity, and rather a
+restriction than an extension of similar customs in other tribes, as I
+shall show below.</p>
+
+<p>A second point of a similar nature is that the parties to a <i>pirrauru</i>
+union are in no sense a <span class="nowrap">group<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">175</a></span>. They are not united by any bond,
+local, totemistic, tribal, or otherwise. The theoretical "group
+marriage"&mdash;the union of all the <i>noa</i>&mdash;does, in a sense, refer to a
+group, though this term properly refers rather to a body of people
+distinguished by residence or some other <i>local</i> differentia from other
+persons or groups. But no distinction of this kind can in any sense be
+affirmed of the <i>pirrauru</i> spouses; it cannot be said of them that they
+are in any way distinguished from the remainder of their tribe, phratry,
+class or totem-kin. From this it follows that the term class-marriage
+cannot be applied to the relation between the <i>pirrauru</i>, nor yet class
+promiscuity; the <i>pirrauru</i>, though members of a certain class, do not
+include all members of that class.</p>
+
+<p>Turning now to the custom itself, let us examine how far it presents any
+marks of being a survival of a previous state of class promiscuity.
+<i>Pirrauru</i> relations are regarded by Dr Howitt and others as survivals
+from a previous stage of "group," by which we must, presumably,
+understand class or status marriage, or promiscuity. So far as they are
+evidence of this, the <i>pirrauru</i> customs are certainly important. If
+however it cannot be shown that they probably point to some form of
+promiscuity, they have but little importance except as a freak or
+exceptional development of polyandry and polygyny.</p>
+
+<p>Let us recall the distinguishing features of the <i>pirrauru</i> union. They
+are (1) consent of the husband (?); (2) recognition <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span>by the totem-kin
+through its head-man; (3) temporary <span class="nowrap">character<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">176</a></span>; (4) priority of the
+<i>tippa-malku</i> union in the case of the woman; (5) purchase of <i>pirrauru</i>
+rights by (<i>a</i>) the brother who becomes a widower, and (<i>b</i>) visitors or
+others without <i>pirraurus</i> of their own, the rights being in the latter
+case for a very short period and not dependent on recognition by the
+totem-kin, so far as Dr Howitt's narrative is a guide. Now unless "group
+marriage" was very different from what it is commonly represented to be,
+the essence of it was that all the men of one class had sexual rights
+over the women of another class. How far does this picture coincide with
+the features of the <i>pirrauru</i>, which is regarded as a survival of it?
+In the first place <i>pirrauru</i> is created by a ceremony, which is
+performed, not by the head, nor even in the Wakelbura tribe, by a member
+of the supposed intermarried classes of the earlier period; but by the
+heads of the totem-kins of the individual men concerned. Now it is quite
+unthinkable that the right of class promiscuity, to use the correct
+term, should ever have been exercised subject to any such restriction;
+even were it otherwise the performance of the ceremony would more
+naturally fall into the hands of tribal, phratriac, or class authorities
+than of the heads of totem-kins. Then too if <i>pirrauru</i> is a survival of
+group marriage we should expect the ceremony to be performed for the
+<i>tippa-malku</i> union and not for the <i>pirrauru</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Again if <i>tippa-malku</i> is later and <i>pirrauru</i> earlier, what is the
+meaning of the regulation that the woman must first be united in
+<i>tippa-malku</i> marriage before she can enter into the <i>pirrauru</i>
+relationship? On the "group marriage" theory this fact demands to be
+explained, no less than the different position of men and women in this
+respect. We have seen that freedom in sexual matters is accorded to both
+bachelors and spinsters. It is therefore from no sense of the value of
+chastity, from no jealousy of the future <i>tippa-malku</i> husband's rights,
+that the female is excluded from the <i>pirrauru</i> relation until she has a
+husband.</p>
+
+<p>Again, if <i>pirrauru</i> is a relic of former rights, now restricted to a
+few of the group which formerly exercised them, why is the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span>husband's
+consent needed before the <i>pirrauru</i> relation is set up, and why is the
+<i>pirrauru</i> relation, once established, not permanent (assuming that my
+reading of Dr Howitt is right)?</p>
+
+<p>Once more, if <i>pirrauru</i> is a right, how comes it that a brother has to
+purchase the right, when he becomes a <span class="nowrap">widower<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">177</a></span>? What too is the
+meaning of the transference of <i>pirrauru</i> women to strangers in return
+for gifts?</p>
+
+<p>All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival
+theory, and we may add to them the fact that the <i>tippa-malku</i> husband,
+so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains
+his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother's
+brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are
+not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the
+introduction of individual marriage. When we consider that the <i>jus
+primae noctis</i> is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the
+position of the <i>tippa-malku</i> husband and the method in which he obtains
+his wife are exceedingly instructive.</p>
+
+<p>Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what
+other way the facts can be explained. The unfortunate lack of detail to
+which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any
+counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from
+the facts already at our disposal. We have seen that in the Wakelbura
+tribe, so far from the condition being one of "group marriage," it is
+one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry. Now it is by no means easy to see
+how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which,
+according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity. On the
+other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found
+in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other
+regions, the result of a scarcity of <span class="nowrap">women<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">178</a></span>, or, what is the same
+thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the
+independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28
+or 30.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is
+required to purchase his <i>pirrauru</i> rights, that the young man without
+<i>pirrauru</i> wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one
+of his <i>pirrauru</i> spouses, and that the <i>tippa-malku</i> marriage always
+precedes the <i>pirrauru</i> relation in the female. It may indeed be urged
+against the view that the purchase of a temporary <i>pirrauru</i> is in fact
+not a case of <i>pirrauru</i> at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of
+hospitality among savage nations. This is no doubt the case and we might
+merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of sexual
+rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia. Looked at from another
+point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive. So
+far as Dr Howitt's statements go, the husband of the <i>pirrauru</i> who is
+thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter. The <i>pirrauru</i>
+husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she
+were a slave. On the theory of group marriage the <i>tippa-malku</i> husband
+has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the <i>pirrauru</i>
+husband. In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the
+transaction. It is true that in the case we are considering the
+<i>pirrauru</i> husband seems to have exceptional privileges, for we have
+seen that under ordinary circumstances the <i>tippa-malku</i> husband has
+exclusive rights at ordinary times. But we must probably understand the
+passage to mean that the lending of <i>pirraurus</i> takes place at tribal
+<span class="nowrap">meetings<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">179</a></span> or on other occasions when the right of the husband is in
+abeyance. In either case, the facts tell far more strongly in favour of
+the view suggested here than in favour of group marriage.</p>
+
+<p>There is another factor to be considered. Abductions and elopements are
+merely ordinary amenities of married life among the aborigines of
+Australia. We have seen that it is the duty of the <i>pirrauru</i> husband to
+protect the wife during the absence of the <i>tippa-malku</i> husband.
+Clearly this is a sort of insurance against the too bold suitor or the
+too fickle wife, unless indeed the <i>pirrauru</i> himself is the offender, a
+point on which Dr Howitt has nothing to say, though Mr Siebert's
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span>evidence may be fairly interpreted to mean that such occurrences are
+not known.</p>
+
+<p>We shall see below in connection with the question of the <i>jus primae
+noctis</i> that special privileges are sometimes accorded to men of the
+husband's totem or class in return for assistance in capturing the wife.
+Now assuming that a wife is abducted or elopes, it is, I think, on the
+same persons that the duty of aiding the injured husband would fall.
+Whether this is so or not, the men of his own totem are those with whom
+a man's relations are, in most tribes, the closest. We have seen that
+the heads of the totem-kins play an important part in assigning
+<i>pirraurus</i>. Now although it is actually the practice for men of
+different totems to exchange wives, it by no means follows that it was
+always the case. The element of adelphic polyandry, for example, may
+well have upset the original relations and brought about a practice of
+exchange between men of different totems. At any rate the theory here
+suggested affords an explanation of the part played by the totem
+headmen, and on the theory of group marriage their share in the
+transaction remains absolutely mysterious.</p>
+
+<p>In connection with these possible explanations of the <i>pirrauru</i> custom,
+it is important to observe that there are duties in regard to food owed
+by the <i>pirrauru</i> wife to her spouse, when her husband is absent. Now it
+is hardly conceivable that in a state of "group marriage" any such
+practice should have obtained. A woman would doubtless have collected
+food for the man with whom she was actually cohabiting; but in the case
+of the <i>pirrauru</i> relation, the absence of the <i>tippa-malku</i> wife of her
+<i>pirrauru</i> spouse must coincide with the absence of her own
+<i>tippa-malku</i> husband before this position is reached. So long as only
+one <i>tippa-malku</i> partner is absent, the <i>pirrauru</i> spouse is under the
+obligation of lightening the labours of the woman whose place she
+sometimes occupies, and this is very far from what we should expect in
+the "group marriage" stage.</p>
+
+<p>On the whole therefore I conclude that the <i>pirrauru</i> relation affords
+absolutely no evidence of a prior stage of group marriage. So far from
+the quantity of evidence for group marriage having been increased by Dr
+Howitt's recent book, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span>it has undergone a diminution. Gason had
+<span class="nowrap">stated<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">180</a></span> that tribal brothers had the right of access in the absence
+of the husband without first being made <i>pirrauru</i>. This, if correct,
+would have been much nearer group marriage than the actual facts; the
+statement however appears to be incorrect, if we may judge by the fact
+that Dr Howitt has silently dropped it.</p>
+
+<p>Of the <i>piraungaru</i> relation but little can be said, mainly for the
+reason that our information is so scanty. We do not learn, for example,
+if it is temporary or permanent, if the consent of the woman is needed,
+if she ever asks her husband for a certain <i>piraungaru</i>, or if she
+applies rather to her elder brothers. We do not know what becomes of the
+<i>piraungaru</i> when the primary spouse dies, whether the brother can claim
+a right to his brother's wife as <i>piraungaru</i> on giving presents,
+whether married and unmarried alike enter into the relationship, whether
+a woman can become <i>piraungaru</i> before she has a special husband,
+whether relations of free love are barred between a man and his
+prospective wife and permitted with other <i>nupa</i> women, and a host of
+other questions. We do not even learn when access is permitted to a
+<i>piraungaru</i> spouse. We have, it is clear, far too few data to be able
+to estimate the value of the dictum of Messrs Spencer and Gillen that
+"individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice in the
+Urabunna tribe." If their views are based only on the facts they have
+given us, they have clearly overlooked a number of essential points; if,
+on the other hand, they took other facts into consideration, we may
+reasonably ask to be put in possession of the whole case.</p>
+
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">152</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Aust. Ass.</i> <span class="smrom">IV</span>, 689.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">153</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Ib.</i> p. 717.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">154</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Ausland</i>, 1891, p. 843.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">155</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Zts. Vgl. Rechtsw.</i> <span class="smrom">XII</span>, 268.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">156</span></a>&nbsp;The statement, <i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 55,
+that a man and woman become <i>noa</i> by betrothal is clearly erroneous.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">157</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nat. Tribes</i>, p. 181. This was not brought out by Dr
+Howitt's paper of 1890 in <i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, and is
+denied in <i>Folklore</i> <span class="smrom">XVII</span>, 174 sq. by Dr Howitt himself; see my
+criticism, <i>ib.</i> 294 sq.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">158</span></a>&nbsp;p. 179.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">159</span></a>&nbsp;p. 187. Subject to the girl having passed the
+<i>wilpadrina</i> ceremony. <i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 56.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">160</span></a>&nbsp;But see p. 129, n. 2.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">161</span></a>&nbsp;This is in contradiction with the statement (<i>Journ.
+Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 56) that the various couples are not
+consulted. We also learn (<i>loc. cit.</i> p. 62) that the exercise of
+marital rights by own tribal brothers is independent of their <i>pirrauru</i>
+relation. The order of precedence is (1) <i>tippa-malku</i>, (2) <i>pirrauru</i>,
+(3) brothers.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">162</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 57.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">163</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt says (p. 182) that each of a pair of <i>pirrauru</i>
+watch each other carefully to prevent more <i>pirrauru</i> relations
+arising.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">164</span></a>&nbsp;In the Urabunna tribe a woman is lent irrespective of
+<i>piraungaru</i> to all <i>nupa</i>, <i>Nor. Tr.</i> p. 63. It is therefore a matter
+of no moment even if the consent of the primary husband is never refused
+at non-ceremonial times.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">165</span></a>&nbsp;It appears, however (<i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>,
+62), to be only on ceremonial (Muni) occasions that anything like
+general intercourse occurs, termed Wira-jinka, then it is promiscuous.
+The Dippa-malli relation is not permanent (<i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i>
+<span class="smrom">XX</span>, 61), and the <i>mebaia</i> husband receives a present. If the
+Dippa-malli "group" is not permanent, it does not appear why Dr Howitt
+speaks of a "group" at all.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">166</span></a>&nbsp;In the absence of these there is nothing to distinguish
+the practice from the adultery which prevails among the Dieri (p. 187),
+in which Dr Howitt does <i>not</i> see a survival of group marriage or
+promiscuity.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">167</span></a>&nbsp;He mentions the <i>pira</i> marriage of the Yandairunga in
+<i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 60, but drops it in <i>Native Tribes</i>.
+It is unfortunate that we never learn why Dr Howitt omits to mention
+facts which he has previously published. Are we to infer that the
+previous statements are erroneous in every case? If so, <i>pirrauru</i> must
+be a temporary relationship.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">168</span></a>&nbsp;Curr, <span class="smrom">III</span>.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">169</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 61, n. 2.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">170</span></a>&nbsp;Dr Howitt's argument from the use of <i>maian</i> raises a
+difficulty. Twenty-five years ago he stated (Brough Smyth, <span class="smrom">II</span>,
+323) that among the Brabrolung a wife was termed <i>wr&#363;k&#365;t</i>, and
+this seems to be the ordinary term.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">171</span></a>&nbsp;Titular <i>maian</i> is Dr Howitt's phrase.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">172</span></a>&nbsp;Dr Howitt's statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably
+passes to the brother is contradicted by passages on pp. 227 and 248.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">173</span></a>&nbsp;Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but
+cf. his attitude on p. 188.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">174</span></a>&nbsp;But cf. <i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 58 n.; this
+may, however, have been regarded as a ceremonial occasion, though there
+is no other evidence of such being the case.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">175</span></a>&nbsp;Properly speaking group marriage should mean that all
+persons in a local group live in polygamy, a state not far removed
+indeed from promiscuity, the boundary between which and polygamy I
+cannot undertake to discuss here, or else that the whole of one group is
+united in marriage to those of the opposite sex in another group.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">176</span></a>&nbsp;This is uncertain, as I have already intimated.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">177</span></a>&nbsp;This tells strongly in favour of my theory. The unmarried
+youth gets his <i>pirrauru</i> free, for he will reciprocate the attention
+later. The man who has lost his wife and can make no return purchases
+the right.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">178</span></a>&nbsp;Cf. Curr, <span class="smrom">III</span>, 546.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">179</span></a>&nbsp;Cf. <i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 73.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">180</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 56.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV"></a>CHAPTER XIV.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">TEMPORARY UNIONS.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. <i>Jus primae noctis.</i>
+Punishment for adultery. <i>Ariltha</i> of central tribes. Group
+marriage unproven.</p></div>
+
+
+<p>It has been mentioned above that the <i>pirrauru</i> custom, so far from
+being an extension of the recognised practice of Australian tribes, is
+in some respects a limitation of it. We may now proceed to illustrate
+this. Even among the Dieri the tribal festival on the occasion of an
+inter-tribal marriage is marked by free intercourse between the sexes
+without regard to existing sexual <span class="nowrap">unions<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">181</a></span> (? either <i>tippa-malku</i> or
+<i>pirrauru</i>). In the same way the Wiimbaio tribal gatherings were
+accompanied by regulated promiscuity, the class rules being the only
+limitation. At others wives could be lent or temporarily exchanged by
+the <span class="nowrap">husbands<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">182</a></span>. The Geawe-gal held festivals at which wives were lent
+to young men, subject to class <span class="nowrap">laws<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">183</a></span>. In other cases the exchange
+was limited to brothers or men of the same <span class="nowrap">totem<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">184</a></span>. Among the
+Kamilaroi a wife was lent to friendly visitors but only with her
+consent. In all these cases we see a state of things similar to or not
+unlike the relations of the Dieri <i>pirrauru</i> spouses, and it should be
+noted that it is at tribal gatherings that the latter can claim to
+exercise their rights. From this it appears that the Dieri custom
+amounts to an ear-marking of certain women for the use of certain men,
+and is consequently a limitation of the common custom; in consideration
+of the fact that the <i>pirrauru</i> men protect them in the absence of their
+<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span>husbands, they are permitted at the same time to exercise marital
+rights, provided their own primary spouses are absent.</p>
+
+<p>Among the Wiimbaio, when sickness was believed to be coming down the
+<span class="nowrap">Murray<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">185</a></span>, and among the Kurnai, when the <i>Aurora australis</i> was
+<span class="nowrap">seen<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">186</a></span>, an exchange of wives was ordered by the old men to avert the
+threatened <span class="nowrap">evil<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">187</a></span>. This is explained by Dr Howitt as a reversion to
+the ancient custom of group marriage. It is however not quite clear on
+what grounds it is necessary to treat it as a survival at all. If a day
+of prayer and fasting is ordered in order to avert national calamities,
+it does not follow that the nation in question was in the habit of
+perpetual prayer and fasting at some previous stage of its existence.
+Moreover, if the magical rite was formerly the universal practice we may
+well ask what induced the tribes which believe in its efficacy to adopt
+a new form of marriage. <i>Ex hypothesi</i>, it is pleasing to Mungan, or
+good against disease; knowing this, they have not hesitated to abolish
+group marriage, but apparently without incurring Mungan's wrath, or
+bringing any epidemic upon them.</p>
+
+<p>Among the <span class="nowrap">Narrinyeri<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">188</a></span>, the old men have a right of access to the
+newly initiated girls, but apparently Dr Howitt does not regard this as
+a survival. On the other hand the <i>narumbe</i> (initiated youths), who may
+not at this period take wives, had unrestricted rights over the younger
+women, those "of his own class and totem not excepted," and this Dr
+Howitt regards as a survival from the days of the undivided commune,
+though if it is so it is hard to see why they should have rights only
+over the younger women. The practice does not appear to differ from the
+free love found among the Dieri except in the absence of class
+restrictions and its limitation to the period after initiation which is
+among many other peoples a period of sexual licence.</p>
+
+<p>Another group of customs, also interpreted by Dr Howitt as a survival of
+group marriage and an "expiation for individual marriage," calls for
+some discussion. It is unnecessary to refer here to the explanation of
+the <i>jus primae noctis</i> suggested by<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span> Mr Crawley. It may be that the
+matter can also to some extent be explained as payment for services, in
+the same way as the <i>pirrauru</i> relation shows some signs of being a
+<i>quid pro quo</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In certain tribes access to the bride is permitted to men of the group
+of the husband. Among the Kuinmurbura they are the men who have aided
+the husband to carry off the <span class="nowrap">woman<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">189</a></span>; and the same is the case with
+the Kurnandaburi and Kamilaroi <span class="nowrap">tribes<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">190</a></span>. It is very significant that
+among the Narrinyeri the right of access only accrues in case of
+elopement and precisely to those men who actually give assistance in the
+abduction, a fact hard to explain on the theory of <span class="nowrap">expiation<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">191</a></span>. Among
+the Mukjarawaint the right seems to belong to those of the same totem,
+but apparently the young men <span class="nowrap">only<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">192</a></span>; but here too their position as
+accessories is quite clear, as indeed it must be in any tribe where the
+right accrues to men of the same totem. By all the rules of savage
+justice a punishment may be inflicted in these cases either on the
+offender himself or on the men of his totem. It is therefore not strange
+that they require from the abductor some return for the danger to which
+he exposes them, especially if they actually take part in the abduction.
+An aberrant form of the custom is found among the Kurnai, among whom the
+<i>jus primae noctis</i> falls to men initiated at the same <i>jeraeil</i> as the
+bridegroom.</p>
+
+<p>Among the Kurnandaburi there was a period of unrestricted licence after
+the exercise of the <i>jus primae noctis</i>, even the father of the bride
+being allowed access to her. This did not of course violate totem or
+phratry regulations. Dr Howitt does not comment on the case, but it
+would have been interesting to hear whether both these customs are to be
+regarded as survivals and if so what caused the <span class="nowrap">duplication<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">193</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>In estimating the value of the custom of <i>jus primae noctis</i> as evidence
+of a prior state of group marriage, a custom of the Yuin should not be
+overlooked. If a man elopes with another man's <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>betrothed he is punished
+by having to fight the girl's father, brothers, and mother's brother;
+the girl was sometimes punished by being beaten; all the men who pursued
+her had a right of access provided they were of the right totem and
+locality. If however the eloping couple were not caught they were not
+liable to punishment after a child was born. There is no mention of any
+<i>jus primae noctis</i> where the marriage was the result of betrothal. In
+this case therefore the right of access is a punishment, so far as the
+girl is concerned; it is earned by taking part in the pursuit, a fact
+which confirms the suggested explanation of the right of access at
+marriage.</p>
+
+<p>It should not be overlooked that this form of punishment is found among
+some tribes as the penalty for <span class="nowrap">adultery<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">194</a></span>, when it certainly cannot
+be interpreted as an expiation for individual marriage. This was the
+case among the Wotjoballuk, the Kamilaroi, and the Euahlayi.</p>
+
+<p>We may now turn to the customs of the central and northern tribes
+visited by Messrs Spencer and Gillen. Except in the case of three of the
+north-eastern tribes the right of access accrues in connection with the
+<i>ariltha</i> ceremony. It may be said at once that there is among these
+tribes no trace of access as payment for services; for on the rare
+occasions when a wife is captured she is allotted to an individual and
+becomes his property at once, according to a statement in the first work
+of Spencer and <span class="nowrap">Gillen<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">195</a></span>. In the same work, it is true, this statement
+is contradicted by the assertion that on such occasions only the men of
+the right class are allowed to have <span class="nowrap">access<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">196</a></span>. But this statement does
+not seem to be based on any facts within the knowledge of the writers,
+for they make a definite statement to the contrary with regard to the
+Arunta customs, and it was with the Arunta that they were specially
+concerned, and in the later volume no further details are given, as they
+should have been, if the custom was found among any of the tribes
+visited on the second expedition.</p>
+
+<p>The association of the right of access with the initiation ceremony is
+paralleled, as we have already seen, among other tribes. It hardly seems
+necessary to argue a state of primitive <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span>promiscuity from a custom of
+licence at the period of puberty, which does not in fact differ, except
+in degree, from the licence normally enjoyed by the unmarried, and is
+readily explicable on other grounds than those suggested by Spencer and
+Gillen. If we are not prepared to regard this licence at puberty, which
+may equally well have subsisted side by side with marriage or group
+promiscuity, as a mere expression of the newly attained sexual rights,
+we have as an alternative the magical theory of Mr Crawley. I do not
+propose to dwell on this but will pass at once to discuss some points
+which seem to have escaped the notice of Spencer and Gillen when they
+proposed their hypothesis of promiscuity.</p>
+
+<p>The essential point in connection with these ceremonies is the fact that
+access is not limited, as in the case of the Dieri, to men who might
+lawfully marry the woman. The right is restricted to men of six classes
+out of the eight, including all four of the other moiety and the two of
+her own half of her own moiety. Now whatever else may be deduced from
+this, one thing is clear, and that is that the custom in its present
+form, at any rate, took its rise before the eight classes were
+introduced but after the four classes were already in existence and <i>a
+fortiori</i> after the phratries were known. Consequently no argument for
+promiscuity can be founded on the right of access at initiation. It
+cannot be a survival from a time when no marriage regulations were
+known, for the simple reason that the custom itself bears unmistakeable
+traces of regulations of a comparatively advanced type. It may of course
+be argued that these limitations are of late origin. How far this is so
+and why such limitations should have been introduced it is impossible to
+say; but it is impossible to base an argument for primitive promiscuity
+on a state of things which is admittedly not primitive unless we have
+good <i>prim&acirc; facie</i> grounds for regarding the custom as a survival. There
+is nothing in the present case to show that it is not a magical rite.</p>
+
+<p>At other times access is permitted in accordance with class regulations,
+the husband's consent being necessary, if indeed he does not actually
+take the preliminary steps himself. We have seen that a similar state of
+things exists in other tribes.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span> It does not seem necessary to look for
+the explanation further than the ordinary customs of savage hospitality,
+the desire to do a favour to men who may be useful. It is difficult to
+see why Spencer and Gillen regard the fact that women are lent in this
+way only to their <i>unawa</i> as a proof of the former existence of group
+marriage. Clearly if intercourse is permitted only between certain
+persons before marriage and only certain persons are allowed to marry,
+we can hardly be surprised to find that these latter are restricted in
+the choice of men to whom they may lend their wives after marriage. The
+surprising thing would be if it were otherwise.</p>
+
+<p>In addition, as in the tribes we have already considered, irregular
+access is practised for magical purposes in connection with the
+performance of ceremonies and the sending out of messengers. It has
+already been pointed out that we have no grounds for regarding such
+practices as survivals; for if we put on sackcloth and ashes as a
+penance for our misdeeds, it does not follow that this was ever the
+prevailing costume. It is even less possible to interpret the ritual
+lending of wives to messengers as a survival, for, <i>ex hypothesi</i>, the
+messengers were not of the group which "group-married," and messengers
+of any sort point to a stage when inter-tribal relations had made
+considerable advance and the tribes in question are hardly likely to
+have been still in the stage of the "undivided commune."</p>
+
+<p>The survey of Australian customs and terms of relationship leads us to
+the conclusion that the former, so far from proving the present or even
+former existence of group marriage in that continent, do not even render
+it probable; on the latter no argument of any sort can be founded which
+assumes them to refer to consanguinity, kinship or affinity. It is
+therefore not rash to say that the case for group marriage, so far as
+Australia is concerned, falls to the ground. Even were it otherwise,
+even were group marriage proved for Australia or for any other part of
+the world, we should still be far from having established promiscuity
+and group marriage as a stage in the general history of mankind. For
+that at least a scheme of development is needed. Even were the arguments
+in favour of the group marriage hypothesis much stronger, its supporters
+might reason<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span>ably be asked to give us something more than assertion and
+reassertion without any attempt to show in detail the process of
+evolution. To take an example from another sphere, it may safely be said
+that the general theory of evolution would find few supporters if it
+were not possible to trace some existing species and genera back to some
+generalised type in the past. At present the position of a supporter of
+the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage is analogous to
+that of an evolutionist who can only point to a few more or less useless
+peculiarities in the anatomy of man without being able to show
+resemblances between them and the corresponding portions of fossil or
+actually existing anthropoids. He calls them <span class="nowrap">"vestiges<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">197</a>"</span> and insists
+that <i>homo</i> is descended from a generalised anthropoid. The mere
+assertion of the vestigial character of such bones or organs would
+hardly carry conviction unless they could be shown to exist in some
+anthropoid in a more fully developed state. Similarly the arguments for
+promiscuity and group marriage suffer from incurable weakness, and would
+so suffer, even were the basis far more reliable than I have shown to be
+the case, unless and until it has been shown by what process and for
+what reasons man took each upward step. So far only one writer has
+attempted, and that nearly thirty years ago, to trace the course of
+human development on the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity, and his
+scheme is a house of cards.</p>
+
+<p>The student of sociology is at a disadvantage compared with the
+zoologist in not being able to unearth his fossils for comparison with
+living forms. He must therefore trace the relationship between living
+forms, and, in seeking to discover the earlier stages of human progress,
+rely in part on the sociology of the higher mammals, in part on the
+possibility of showing a logical scheme of human development. When he
+examines the living forms he is of course unable to say whether actually
+existing savage institutions are in the main line of human progress or
+merely bye-paths embryological or teratological. It may be <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span>possible to
+show that group marriage exists somewhere on the earth at the present
+time. Even if this is so, the theory of primitive promiscuity and group
+marriage as stages in the general history of mankind remain mere
+baseless guesses until we have a systematic account both of the causes
+which led to the various steps, and of the processes by which the
+various stages were reached.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">181</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 205.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">182</span></a>&nbsp;p. 214.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">183</span></a>&nbsp;p. 217.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">184</span></a>&nbsp;pp. 224, 260.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">185</span></a>&nbsp;p. 195.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">186</span></a>&nbsp;pp. 170, 277.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">187</span></a>&nbsp;Also among the Kurnandaburi, the Wonkamira, etc. <i>Journ.
+Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 62. General circumcision was a remedy in Fiji
+when the chief was ill.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">188</span></a>&nbsp;And among the Dieri, according to Gason, <i>Journ. Anthr.
+Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 87.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">189</span></a>&nbsp;p. 219.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">190</span></a>&nbsp;pp. 205, 193. <i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i> <span class="smrom">XII</span>, 36.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">191</span></a>&nbsp;p. 245.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">192</span></a>&nbsp;p. 269.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">193</span></a>&nbsp;He also omits to mention the <i>Muni</i> ceremony, described
+in <i>Journ. Anthr. Inst.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 62. If general licence is of
+magical efficacy in cases of sickness, it can hardly be argued that
+general licence at marriage has not, as Mr Crawley argues, a magical
+significance.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">194</span></a>&nbsp;p. 245.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">195</span></a>&nbsp;<i>C.&nbsp;T.</i> 556.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">196</span></a>&nbsp;<i>C.&nbsp;T.</i> 104.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">197</span></a>&nbsp;Commonly but erroneously termed "rudimentary organs." It
+is a natural and justifiable assumption for a zoologist that all
+vestigial organs have previously been more largely developed. It is also
+an assumption that a given custom is vestigial, but it is not a
+justifiable one.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a>APPENDIX.</h2>
+
+<p class="tocchap">ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.</p>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes.
+"Bloods" and "Castes."</p></div>
+
+
+<p>A certain number of Australian tribes have ceased to adhere strictly to
+the regulations of their class systems. Thus, in the Kamilaroi tribe a
+correspondent of Dr Howitt's found intra-class marriage, the totem only
+being different; in determining the class and totem of the children the
+ordinary rule held <span class="nowrap">good<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">198</a></span>. The Wiradjeri on the Lachlan permit Ipai
+to marry Muri as well as Kumbo, the two classes both belonging to
+Kupathin; in each case certain totems only, viz. emu, opossum, snake and
+bandicoot, have the <span class="nowrap">privilege<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">199</a></span>. The same anomaly is found in the
+Wonghibon <span class="nowrap">tribe<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">200</a></span>.</p>
+
+<p>Among the Warramunga and other northern tribes Spencer and Gillen find
+that the division of the classes, explained in the last chapter, does
+not prevent marriages from taking place which this division ought to
+prevent, if the Arunta rule were <span class="nowrap">followed<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">201</a></span>. A curious feature of
+these marriages is that the children of the anomalous union pass into
+the class which would have been theirs if their mother had wedded her
+normal spouse. It is not easy to say whether this should be regarded as
+a survival of matrilineal descent; it is, however, clear that only the
+existence of phratriac names enables us to say definitely that the
+descent in this tribe is in the male line.</p>
+
+<p>According to the information printed by Mr R.&nbsp;H. Mathews this
+irregularity is by no means the sum total of anomalies.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span> His information
+is far from being commonly accepted as accurate; but, as will be shown
+later, there are correspondences between his statements and those of
+other observers, which make it probable that his statements have some
+basis in fact. At any rate they deserve notice, if only that they may be
+contradicted by competent witnesses, if they are incorrect.</p>
+
+<p>In the Inchalachee tribe, according to Mr Mathews, descent of the
+classes is reckoned through females. In the place of the arrangement
+shown in Table Ia, he gives the order 3, 4, 8, 7; 6, 5, 1, <span class="nowrap">2<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">202</a></span>. Any
+man of the first moiety may marry any woman of the second, though
+certain marriages are normal and one of the remainder more usual than
+the others. The effect of these rules is to make it possible for a man
+to marry any woman of his own generation, even if she be of his own
+class. This is precisely the same as the case reported from the
+Kamilaroi by Dr Howitt, if we may take it that in the latter case the
+normal marriages are found side by side with the anomalous ones.</p>
+
+<p>In the Inchalachee marriages the children, as in the Warramunga cases of
+Spencer and Gillen, take the class which they would have had if the
+woman had taken her normal spouse. On this Mr Mathews relies for the
+statement that descent is reckoned in the female line in this tribe.
+But, as we have seen, such a view is erroneous as regards the
+Warramunga, among whom anomalous marriages also occur; it is therefore
+by no means clear that the Inchalachee are matrilineal. We have even
+more reason to doubt his view as to the Binbinga, for whom we have the
+evidence of Spencer and Gillen.</p>
+
+<p>Mr Mathews also reports among the Wiradjeri marriages resembling in many
+respects those mentioned above from the Wailwun <span class="nowrap">tribe<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">203</a></span>. The table
+does not seem to be complete; it is therefore useless to enquire on what
+principle these marriages are arranged. There seems, however, no reason
+to doubt the substantial accuracy of the information.</p>
+
+<p>More revolutionary is the statement that these cross-class marriages are
+based on an actual kinship organisation, to which Mr Mathews gives the
+name of "blood" (Table III, p. <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>)<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">204</a>.</p>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span></p>
+
+<p>Running across the phratries and classes are divisions known as
+Gwaigullean and Gwaimudthen, Muggulu and Bumbirra, etc., which have the
+meaning of "sluggish" and "swift" blood respectively. The bloods again
+are sometimes subdivided. In the Ngeumba tribe Gwaimudthen is divided
+into nhurai (butt) and wangue (middle), while Gwaigulir is equivalent to
+winggo (top). These names refer to different portions of the shadow of a
+tree and refer to the positions taken up in camping by the persons
+belonging to the different "bloods" and "castes." In this, it may be
+noted, these organisations follow the parallel of the phratries and
+classes.</p>
+
+<p>With the correspondences in names shown in Table III. before our eyes,
+it is difficult to suppose that the statements of Mr Mathews have no
+basis in fact. In the absence of further information, however, it is
+clearly impossible to discuss the origin of these divisions. It seems
+most probable that they are the systematisation of the anomalous
+marriages already cited. But much more information is needed before
+anything like certainty can be attained in the matter. Both actual
+genealogies and tables of terms of relationship must be in our hands
+before we can come to a decision.</p>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">198</span></a>&nbsp;Howitt, p. 204.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">199</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> p. 211.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">200</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> p. 214, cf. <i>J.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;I.</i></p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">201</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Nor. Tr.</i> pp. 107, 114.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">202</span></a>&nbsp;<i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 71.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">203</span></a>&nbsp;<i>J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;N.&nbsp;S.&nbsp;W.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXI</span>, 173.</p>
+
+<p class="footnote">
+<a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a>
+<a class="footnotea" href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">204</span></a>&nbsp;<i>ib.</i> <span class="smrom">XXXVIII</span>, 207-17, <span class="smrom">XXXIX</span>, 117,
+<i>Proc. R.&nbsp;G.&nbsp;S. Qu.</i> <span class="smrom">XX</span>, 53, etc.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="INDEX_OF_NAMES" id="INDEX_OF_NAMES"></a>INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES.</h2>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Phratry and Blood names are in <ins class="correction" title="caps.">caps.,</ins> Class names in roman. In the
+references Map II is equivalent to Table I (pp. <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>-<a href='#Page_43'>48</a>), Map III to
+Table II (pp. <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>-<a href='#Page_51'>51</a>). The numbers refer to pages, save in the case
+of <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="index">
+<ul class="IX">
+
+<li>Ahjereena, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Akamaroo, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li>Anbeir, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Appitchana, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a></li>
+
+<li>Appungerta, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a></li>
+
+<li>Arara, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Ararey, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Arawongo, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Arenia, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Arrakan, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Arrenynung, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Awukaria, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XI">xi</a></li>
+
+<li>Awunga, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Badingo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Balgoin, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Ballaruk, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIV">xiv</a></li>
+
+<li>Ballieri, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Banaka, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Banjoor, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Banniar, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Barah, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li><a name="Baran" id="Baran"></a>Baran, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li>Barry, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Belthara, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-a">xiii a</a></li>
+
+<li>Belyeringie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li>Beneringie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Biingaru</span>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">41</a></li>
+
+<li>Biliarinthu, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li>Blaingunju, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li>Bolangie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a>, <a href="#Ia-2">9</a></li>
+
+<li>Bondan, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Bondurr, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Bongaringie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Boogarloo, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Boonongoona, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Budthurung</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">21</a></li>
+
+<li>Bullaranjee, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Bulleringie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Bulthara, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII">xiii</a></li>
+
+<li>Bunbai, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Bunburi, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Bunda, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Bungaranjee, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Bungumbura, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Bunjil</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">1</a></li>
+
+<li>Bunjur, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Bunya, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Burgutta</span>, see also <a href="#Pakoota">Pakoota</a></li>
+
+<li>Burong, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Burralangie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a>, <a href="#Ia-2">9</a></li>
+
+<li>Butcharrie, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Butha, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li>Bya, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Carburungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Carribo, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Carrigan, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Chepa</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">32</a></li>
+
+<li>Chagarra, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Chambeen, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Chambijana, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Changally, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Changary, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Chapota, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Chavalya, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">15</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">16</a></li>
+
+<li>Cheekungie, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VI">vi</a></li>
+
+<li>Chikun, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VI">vi</a></li>
+
+<li>Chinuma, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Chooara, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Choolima, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Choongoora, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">15</a></li>
+
+<li>Chowan, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Chowarding, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Chungalla, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li></ul>
+
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><span class="smcap">Darboo</span>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-3">12</a></li>
+
+<li><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span>
+ <span class="smcap">Deeajee</span>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">26</a></li>
+
+<li>Deringara, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-a">xiii a</a></li>
+
+<li>Derwen&nbsp;=&nbsp;Theirwain, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Dhalyeree, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">16</a></li>
+
+<li>Dhongaree, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Dhungaree, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 16</a></li>
+
+<li>Didaruk, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIV">xiv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Dilbi</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">20</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Eemitch, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><span class="smcap">Gamanutta</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">33</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Gamutch</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Girana</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">25</a></li>
+
+<li>Gnangball, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li>Gooroona, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Goothamungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Gubilla, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-a">xiii a</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Gwaigullean</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">22</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Gwaigullimba</span>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Gwaimudhan</span>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>Gwaimudthen, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">22</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Heyanbo, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Ikamaru, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Illitchi</span>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">40</a></li>
+
+<li>Imballaree, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Imbannee, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Imbawalla, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Imbongaree, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Imboong, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Immadena, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Inganmarra, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Inkagalla, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Ipai, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li>Ipatha, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li>Irrakadena, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Irroong, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Irpoong, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Irpoong-Marroong classes, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Jamada, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 16</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Jamagunda</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">33</a></li>
+
+<li>Jambijana, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Jameragoo, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Jameram, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 16</a></li>
+
+<li>Janna, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">16</a></li>
+
+<li>Jarbain, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Jeemara, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Jimidya, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Jimmilingo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Jinagoo, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Joolam, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 16</a></li>
+
+<li>Joolama, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Joolanjegoo, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Jooralagoo, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Jorro, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VII">vii</a></li>
+
+<li>Jumeyungie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Jummiunga, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 16</a></li>
+
+<li>Jungalagoo, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Jungalla, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Junna</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">32</a></li>
+
+<li>Jury, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li></ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Kabidgi, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a></li>
+
+<li>Kapoodungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kappatch</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">6</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kaputch</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Kaiamba, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Kairawa, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kararawa</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">7</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kararu</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">7</a></li>
+
+<li>Karavangi, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VI">vi</a></li>
+
+<li>Kari, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XVI">xvi</a></li>
+
+<li>Karilbura, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Karpeun</span>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">26</a></li>
+
+<li>Karpungie, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VI">vi</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kartpoerappa</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Kearra, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Kellungie, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VI">vi</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kilpara</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">4</a></li>
+
+<li>Kingelunju, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kingilli</span>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">42</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kiraru</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">7</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kirtuuk</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Kommerangie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a>, <a href="#Ia-2">9</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Koocheebinga</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">10</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li>
+
+<li>Koodala, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kookoojeeba</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">10</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Koolpuru</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">8</a></li>
+
+<li>Koomara, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-a">xiii a</a></li>
+
+<li>Koopungie, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VI">vi</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Koorabunna</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-3">11</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kooragula</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-3">11</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Koorameenya</span>, <a href="#Footnote_90_90">49, n. 19</a></li>
+
+<li>Kooran, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Koorgilla, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Koorpal, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Krokage</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kroki</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Krokitch</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Kubaru, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Kubi, Kubbi, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li>Kubitha, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li>Kuial, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#X">x</a></li>
+
+<li>Kuialla, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kulitch</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Kumara, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII">xiii</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a></li>
+
+<li>Kumbo, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kumit</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Kunggilungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Kungilla, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li>Kunullu, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kupathin</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">20</a></li>
+
+<li>Kurbo, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Kurgan, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Kurkilla, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Kurongon, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VI">vi</a></li>
+
+<li>Kurpal, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Kutchal, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VII">vii</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span></p>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><span class="smcap">Kuunamit</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">6</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Kuurokeetch</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Kymerra, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Langenam, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XV">xv</a></li>
+
+<li>Lenai, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Liaraku</span>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">43</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Liaritchi</span>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">40</a></li>
+
+<li>Loora, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Mahngal, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Malian</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">3</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Mallera</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">28</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Mallera-Wuthera</span> phratries, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a> sq.</li>
+
+<li>Mambulgit, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li>Manjarojally, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li>Manjarwuli, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li>Maringo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Marinungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Marro, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Marroong, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Maroongah, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Matha, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Mattera</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">7</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Matteri</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">7</a></li>
+
+<li>Matyang, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Merugulli</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">25</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Merung</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">2</a></li>
+
+<li>Moorob, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li>Moroon, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Mukula</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">21</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Mukumurra</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Mullara</span>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">28</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Multa</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">3</a></li>
+
+<li>Mumbali, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#X">x</a></li>
+
+<li>Munal, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Mungilly, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Munichmat</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">34</a></li>
+
+<li>Munjungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Muquara</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">4</a></li>
+
+<li>Muri, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li>Muri-Kubbi classes, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Murla</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">31</a></li>
+
+<li>Murungun, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#X">x</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Nabajerry, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Nabungati, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Naganok, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIV">xiv</a></li>
+
+<li>Nagarra, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Naka</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">30</a></li>
+
+<li>Nakomara, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Nala, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Nalangininja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Nalaringinja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Nalinginja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Nalirri, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Naltjeri, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Namaja, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Namaringinja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Namaringinta, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Nambean, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Nambeen, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Nambin, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Nambjana, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Nambitjin, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Nambitjinginja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Namegor, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XV">xv</a></li>
+
+<li>Namigili, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Namininja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Namita, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Namyungo, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIV">xiv</a></li>
+
+<li>Nana, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Nanagoo, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Nanakoo, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 16</a></li>
+
+<li>Nanajerry, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Nangally, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Nangili, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">15</a></li>
+
+<li>Naola, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Napanunga, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Napungerta, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Naralu, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Narbeeta, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Narechie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li>Narrabalangie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a>, <a href="#Ia-2">9</a></li>
+
+<li>Nemira, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Nemurammer, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Neonammer, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Ngarrangungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Ngielbumurra</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">23</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Ngielpuru</span>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Ngipuru</span>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Ngumbun</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">24</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Ngurrawan</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">24</a></li>
+
+<li>Nhermana, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 15</a></li>
+
+<li>Niamaku, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Niameragun, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a></li>
+
+<li>Niamerum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 5</a></li>
+
+<li>Ninum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a></li>
+
+<li>Niriuma, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 5</a></li>
+
+<li>Nolangmer, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Nongarimmer, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Nooara, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Nowala, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 1</a></li>
+
+<li>Nowana, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 14</a></li>
+
+<li>Nuanakuma, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Nullum, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li>Nulum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a></li>
+
+<li>Nulyarammer, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 18</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Numbun</span>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">24</a></li>
+
+<li>Nunalla, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Nungalermer, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Nungalla, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">13</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">15</a></li>
+
+<li>Nungallakurna, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Nungallum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Nungari, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Nuralakurna, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Nurlanjukurna, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Nurlum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 5</a></li>
+
+<li>Nurralammer, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 8</a></li>
+
+<li>Nurulum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Nurumball, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span></p>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Obu, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Odall, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap"><a name="Ootaroo" id="Ootaroo"></a>Ootaroo</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">29</a>; see also <a href="#Wuthera">Wuthera</a>, etc.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Packwicky, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XV">xv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap"><a name="Pakoota" id="Pakoota"></a>Pakoota</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">29</a></li>
+
+<li>Paliarina, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Paliarinji, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Palyang, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Pamarung, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XV">xv</a></li>
+
+<li>Pandur, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Panunga, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII">xiii</a></li>
+
+<li>Parajerri, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Parang, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a>; see also <a href="#Baran">Baran</a></li>
+
+<li>Parungo, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII-b">xiii b</a></li>
+
+<li>Patingo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Perrynung, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Pungarinia, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Pungarinji, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Pungarinju, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li>Purdal, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#X">x</a></li>
+
+<li>Purula, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIII">xiii</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Ranya, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Rara, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VIII">viii</a></li>
+
+<li>Roanga, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li>
+
+<li>Roumburia, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XI">xi</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Tabachin, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Tabadena, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Taran, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Tarbain, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IV">iv</a></li>
+
+<li>Tchana, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Teilling, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li>Thakomara, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Thalaringinja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Thalirri, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Thama, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Thamaringinja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Thamininja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Thapanunga, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Thapungarti, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Theirwain, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#III">iii</a></li>
+
+<li>Thimmermill, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li>Thungalla, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a>, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a></li>
+
+<li>Thungallaku, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Thungallinginja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Thungallum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Thungarie, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Thungaringinta, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Tinewa</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-2">8</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjambin, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjambitjina, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjameraku, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjameramu, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjamerum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjapatjinginja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjapetjeri, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjimara, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjimininja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjimita, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjinguri, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjinum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjuanaku, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 5</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjulantjuka, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 5</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjulum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjupila, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 13</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjurla, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 2</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjurulinginja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li>Tjurulum, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a></li>
+
+<li>Tondarup, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIV">xiv</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Tooar</span>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-3">12</a></li>
+
+<li>Toonbeungo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li>Trumininja, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 11</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Tunna</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">30</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><span class="smcap">Ua</span>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">44</a></li>
+
+<li>Uanaku, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Ubur, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Uknaria, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Uluuru</span>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">41</a>, <a href="#TII-5">42</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Umbe</span>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">3</a></li>
+
+<li>Umbitchana, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a></li>
+
+<li>Unburri, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li>Ungalla, <a href="#Ia-3">Table I a, 12</a></li>
+
+<li>Unmarra, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Unwannee, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Uralaku, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 6</a></li>
+
+<li>Urgilla, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Urku</span>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">44</a></li>
+
+<li>Urtalia, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XI">xi</a></li>
+
+<li>Urwalla, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Uwallaree, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li>Uwungaree, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><span class="smcap">Waa</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">1</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Waang</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">1</a></li>
+
+<li>Wairgu, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Walar</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">31</a></li>
+
+<li>Walar, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VII">vii</a></li>
+
+<li>Wandi, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#VII">vii</a></li>
+
+<li>Warganbah, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Warkie, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 9</a></li>
+
+<li>Warrithu, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 7</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Wartungmat</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">34</a></li>
+
+<li>Waui, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XVI">xvi</a></li>
+
+<li>Weiro, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Werrican, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Wialia, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XI">xi</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Wiliuku</span>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-5">43</a></li>
+
+<li>Wilthuthu, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XVI">xvi</a></li>
+
+<li>Wiltu, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XVI">xvi</a></li>
+
+<li>Wirrikin, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Wirro, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Witteru</span>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a></li>
+
+<li>Wombee, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#I">i</a></li>
+
+<li>Wombo, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Womboongah, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Wongan, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#II">ii</a></li>
+
+<li>Wongo, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#V">v</a></li>
+
+<li><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span>
+<span class="smcap">Woodaroo</span>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a>, <a href="#TII-4">28</a>, <a href="#TII-4">29</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Wootaroo</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a>; see also <a href="#Ootaroo">Ootaroo</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Wrepil</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">1</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap"><a name="Wuthera" id="Wuthera"></a>Wuthera</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">28</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Wuthera-Mallera</span> phratry, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Wutthuru</span>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Yakomari, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">6</a>, <a href="#Ia-2">8</a>, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a></li>
+
+<li>Yakomarin(a), <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 3</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">5</a>, <a href="#Ia-1">6</a></li>
+
+<li>Yangor, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#XIV">xiv</a></li>
+
+<li>Yelet, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li>Yoolgo, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li>Youingo, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href="#Map_II">Map II</a>, <a href="#IX">ix</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Yuckembruk</span>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-1">2</a></li>
+
+<li>Yukamura, <a href="#Ia-1">Table I a, 4</a></li>
+
+<li>Yungalla, <a href="#Ia-2">Table I a, 10</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Yungaroo</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Yungaru</span>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Yungnuru</span>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Yungo</span>, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href="#Map_III">Map III</a>, <a href="#TII-4">9</a>, <a href="#TII-4">27</a></li>
+
+<li><span class="smcap">Yungo</span> phratry, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+</div>
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span></p>
+
+<h2 class="chapterhead"><a name="SUBJECT_INDEX" id="SUBJECT_INDEX"></a>SUBJECT INDEX.</h2>
+
+<div class="hanging2"><p>Names of Australian tribes are in Clarendon, native words and parts
+of words in italics. Words in inverted commas are defined.</p></div>
+
+
+<div class="index">
+<ul class="IX">
+
+<li>Abduction, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li>
+
+<li>Adoption, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li>
+
+<li>Adultery, punishment for, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a></li>
+
+<li>Affinity, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a></li>
+
+<li>"Age grades," <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, <a href='#Page_112'>112</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Agoo</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Aku</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Akulbura</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li>America, tribe in, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li>
+
+<li>American organisations, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a></li>
+
+<li><i>An</i> as feminine termination <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Ana</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Anaywan</b> classes, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Angie</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Anjegoo</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Annan R., classes on, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li>
+
+<li>Anomalous areas, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a></li>
+
+<li>Anomalous marriages, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Anula</b> classes, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Ara</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Arab phratries, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Arch&aelig;ologia Americana</i>, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Aree</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Ariltha</i>, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Arunta</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>customs, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>kinship terms, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>meaning of, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>primitiveness, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>S., classes, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>totemism, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a></li>
+
+<li>Associations, changes in, <a href='#Page_1'>1</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>natal, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a></li>
+
+<li>
+Atkinson, J.&nbsp;J., <a href='#Page_63'>63</a></li>
+
+<li>Aversion, sexual, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><b>Badieri</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>Baiame, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Balcoin</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Barkinji</b> betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Bathalibura</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Beena</i> marriage, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li>
+
+<li>Belyando R., classes on, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Berriait</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li>Betrothal and potestas, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>rule of descent, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a> sq.</li>
+
+<li><b>Binbinga</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Bingongina</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a, 47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li>Bird myth, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>conflict myth, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a></li>
+
+<li>Blood and phratry organisations, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>cousins, marriage forbidden to, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>division, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>feud, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>organisations, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a>, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>relationship, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li>
+
+<li>Bloomfield R., phratries on, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li>
+
+<li>Brother and sister marriage, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>meaning of terms in Morgan's work, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Bu</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Bulcoin</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Bulthara</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Bundar</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Buntamurra</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>"Caste" subdivision, <a href='#Page_153'>153</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Cha</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a></li>
+
+<li>Chieftainship, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li>
+
+<li>Child and parent, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a></li>
+
+<li>Children and parents, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Choo</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>"Classes, intermarrying," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and phratries, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and totems, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>later than phratries, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>list of, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>names, borrowing of, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>meaning of, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li>Class organisations, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a> sq.; <a href="#Map_II">Map II, 40</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span>effect of, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>origin of, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a></li>
+
+<li>Classificatory terms of relationship, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li>
+
+<li>Conception, theories of, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a></li>
+
+<li>"Consanguinity," <a href='#Page_3'>3</a> sq.</li>
+
+<li>Consent of husband, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, <a href='#Page_146'>146</a></li>
+
+<li>Contrasts in phratry names, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a>, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a></li>
+
+<li>"Couple," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li>Cousin marriage, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a></li>
+
+<li>Crow phratry, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li>
+
+<li>Cunow, H., <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><b>Dalebura</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Darkinung</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a> n.</li>
+
+<li><i>Deeroyn</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li>Degeneration and incest, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li>
+
+<li>Descent, rule of, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a>, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a> sq.; <a href="#Map_I">Map I, 40</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>change of, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li>
+
+<li>Descriptive terms of relationship, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li>
+
+<li>"Determinant spouse," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Dieri</b> betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>marriage rules, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>wife lending, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Dippa-malli</i>, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Dippil</b> classes, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_43'>43, III b</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>"Direct descent," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Dirrawong</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li>Durkheim, E., <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Durween</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Eaglehawk, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and crow, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Eanda</i>, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li>
+
+<li>Earl, G.&nbsp;W., <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li>Economic conditions and rule of descent, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Egor</i> as feminine suffix, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li>Eight-class names, centre of origin, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>percentages of resemblance and difference, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>system, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>tribe in Queensland, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a></li>
+
+<li>Elder and younger, meaning of, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>brother, authority, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a></li>
+
+<li>Elopement, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Eranta</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Euahlayi</b> classes <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_42'>42 e</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a></li>
+
+<li>Exchange of wives, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li>
+
+<li>Exogamy, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a>, <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>origin of, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a></li>
+
+<li>Family, <a href='#Page_1'>1</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>types of, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li>
+
+<li>Father and son, conflict of, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a></li>
+
+<li>Father and daughter marriage, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li>
+
+<li>Father right, see <a href="#Patriliny">Patriliny</a></li>
+
+<li>Female descent, see <a href="#matriliny">Matriliny</a></li>
+
+<li>Females, property vested in, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li>
+
+<li>Feminine class names, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Fison, L., on group marriage, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li>
+
+<li>Folktales, stock of, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li>
+
+<li>Four-class area, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and eight-class systems, results compared, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a></li>
+
+<li>Frazer, J.&nbsp;G., <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>on totemism, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a></li>
+
+<li>Free love, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a></li>
+
+<li>Free union, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Gason, S., <a href='#Page_13'>13</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Gam&eacute;</i>, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Gan</i> as feminine termination, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Geawegal classes</b>, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>wife lending, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Geebera</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li>Generation, marriage within, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Gnalluma</b> classes, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Gnamo</b> classes, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Gnanji</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Goa</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Goonganji</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Goothanto</b> classes, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li>
+
+<li>Gregory, J.&nbsp;W., <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a></li>
+
+<li>Grey, Sir G., <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li>
+
+<li>Groups, local, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>meaning of, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>primitive, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a></li>
+
+<li>Group marriage and <i>pirrauru</i>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>meaning of term, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>not proven, <a href='#Page_148'>148</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Gurk</i> as feminine suffix, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Haida phratries, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a></li>
+
+<li>Hausa rules of avoidance, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a></li>
+
+<li>Hereditary kinship groups, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a></li>
+
+<li>Hodgson, C.&nbsp;P., <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li>
+
+<li>Homophones, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li>Hottentots non-totemic, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li>
+
+<li>Howitt, A.&nbsp;W., <a href='#Page_16'>16</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>Iker</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Iliaura</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Ilpirra</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li>In-and-in breeding, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li>
+
+<li>Incest and degeneration, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Inchalachee</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>marriage, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li>
+
+<li>"Indirect descent," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li>Individual property, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Inginja</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Inheritance and descent, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and patriliny, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>of widow, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>of wife by brother, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a></li>
+
+<li>Initiation and free love, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Inja</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span>
+ "Intermarrying classes," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li>Isaacs, F.&nbsp;N., <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Itch</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Itchana</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Itchumundi</b> "bloods," <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>J</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Ja</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Jarr</i> as feminine suffix, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li>Jealousy, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Joo</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Joongoongie</b> classes, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Jouon</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Jus primae noctis</i>, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>K</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kabi</b> classes, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kaitish</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kalkadoon</b> classes, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kamilaroi</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>customs, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>marriage, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>organisation, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_42'>42 a</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>wife lending, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Kandri</i>, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kangulu</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_44'>44, IV b</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Kanunka</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Karandee</b> class names, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a></li>
+
+<li>Kempe, H., <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Keramin</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kiabara</b> classes, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>Kimberley, classes at, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li>"Kin group," <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li>
+
+<li>"Kinsman," <a href='#Page_31'>31</a></li>
+
+<li>"Kinship," <a href='#Page_3'>3</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and consanguinity, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>groups, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>origin of idea, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>tribal, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Kodi-molli</i>, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kogai</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>Kohler, J., on group marriage, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kombinegherry</b> classes, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Koo</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Koogobathy</b> classes, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Koolbirra</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Koonjan</b> classes, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Koorangie</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Korkoren</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Korkoro</i>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Ku</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Kubbi</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kuinmurbura</b> betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>customs, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_44'>44, IV a</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>rules of residence, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Kulbara</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kurnai</b> customs, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href="#Footnote_79_79">49, n. 8</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>polygamy, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>relationships, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>rule of residence, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Kurnandaburi</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>polygamy, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a></li>
+
+<li>Kutchin phratries, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Landed property, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a></li>
+
+<li>Lang, Andrew, <a href="#II">ii</a>, <a href='#Page_63'>63</a></li>
+
+<li>Languages, differentiation of, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a></li>
+
+<li>Leichardt, L., <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li>
+
+<li>Lending of wives, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a> sq., <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><i>pirrauru</i> wives, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li>
+
+<li>Levirate, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li>
+
+<li>Liaison, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Limba Karadjee</b> classes, <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li>Local group, constitution of, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>influence of, in causing change of rule of descent, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>types of, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Macarthur, Capt., <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Maian</i>, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Mala</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Male</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li>Male descent, <i>see</i> <a href="#Patriliny">Patriliny</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Malu</i>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Mara</b> classes, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li>
+
+<li>Marriage, definition of, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>evolution of, Morgan's theory, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>forms of, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>origin of, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>prohibitions, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>rules, <a href='#Page_97'>97</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and kinship terms, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li>
+
+<li>Maryborough tribes, classes of, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_43'>43, III a</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>rules of residence, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a></li>
+
+<li>Mathews, R.&nbsp;H., <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li>
+
+<li><a name="matriliny" id="matriliny"></a>Matriliny in eight-class tribes, <a href='#Page_151'>151</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>origin of, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>primitive, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>priority of, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a>, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li>
+
+<li>"Matrilocal," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>marriage, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li>
+
+<li>Matripotestal family, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Mayoo</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Meening</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li>Melanesian phratries, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Miappe</b> classes, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>Migrations, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Milpulko</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span>
+ <b>Miorli</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Mittakoodi</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>"Mixed group," <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li>
+
+<li>Mohegan phratries, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Monobar</b> classes, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li>
+
+<li>Moore, G.&nbsp;F., <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Moree</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+
+<li>Morgan, Lewis, on promiscuity, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a></li>
+
+<li>Mother right, see <a href="#matriliny">Matriliny</a></li>
+
+<li>Mother, term for, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Mukjarawaint</b> betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>customs, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Murawari</b> "bloods," <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a> f, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>Murchison R., classes on, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Muri</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Mycoolon</b> classes, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a></li>
+
+<li>Myths, diffusion of, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>N</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Nagualism, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a></li>
+
+<li>Narran R., classes on, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Narrangga</b> classes, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li>Narrinyeri customs, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+
+<li>"Natal associations," <a href='#Page_2'>2</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Nauo</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li>Near relatives, marriage of, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li>
+
+<li>New Hebrides club-house, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Ngarrego</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Ngerikudi</b> kinship terms, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Ngeumba</b> "bloods," <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_42'>42 d</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>organisation, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a></li>
+
+<li>Nicol Bay, classes at, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li>Nind, S., <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Noa</i>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Noa-mara</i>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Nu</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Nupa</i>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a>, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>Obur</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Oolawunga</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Oruyo</i>, <a href='#Page_11'>11</a></li>
+
+<li>Ovaherero organisations, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>Palyara</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Palyeri</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Panunga</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Parnkalla</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li>Paternity, uncertain, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a></li>
+
+<li>Patria potestas, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li>
+
+<li>Patrilineal inheritance, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li>
+
+<li><a name="Patriliny" id="Patriliny"></a>Patriliny, causes of, in Australia, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>cause of rise, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>possible primitive, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a></li>
+
+<li>"Patrilocal," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li>Patripotestal family, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Peechera</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+
+<li>Phratries and classes, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>list of, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>object of, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>origin of, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>systematic groups as, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a></li>
+
+<li>"Phratry," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li>Phratry names, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>meanings of, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a> sq.</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>organisations, distribution of, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a> sq.; <a href="#Map_III">Map III, 40</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>segmentation, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Pikumbul</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Piraungaru</i>, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Pirrauru</i>, <a href='#Page_130'>130</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and group marriage, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>distinguishing features, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>origin of, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>spouses, duties of, <a href='#Page_139'>139-141</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Pitta-Pitta</b>, authority of husband among, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li>
+
+<li>Polyandry, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li>
+
+<li>Polygamy, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li>
+
+<li>Polygyny, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li>
+
+<li>Post, A.&nbsp;H., on group marriage, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li>
+
+<li>Potestas, <a href='#Page_4'>4</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and patriliny, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and residence, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and rule of descent, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>relation of, to rule of descent, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li>
+
+<li>Poverty of language, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a></li>
+
+<li>Powell, J.&nbsp;W., <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li>
+
+<li>Prefixes, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Primitive group, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li>
+
+<li>Promiscuity, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a> n., <a href='#Page_144'>144</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>forms of, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li>
+
+<li>Property, inheritance of, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>in law, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li>
+
+<li>Protectorship of woman's kin, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Pu</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Puberty, licence at, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a> sq., <a href='#Page_146'>146</a></li>
+
+<li>Pueblo peoples, descent among, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Pultara</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li>Punishment, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a></li>
+
+<li>Purchase of wife, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Purgoma</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Queries as to Australian facts, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a> sq., <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Racial conflict, <a href='#Page_55'>55</a></li>
+
+<li>Rank and intermarrying class, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li>
+
+<li>Relationship, systems of, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li>
+
+<li>Residence and potestas, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and rule of descent, <a href='#Page_14'>14</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>customs of, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li>
+
+<li>Ridley, W., <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li>Right of betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+
+<li><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span>
+ <b>Ringa-Ringa</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Scarcity of women, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li>
+
+<li>Sch&uuml;rmann, C.&nbsp;W., <a href='#Page_34'>34</a></li>
+
+<li>"Secret Societies," <a href='#Page_3'>3</a></li>
+
+<li>Sexual aversion, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>unions, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a> sq.</li>
+
+<li>"Shade" division, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_152'>152</a></li>
+
+<li>Sign language, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li>
+
+<li>Sisters, exchange of, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a></li>
+
+<li>"Social organisation," <a href='#Page_3'>3</a></li>
+
+<li>Societies, secret, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a></li>
+
+<li>Solidarity of totem kin, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a></li>
+
+<li>Spencer, B., on group marriage, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a></li>
+
+<li>Status and kinship terms, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li>
+
+<li>Stokes, J.&nbsp;L., <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li>"Sub-tribe," <a href='#Page_30'>30</a></li>
+
+<li>Suffixes, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>Ta</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Tarderick</b> classes, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Taroombul</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Tatathi</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Tchi</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Terminology, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a> sq.</li>
+
+<li><i>Tippa-malku</i>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>husband, rights of, <a href='#Page_132'>132</a>, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Tjingillie</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Tjuka</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li>Toda phratries, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li>
+
+<li>Totem and phratry, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a></li>
+
+<li>Totems and classes, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and phratry names, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a></li>
+
+<li>Totemism, distribution of, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li>
+
+<li>"Totem kin," <a href='#Page_31'>31</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>sacrosanctity of, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li>
+
+<li>Totem kins, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and phratries, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>arrangement of, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>and <i>pirrauru</i>, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li>
+
+<li>Tribal brothers, rights of, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a> n., <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>kinship, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>names, meaning of, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>property, <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>solidarity, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a></li>
+
+<li>"Tribe," <a href='#Page_2'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_7'>7</a>, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>subdivisions of, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a></li>
+
+<li>Tully R., classes on, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Turribul</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>U</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Uku</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Ula</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Um</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Umbaia</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Unawa</i>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a></li>
+
+<li>Unconscious reformation, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Undekerebina</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li>Undivided commune, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Unga</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Unghi</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Ungilla</i>, <a href='#Page_84'>84</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Ungorri</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Upala</i>, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Urabunna</b> customs, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>marriage rules, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>polygamy, <a href='#Page_135'>135</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Uru</i> as suffix, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li>Victoria, occupation of, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>S.&nbsp;W., phratries in, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><b>Wailwun</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>organisation, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wakelbura</b> betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a> 51</li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>polyandry, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>rules of residence, <a href='#Page_16'>16</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Walpari</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li>Wanika phratries, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Warkeman</b> classes, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Warramunga</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>marriage, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wathi-Wathi</b> kinship terms, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Weedokarry</b> classes, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a>, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Welu</i>, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a></li>
+
+<li>West Australia, classes in, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries in, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+
+<li>Westermarck, E., on group marriage, <a href='#Page_128'>128</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>on marriage, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a></li>
+
+<li>Wide Bay, classes at, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a></li>
+
+<li>Widow, position of, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>removal of, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li>
+
+<li>Widower, <a href='#Page_131'>131</a></li>
+
+<li>Wife lending, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>authority over, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wiimbaio</b> customs, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>wife lending, <a href='#Page_142'>142</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Wilpadrina</i>, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a> n.</li>
+
+<li>Wilson, T.&nbsp;B., <a href='#Page_36'>36</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wilya</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wiradjeri</b>, chiefs among, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>marriage, <a href='#Page_150'>150</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_42'>42 b</a>, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wolgal</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wollaroi</b> betrothal, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wollongurma</b> classes, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wonnaruah</b> classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wonghibon</b> "bloods," <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>classes, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a> c, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Woonamurra</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span>
+ phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Worgaia</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Workoboongo</b> classes, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wulmala</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Wurunjerri</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<ul class="IX">
+<li><i>Ya</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yambeena</b> classes, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yandairunga</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yandrawontha</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yangarella</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yelyuyendi</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yerunthully</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yookala</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yoolanlanya</b> classes, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yowerawarika</b> phratries, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yuin</b> custom, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yuipera</b> classes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+<li class="subhead"><span class="hidespace">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>phratries, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yukkabura</b> classes, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a></li>
+
+<li><i>Yun</i> as prefix, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li>
+
+<li><b>Yungmunnie</b> classes, <a href="#Table_Ia">Table I a</a>, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a></li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+
+<div class="fnline">
+<p class="center">CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.</p>
+</div>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+
+<p><a name="note" id="note"></a>Transcriber's Note:</p>
+
+<p>The following inconsistencies have been maintained in the text:</p>
+
+<p>Misspelled word</p>
+
+<p>p. <a href="#Page_110">110</a> Hawaian for Hawaiian</p>
+
+<p>Typographical errors</p>
+
+<p>p. <a href="#XIV">48</a> Chapter IV, Table I, Section XIV, the paragraph that begins with "Tribes"
+is missing a ) at the end.<br />
+p. <a href="#Page_153">153</a> "are in caps.," should read "are in caps."</p>
+
+
+<p>Inconsistent hyphenation:</p>
+
+<p>bi-lateral / bilateral<br />
+eight-fold / eightfold<br />
+four-fold / fourfold<br />
+Geawe-gal / Geawegal<br />
+head-man / headman<br />
+inter-tribal / intertribal<br />
+matri-potestal / matripostestal<br />
+Narrang-ga / Narrangga<br />
+patri-potestal / patripotestal<br />
+sacrosanctity / sacrosanctity<br />
+sub-division / subdivision<br />
+wide-spread / widespread</p>
+
+<p>Other inconsistencies:</p>
+
+<p>Arch&aelig;ologia / Archaeologia<br />
+Eaglehawk-Crow / eaglehawk-crow<br />
+Pirraurru / Pirrauru<br />
+vice vers&acirc; / vice versa</p>
+
+<p>In list of abbreviations: Proc. R.G.S. Qn.<br />
+ In text: Proc. R.G.S. Qu., Proc. R.S. Qu.</p>
+
+<p>In list of abbreviations: R.G.S. Qn.<br />
+ In text: R.G.S. Qu.</p>
+
+<p>Other comments:</p>
+
+<p>In Chapter IV, <a href="#Table_II">Table II</a>, repeated column headings have been omitted.
+The numbering in this table jumps from 12 to 20 and then from 34 to 40.</p>
+
+<p>In Chapter IV, <a href="#Table_III">Table III</a>, two symbols are used (&#8225; and &sect;) which are
+not defined. Repeated column headings have been omitted.</p>
+
+<p>In <a href="#CHAPTER_VII">Chapter VII</a>, the abbreviation ib. in the Footnotes is not italicized.</p>
+
+<p>In Chapter X, <a href="#sect_b">Section B. Marriage</a><br />
+The roman numerals are followed by a comma, rather than a period as in
+the preceding section.</p>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group
+Marriage in Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+***** This file should be named 17404-h.htm or 17404-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+ http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/4/0/17404/
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+ the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+ you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
+ owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+ has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+ Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
+ must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+ prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+ returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+ sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+ address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+ the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+ you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+ does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+ License. You must require such a user to return or
+ destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+ and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+ Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+ money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+ electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+ of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+ distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+ Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+ Chief Executive and Director
+ gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+ http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image01.jpg b/17404-h/images/image01.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..86aa723
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image01.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image02-full.jpg b/17404-h/images/image02-full.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a5f7797
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image02-full.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image02.jpg b/17404-h/images/image02.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b3f6f54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image02.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image03-full.jpg b/17404-h/images/image03-full.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..45b6484
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image03-full.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image03.jpg b/17404-h/images/image03.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1955e95
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image03.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image04-full.jpg b/17404-h/images/image04-full.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cdeeacf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image04-full.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image04.jpg b/17404-h/images/image04.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4534680
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image04.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image05.jpg b/17404-h/images/image05.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d5986b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image05.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404-h/images/image06.jpg b/17404-h/images/image06.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..41d854f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404-h/images/image06.jpg
Binary files differ
diff --git a/17404.txt b/17404.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..182e802
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,8828 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in
+Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia
+
+Author: Northcote W. Thomas
+
+Release Date: December 28, 2005 [EBook #17404]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Transcriber's Note:
+
+This text has several characters which cannot be displayed in a text
+format file. The following codes have been substituted for these
+characters:
+
+[+] Dagger symbol
+[++] Double dagger symbol
+['] Open single quote, used within a word
+[=i] i with macron
+[=o] o with macron
+[s.] s with dot below
+[=u] u with macron
+[)u] u with breve
+[alpha] Greek letter alpha
+[beta] Greek letter beta
+
+This text has many tables, which are best viewed using a fixed-width
+font.
+
+Table I a and the _Arunta: Eight-class_ Table were printed on fold-out
+pages. These have been split into sections (3 and 2 sections,
+respectively) to fit within the display boundaries.
+
+The original book had a number of words with inconsistant hyphenation or
+spelling, as well as a small number of typographical errors. These have
+been maintained in this version. The inconsistencies and errors are
+detailed at the end of the present text.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+
+
+
+_The Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series is supervised by
+an Editorial Committee consisting of WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, M.A., F.B.A.,
+Disney Professor of Archaeology, A.C. HADDON, Sc.D., F.R.S., University
+Lecturer in Ethnology, M.R. JAMES, Litt. D., F.B.A., Provost of King's
+College and C. WALDSTEIN, Litt. D., Slade Professor of Fine Art._
+
+
+
+
+ KINSHIP ORGANISATIONS
+
+ AND
+
+ GROUP MARRIAGE
+
+ IN
+
+ AUSTRALIA
+
+
+
+ BY
+
+ NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS, M.A.
+ Diplome de l'Ecole des Hautes-Etudes,
+Corresponding Member of the Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, etc.
+
+
+ CAMBRIDGE:
+ at the University Press
+ 1906
+
+
+
+
+ CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
+ C.F. CLAY, MANAGER,
+
+ London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
+ Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.
+
+ [Illustration]
+
+ Leipzig: F.A. BROCKHAUS.
+ New York: G.P. PUTNAM'S SONS.
+ Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
+
+
+
+ [_All Rights reserved._]
+
+
+
+
+ DEDICATED
+ TO
+ MISS C.S. BURNE,
+ WHO FIRST GUIDED MY STEPS
+ INTO THE PATHS OF
+ ANTHROPOLOGY
+
+
+
+
+PREFACE.
+
+
+It is becoming an axiom in anthropology that what is needed is not
+discursive treatment of large subjects but the minute discussion of
+special themes, not a ranging at large over the peoples of the earth
+past and present, but a detailed examination of limited areas. This work
+I am undertaking for Australia, and in the present volume I deal briefly
+with some of the aspects of Australian kinship organisations, in the
+hope that a survey of our present knowledge may stimulate further
+research on the spot and help to throw more light on many difficult
+problems of primitive sociology.
+
+We have still much to learn of the relations of the central tribes and
+their organisations to the less elaborately studied Anula and Mara. I
+have therefore passed over the questions discussed by Dr Durkheim. We
+have still more to learn as to the descent of the totem, the relation of
+totem-kin, class and phratry, and the like; totemism is therefore
+treated only incidentally in the present work, and lack of knowledge
+compels me to pass over many other interesting questions.
+
+The present volume owes much to Mr Andrew Lang. He has read twice over
+both my typescript MS, and my proofs; in the detection of ambiguities
+and the removal of obscurities he has rendered my readers a greater
+service than any bald statement will convey; for his aid in the matter
+of terminology, for his criticisms of ideas already put forward and for
+his many pregnant suggestions, but inadequately worked out in the
+present volume. I am under the deepest obligations to him; and no mere
+formal expression of thanks will meet the case. I have been more than
+fortunate in securing aid from Mr Lang in a subject which he has made
+his own.
+
+I do not for a moment suppose that the information here collected is
+exhaustive. If any one should be in a position to supplement or correct
+my facts or to enlighten me in any way as to the ideas and customs of
+the blacks I shall be obliged if he will tell me all he knows about them
+and their ways. Letters may be addressed to me c/o the Anthropological
+Institute, 3 Hanover Sq., W.
+
+NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS.
+
+BUNTINGFORD,
+ _Sept. 11th, 1906._
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+
+ PAGE
+PREFACE vii
+
+CONTENTS ix
+
+BIBLIOGRAPHY xii
+
+INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS xiv
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+INTRODUCTORY.
+
+Social Organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups: totem kins;
+phratries Pages =1-11=
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+DESCENT.
+
+Descent of Kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
+Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of descent;
+relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation =12-28=
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.
+
+Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
+"Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in Australia.
+General sketch =29-40=
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.
+
+TABLES I, I a. Class Names =42, 47=
+
+TABLE II. Phratry Names =48=
+
+TABLE III. Comparison of "blood" and phratry names =50=
+
+TABLE IV. Relations of Class and phratry organisations =51=
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+PHRATRY NAMES.
+
+The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
+Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts. Intercommunication.
+Tribal Migrations =52-62=
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.
+
+Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split
+groups. The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory
+of phratriac origin =63-70=
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CLASS NAMES.
+
+Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the Names:
+Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names =71-85=
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.
+
+Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
+totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory of
+classes =86-92=
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+KINSHIP TERMS.
+
+Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
+Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
+Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger =93-101=
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.
+
+Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types.
+Hypothetical and existing forms =102-109=
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.
+
+Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts
+ =110-118=
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.
+
+Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. _Noa._ Group Mothers.
+Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms express
+status. The savage view natural =119-126=
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+PIRRAURU.
+
+Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
+marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
+_pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
+Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
+_Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
+scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_; obscure
+points =127-141=
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+TEMPORARY UNIONS.
+
+Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for
+adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven
+ =142-149=
+
+
+APPENDIX.
+
+ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
+
+Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
+and "Castes" =150-152=
+
+INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES =153-157=
+INDEX OF SUBJECTS =158-163=
+
+ * * * * *
+
+
+MAPS.
+
+ PAGE
+ I. Rule of Descent =40=
+ II. Class Organisations to follow =40=
+III. Phratry Organisations " =40=
+
+
+TABLE.
+
+Class Names of Eight-Class Tribes =between pp. 46= and =47=
+
+
+
+
+BIBLIOGRAPHY.
+
+
+ 1. _Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift._ Gutersloh, 1874 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 2. _American Anthropologist._ Washington, 1888 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 3. _Annee Sociologique._ Paris, 1898 etc., 8^o.
+
+ 4. _Archaeologia Americana._ Philadelphia, 1820 etc., 4^o.
+
+ 5. _Das Ausland._ Munich, 1828-1893, 4^o.
+
+ 6. _Bulletins of North Queensland Ethnography._ Brisbane, 1901 etc., fol.
+
+ 7. BUNCE, D., _Australasiatic Reminiscences of Twenty-three Years
+ Wanderings._ Melbourne, 1857, 8^o.
+
+ 8. _Colonial Magazine._ London, 1840-1842, 8^o.
+
+ 9. CUNOW, H., _Die Verwandtschaftsorganisationen der Australneger._
+ Leipzig, 1894, 8^o.
+
+10. CURR, E.M., _The Australian Race._ 4 vols., London, 1886, 8^o and fol.
+
+11. DAWSON, J., _Australian Aborigines._ Melbourne, 1881, 4^o.
+
+12. FISON, L. and HOWITT, A.W., _Kamilaroi and Kurnai._ Melbourne, 1880,
+ 8^o.
+
+13. _Folklore._ London, 1892 etc., 8^o.
+
+14. _Fortnightly Review._ London, 1865-1889, 8^o.
+
+15. FRAZER, J.G., _Totemism._ Edinburgh, 1887, 8^o.
+
+16. GERSTAECKER, F., _Reisen von F. Gerstaecker._ 5 vols., Stuttgart,
+ 1853-4, 8^o.
+
+17. _Globus._ Hildburghausen etc., 1863 etc., 4^o.
+
+18. GREY, Sir G., _Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in
+ North-West and West Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1841, 8^o.
+
+19. GRIBBLE, J.B., _Black but Comely._ London, 1874, 8^o.
+
+20. HODGSON, C.P., _Reminiscences of Australia._ London, 1846, 12^o.
+
+21. HOWITT, A.W., _Native Tribes of South-East Australia._ London, 1904,
+ 8^o.
+
+22. _Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie._ Leyden, 1888 etc., 4^o.
+
+23. _Journal of the Anthropological Institute._ London, 1871 sq., 8^o.
+
+24. _Journal of the Royal Geographical Society._ London, 1832-1880, 8^o.
+
+25. _Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales._ Sydney, 1877
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+26. _Journals of Several Expeditions in West Australia._ London, 1833,
+ 12^o.
+
+27. LAHONTAN, H. DE, _Voyages._ Amsterdam, 1705, 12^o.
+
+28. LANG, A. and ATKINSON, J., _Social Origins_; _Primal Law._ London,
+ 1903, 8^o.
+
+29. LANG, A., _Secret of the Totem._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+30. LEICHARDT, F.W.L., _Journal of an Overland Expedition in Australia._
+ London, 1848, 8^o.
+
+31. LUMHOLTZ, C., _Among Cannibals._ London, 1889, 8^o.
+
+32. MACLENNAN, J.F., _Studies in Ancient History._ 2nd Series, London,
+ 1886, 8^o.
+
+33. _Man._ London, 1901 sq., 8^o.
+
+34. MATHEW, J., _Eaglehawk and Crow._ London, 1898, 8^o.
+
+35. MATHEWS, R.H., _Ethnological Notes._ Sydney, 1905, 8^o.
+
+36. _Mitteilungen des Seminars fur orientalische Sprachen._ Berlin, 1898
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+37. _Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Erdkunde._ Halle, 1877-1892, 8^o.
+
+38. MOORE, G.F., _Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language in Common Use
+ among the Aborigines of Western Australia._ London, 1842, 8^o.
+
+39. MORGAN, Lewis H., _Ancient Society._ New York, 1877, 8^o.
+
+40. NEW, C., _Travels._ London, 1854, 8^o.
+
+41. OWEN, Mary A., _The Musquakie Indians._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+42. PARKER, K.L., _The Euahlayi Tribe._ London, 1905, 8^o.
+
+43. PETRIE, Tom, _Reminiscences._ Brisbane, 1905, 8^o.
+
+44. _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society._ Philadelphia,
+ 1840 etc., 8^o.
+
+45. _Proceedings of the Australian Association for the Advancement of
+ Science._ 1889 etc., 8^o.
+
+46. _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia,
+ Queensland Branch._ Brisbane, 1886 etc., 8^o.
+
+47. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland._ Brisbane, 1884
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+48. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria._ Melbourne, 1889
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+49. _Reports of the Cambridge University Expedition to Torres Straits._
+ Cambridge, 1903 etc., 4^o.
+
+50. ROTH, W.E., _Ethnological Studies._ Brisbane, 1898, 8^o.
+
+51. SCHUeRMANN, C.W., _Vocabulary of the Parnkalla Language._ Adelaide,
+ 1844, 8^o.
+
+52. _Science of Man._ Sydney, 1898 etc., 4^o.
+
+53. _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge._ Washington, 1848 etc. 4^o.
+
+54. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Native Tribes of Central
+ Australasia._ London, 1898, 8^o.
+
+55. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Northern Tribes of Central
+ Australia._ London, 1904, 8^o.
+
+56. STOKES, J.L., _Discoveries in Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1846, 8^o.
+
+57. TAPLIN, G., _Folklore, Manners, Customs and Language of the South
+ Australian Aborigines._ Adelaide, 1878, 8^o.
+
+58. _Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South
+ Australia._ Adelaide, 1878 etc., 8^o.
+
+59. VAN GENNEP, A., _Mythes et Legendes._ Paris, 1906, 8^o.
+
+60. _West Australian._ Perth, 1886 etc., fol.
+
+61. WESTERMARCK, E., _History of Human Marriage._ 3rd Edition, London,
+ 1901, 8^o.
+
+62. _Wiener Medicinische Wochenschrift._ Vienna, 1851 etc., 4^o.
+
+63. WILSON, T.B., _Narrative of a Voyage round the World._ London, 1835,
+ 8^o.
+
+64. _Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft._ Stuttgart, 1878
+ etc., 8^o.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS.
+
+
+_Allg. Miss. Zts._, 1
+_Am. Anth._, 2
+_Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
+_Ann. Soc._, 3
+_Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._, 45
+_Col. Mag._, 8
+_C.T._, 54
+_Ethn. Notes_, 35
+_Fort. Rev._, 14
+_J.A.I._, 23
+_J.R.G.S._, 24
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._, 25
+_J.R.S. Vict._, 48
+_Nat. Tr._, 54
+_Nor. Tr._, 55
+_N.Q. Ethn. Bull._, 6
+_N.T._, 21
+_Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
+_Proc. R.G.S. Qn._, 46
+_Proc. R.S. Vict._, 48
+_R.G.S. Qn._, 47
+_Sci. Man_, 52
+_T.R.S.S.A._, 58
+_West. Aust._, 60
+_Zts. vgl. Rechtsw._, 64
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER I.
+
+INTRODUCTORY.
+
+Social organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
+ Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups; totem kins;
+ phratries.
+
+
+The passage from what is commonly termed savagery through barbarism to
+civilisation is marked by a change in the character of the associations
+which are almost everywhere a feature of human society. In the lower
+stages of culture, save among peoples whose organisation has perished
+under the pressure of foreign invasion or other external influences, man
+is found grouped into totem kins, intermarrying classes and similar
+organised bodies, and one of their most important characteristics is
+that membership of them depends on birth, not on the choice of the
+individual. In modern society, on the other hand, associations of this
+sort have entirely disappeared and man is grouped in voluntary
+societies, membership of which depends on his own choice.
+
+It is true that the family, which exists in the lower stages of culture,
+though it is overshadowed by the other social phenomena, has persisted
+through all the manifold revolutions of society; especially in the stage
+of barbarism, its importance in some directions, such as the regulation
+of marriage, often forbidden within limits of consanguinity much wider
+than among ourselves, approaches the influence of the forms of natal
+association which it had supplanted. In the present day, however, if we
+set aside its economic and steadily diminishing ethical sides, it
+cannot be compared in importance with the territorial groupings on which
+state and municipal activities depend.
+
+If the family is a persistent type the tribe may also be compared to the
+modern state; it is, in most parts of the world, no less territorial in
+its nature; membership of it does not depend among the Australians on
+any supposed descent from a common ancestor; and though residence plus
+possession of a common speech is mentioned by Howitt as the test of
+tribe, it is possible in Australia, under certain conditions[1], to pass
+from one tribe to another in such a way that we seem reduced to
+residence as the test of membership. This change of tribe takes place
+almost exclusively where tribes are friendly, so far as is known; and we
+may doubt whether it would be possible for a stranger to settle, without
+any rite of adoption, in the midst of a hostile or even of an unknown
+tribe; but this is clearly a matter of minor importance, if adoption is
+not, as in North America, an invariable element of the change of tribe.
+Although membership of a tribe is thus loosely determined, tribesmen
+feel themselves bound by ties of some kind to their fellow-tribesmen, as
+we shall see below, but in this they do not differ from the members of
+any modern state.
+
+But in Australia the importance of the tribe, save from an economic
+point of view, as joint owner of the tribal land, is small compared with
+the part played in the lives of its members by the intratribal
+associations, whose influence is recognised without, as within the
+tribe. These associations are of two kinds in the lowest strata of human
+society; in each case membership is determined by birth and they may
+therefore be distinguished as _natal associations_. In the one case, the
+_kinship groups_ such as totem kins, phratries, etc., an individual
+remains permanently in the association into which he is born, special
+cases apart, in which by adoption he passes out of it and joins another
+by means of a legal fiction[2]. The other kind of association, to which
+the name _age-grades_ is applied, is composed of a series of grades,
+through which, concomitantly with the performance of the rites of
+initiation obligatory on every male member of the community, each man
+passes in succession, until he attains the highest. In the rare cases
+where an individual fails to qualify for the grade into which his
+coevals pass, and remains in the grade of "youth" or even lower grades,
+he is by birth a member of one class and does not remain outside the
+age-grades altogether.
+
+In the element of voluntary action lies the distinction between
+age-grades and _secret societies_, which are organised on identical or
+similar lines but depend for membership on ceremonies of initiation,
+alike in the lowest as in the highest grade. Such societies may be
+termed voluntary. The differentia between the natal and the voluntary
+association lies in the fact that in the former all are members of one
+or other grade, in the latter only such as have taken steps to gain
+admission, all others being simply non-members.
+
+Although _prima facie_ all these forms of association are equally
+entitled to be classed as social organisations, the use of this term is
+limited in practice, at any rate as regards Australia, and is the
+accepted designation of the kinship form of natal associations only; for
+this limitation there is so far justification, that though they perhaps
+play a smaller part in the daily life of the people than the secret
+societies of some areas, with their club-houses and other features which
+determine the whole form of life, the kinship associations are normally
+regulative of marriage and thus exercise an influence in a field of
+their own.
+
+Marriage prohibitions in the various races of mankind show an almost
+endless diversity of form; but all are based on considerations either of
+consanguinity or kinship or on a combination of the two. The distinction
+between _consanguinity_ and _kinship_ first demands attention; the
+former depends on birth, the latter on the law or custom of the
+community, and this distinction is all-important, especially in dealing
+with primitive peoples. With ourselves the two usually coincide, though
+even in civilised communities there are variations in this respect.
+Thus, according to the law of England, the father of an illegitimate
+child is not akin to it, though _ex hypothesi_ there is a tie of blood
+between them. In England nothing short of an Act of Parliament can make
+them akin; but in Scotland the subsequent marriage of the father with
+the mother of the child changes the legal status of the latter and makes
+it of kin with its father. These two examples make it abundantly evident
+that kinship is with us a matter of law.
+
+Among primitive peoples kinship occupies a similar position but with
+important differences. As with us, it is a sociological fact; custom,
+which has among them far more power than law among us, determines
+whether a man is of kin to his mother and her relatives alone, or to his
+father and father's relatives, or whether both sets of relatives are
+alike of kin to him. In the latter case, where parental kinship
+prevails, the limits of the kin are often determined by the facts of
+consanguinity. In the two former cases, where kinship is reckoned
+through males alone or through females alone, consanguinity has little
+or nothing to do with kinship, as will be shown more in detail below.
+
+Kinship is sociological, consanguinity physiological; in thus stating
+the case we are concerned only with broad principles. In practice the
+idea of consanguinity is modified in two ways and a sociological element
+is introduced, which has gone far to obscure the difference between
+these two systems of laying the foundations of human society. In the
+first place, custom determines the limits within which consanguinity is
+supposed to exist; or, in other words, at what point the descendants of
+a given ancestor cease to be blood relations. In the second place
+erroneous physiological ideas modify the ideas held as to actually
+existing consanguine relations, as we conceive them. The latter
+peculiarity does not affect the enquiry to any extent; it merely limits
+the sphere within which consanguinity plays a part, side by side with
+kinship, in moulding social institutions. If an Australian tribe, for
+example, distinguishes the actual mother of a child from the other women
+who go by the same kinship name, they may or may not develop on parallel
+lines their ideas as to the relation of the child and his real father.
+Some relation will almost certainly be found to exist between them; but
+it by no means follows that it arises from any idea of consanguinity. In
+other communities potestas and not consanguinity is held to determine
+the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring; and it is a
+matter for careful enquiry how far the same holds good in Australia,
+where the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be
+unrecognised by the natives. In speaking of consanguinity therefore, it
+must be made quite clear whether consanguinity according to native ideas
+or according to our own ideas is meant.
+
+The customary limitations and extensions of consanguinity, on the other
+hand, cause more inconvenience. They are of course sometimes combined
+with the other kind, which we may term quasi-physiological, but with
+this combination we need not deal, as we are concerned to analyse only
+on broad lines the nature of these elements. Just as, with us, kinship
+and consanguinity largely coincide, so with primitive peoples are the
+kinship organisations immense, if one-sided, extensions of blood
+relationship, at all events in theory. In many parts of the world a
+totem kin traces its descent to a single male or female ancestor; and
+even where, as in Australia, this is not the case, blood brotherhood is
+expressly asserted of the totem kin[3].
+
+Entry into the totem kin may often be gained by adoption, though not
+apparently in Australia, and the blood relationship thus becomes an
+artificial one and partakes, even if the initial assumption be accepted
+as true, far more of the nature of kinship than of consanguinity. In
+Australia, and possibly in other parts of the world, there is a further
+extension of natal kinship. Although the tribe is not regarded as
+descended from a single pair, its members are certainly reckoned as of
+kin to each other in some way; the situation may be summarised by saying
+that under one of the systems of kinship organisation (the two-phratry),
+half of the members of the tribe in a given generation are related to a
+given man, A, and the other half to his wife. More than one observer
+assures us that there is a solidarity about the tribe, which regards
+some, if not all other tribes as "wild blacks," though it may be on
+terms of friendship and alliance with certain neighbours, and feel
+itself united to them by a bond analogous to, though weaker than, that
+which holds its own members together.
+
+If however a homonymous totem kin exists even in a hostile or absolutely
+unknown tribe, a member of it will be regarded, as we learn from Dr
+Howitt, as a brother. How this view is reconciled with the belief that
+the tribe in question is alien and in no way akin to that in which the
+other totem kin is found, is a question of some interest for which there
+appears to be no answer in the literature concerning the Australian
+aborigines.
+
+Even if, therefore, we had reason to believe that all totem kins in a
+given tribe or group of tribes could make out a good case for their
+descent from single male or female ancestors, which is far from being
+the case, we should still have to recognise that kinship and not
+consanguinity is the proper term to apply to the relationship between
+members of the same group. For, as we have seen, it may be recruited
+from without in some cases, while in others, persons who are
+demonstrably not of the same blood, are regarded as totem-brethren by
+virtue of the common name.
+
+Enough has now been said to make clear the difference between
+consanguinity and kinship and to exemplify the nature of some of the
+transitional forms. As we have seen, it is on considerations of either
+consanguinity or kinship that many marriage prohibitions are based.
+
+Marriage prohibitions depend broadly on three kinds of considerations:
+(1) Kinship, intermarriage being forbidden to members of the same
+kinship group; a brief introductory sketch of the nature and
+distribution of kinship groups will be found below. (2) Locality. In New
+Guinea, parts of Australia, Melanesia, Africa, and possibly elsewhere,
+_local exogamy_ is found. By this is meant that the resident in one
+place is bound to go outside his own group for a mate, and may perhaps
+be bound to seek a spouse in a specified locality. This kind of
+organisation is in Australia almost certainly an offshoot of kinship
+organisation (see p. 10), and is _prima facie_ due to the same cause in
+other areas. (3) (_a_) consanguinity, and (_b_) affinity. The first of
+these considerations is regulative of marriage even in Australia, where
+the influence of kinship organisations is in the main supreme in these
+matters. We learn from Roth and other authorities that blood cousins,
+children of own brother and sister, may not marry in North-West Central
+Queensland, although the kinship regulations designate them as the
+proper spouses one for the other. (_b_) Considerations of affinity, the
+relations set up by marriage, do not affect the status of the parties,
+so far as the legality of marriage is concerned, till a somewhat higher
+stage is reached.
+
+In the present work we are concerned with kinship groups and the
+marriage regulations based on them. A kinship group, whether it be a
+totem kin, phratry, class, or other form of association, is a fraction
+of a tribe; and before we proceed to deal with kinship organisations, it
+will be necessary to say a few words on the nature of the tribe and the
+family. In Australia the tribe is a local aggregate, composed of
+friendly groups speaking the same language and owning corporately or
+individually the land to which the tribe lays claim. A change of tribe
+is effected by marriage plus removal, and possibly by simple residence;
+children belong to the tribe among which their parents reside. In the
+ordinary tribe each member seems to apply to every other member one or
+other of the kinship terms; and this no doubt accounts for the feeling
+of tribal solidarity already mentioned. There are however certain tribes
+in which the marriage regulations, as with the Urabunna, so split the
+intermarrying fractions, that the tribe is, as it were, divided into
+water-tight compartments; how far kinship terms are applied under these
+circumstances our information does not say.
+
+The tribe is defined by American anthropologists as a union of hordes or
+clans for common defence under a chief. The American tribe differs in
+two respects, at least, from the Australian tribe; in the first place,
+marriage outside the tribe is exceptional in America and common in
+Australia; in the second place, the stranger gains entrance to the
+American tribe only by adoption; and we may probably add, thirdly, that
+the American tribe does not invariably lay claim to landed property or
+hunting rights.
+
+The tribe is subdivided in various ways. In addition to the various
+forms of natal and other associations, there is, at any rate in
+Australia, a local organisation; the local group is often the owner of a
+portion of the tribal area. This local group again falls into a number
+of families (in the European sense), and the land is parcelled out among
+them in some cases, in others it may be the property of individuals. But
+there is a great lack of clearness with regard to the bodies or persons
+in whom landed property is vested. The composition of the local group
+varies according to the customs of residence after marriage, and the
+rules by which membership of the kinship organisation is determined.
+These two forces acting together may produce two types of local group:
+(1) the mixed group, in which persons of various kinship organisations
+are scattered at random; (2) the kin group, in which either all the
+males or all the females together with the children are members of one
+kinship organisation.
+
+Save in the rare instances of non-exogamous kinship groups, the family
+necessarily contains one member, at least, whose kin is not the same as
+that of the remainder; this is either the husband or the wife, according
+as descent is reckoned in the female or the male line; where polygyny is
+practised, this unity may go no further than the phratry or the class,
+each wife being of a different totem kin.
+
+Although it frequently happens that the children belong to the kin which
+through one of the parents or otherwise exercises the supreme authority
+in the family, it is far from being the case that there is invariable
+agreement between the principles on which kinship and authority are
+determined. Three main types of family may be distinguished: (1)
+patripotestal, (2) matripotestal, (_a_) direct, and (_b_) indirect, in
+which the authority is wielded by the father, mother, and mother's
+relatives, in particular her brothers, respectively. Innumerable
+transitional forms are found, some of which will be mentioned in the
+next chapter, which deals with the rule of descent by which membership
+of natal groups is determined.
+
+Turning now to kinship organisations, we find that the most widely
+distributed type is the totem kin, in fact, if we except the Hottentots
+and a few other peoples among whom no trace of it is found, it is
+difficult to say where totemism has not at one time or another
+prevailed. It is found as a living cult to-day among the greater part of
+the aborigines of North and South America, in Australia, and among some
+of the Bantu populations of the southern half of Africa. In more or less
+recognisable forms it is found in other parts of Africa, New Guinea,
+India, and other parts of the world. In the ancient world its existence
+has been maintained for Rome (clan Valeria etc.), Greece, and Egypt, but
+the absence of information as to details of the social structure renders
+these theories uncertain.
+
+Aberrant cases apart, totemism is understood to involve (1) the
+existence of a body of persons claiming kinship, who (2) stand in a
+certain relation to some object, usually an animal, and (3) do not marry
+within the kin.
+
+Passing over the classes, which are peculiar to Australia and will be
+fully dealt with below, we come to a more comprehensive form of kinship
+organisation in the phratries. These are a grouping of the community in
+two or more exogamous divisions, between which the totem kins, where
+they exist, are distributed. The essential feature of a phratry is that
+it is exogamous; its members cannot ordinarily marry within it, and,
+where there are more than two phratries, there may exist rules limiting
+their choice to certain phratries.[4]
+
+This dual or other grouping of the kins is widely found in North
+America, the number of phratries ranging from two among the Tlinkits,
+Cayugas, Choctaws, and others, to ten among the Moquis of Arizona. As in
+Australia, the totem kins bearing the same eponymous animal as the
+phratry are usually, e.g. among the Tlinkits, found in the phratry in
+question. Exceptions to this rule are found among the Haida, where both
+eagle and raven are in the eagle phratry.
+
+The Mohegan and Kutchin phratries call for special notice. The kins of
+the former are arranged in three groups: wolf, turtle, and turkey; and
+the first phratry includes quadrupeds, the second turtles of various
+kinds and the yellow eel, and the third birds. We find a parallel to
+these phratries in the groups of the Kutchin, but in the latter case
+our lack of knowledge of the tribe precludes us from saying whether
+totem kins exist among them, and, if so, how far the grouping is
+systematic; the Kutchin groups, according to one authority, are known by
+the generic names of birds, beasts, and fish. As a rule, however, no
+classification of kins is found, nor are the phratry names specially
+significant.
+
+Dual grouping of the kins is also found in New Guinea, the Torres
+Straits Islands, and possibly among the ancient Arabs[5]; but evidence
+in the latter case has not been systematically dealt with.
+
+Other peoples have a similar dichotomous organisation; but it is either
+not based on the totem kins or they have fallen into the background.
+
+In various parts of Melanesia we find the people divided into two
+groups, each associated with a single totem or mythological personage,
+and sexual intercourse, whether marital or otherwise, is strictly
+forbidden between those of the same phratry[6]. In India the Todas have
+a similar organisation[7], and the Wanika in East Africa[8].
+
+Customs of residence and descent affect the distribution of the
+phratries within the tribe, no less than the composition of the local
+group. With patrilineal descent they tend to occupy the tribal territory
+in such a way that each phratry becomes a local group. With the
+disappearance of phratry names this would be transformed into a local
+exogamous group, which is, however, indistinguishable from the local
+group of the same nature which is the result of the development of a
+totem kin under similar conditions.
+
+As a rule kinship organisations descend in a given tribe either in the
+male line or in the female. Among the Ova-Herero, however, and other
+Bantu tribes, there are two kinds of organisation, one--the
+_eanda_--descending in female line and regulative of marriage, is
+clearly the totem kin; property remains in the _eanda_, and
+consequently descends to the sister's son. The other--the
+_oruzo_--descends in the male line; it is concerned with chieftainship
+and priesthood, which remain in the same _oruzo_, and the heir is the
+brother's son.[9]
+
+This dual rule of descent brings us face to face with the question of
+how membership of kinship groups is determined.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] Howitt, _N.T._, p. 225.
+
+[2] Cf. Owen, _Musquakie Indians_, p. 122; Lahontan, _Voyages_, II,
+203-4; Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 81.
+
+[3] Two kinds of kinship are recognised in Australian tribes--(_a_)
+totem and (_b_) phratry or class--but the precise relationship of one to
+the other is far from clear. Nor is there much information as to what
+terms of kinship are used within the totem kin. It is certain that
+neither set of terms includes the other, for the totem kin extends
+beyond the tribe or may do so, and there is more than one in each
+phratry.
+
+[4] For the facts see Frazer, _Totemism_, and cf. p. 31 _infra_.
+
+[5] MS. note from Dr Seligmann's unpublished _Report of Cook-Daniels
+Expedition; Camb. Univ. Torres Sts Exped._, V, 172; _Man_, 1904, no. 18.
+
+[6] _J.A.I._ XVIII, 282.
+
+[7] _Man_, 1903, no. 97.
+
+[8] New, _Travels_, p. 274.
+
+[9] _Ausland_, 1856, p. 45, 1882, p. 834; _Allg. Miss. Zts._ V, 354;
+_Zts. Vgl. Rechtswiss._ XIV, 295; _Mitt. Orient. Seminar_, III, 73, V,
+109. The recent work of Irle is inaccurate and confused.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II.
+
+DESCENT.
+
+Descent of kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
+ Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of
+ descent; relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation.
+
+
+In discussions of the origin and evolution of kinship organisations, we
+are necessarily concerned not only with their forms but also with the
+rules of descent which regulate membership of them. Until recently the
+main questions at issue were twofold: (1) the priority or otherwise of
+female descent; (2) the causes of the transition from one form of
+descent to another. Of late the question has been raised whether in the
+beginning hereditary kinship groups existed at all, or whether
+membership was not rather determined by considerations of an entirely
+different order. Dr Frazer, who has enunciated this view, maintains that
+totemism rests on a primitive theory of conception, due to savage
+ignorance of the facts of procreation.[10] But his theory is based
+exclusively on the foundation of the beliefs of the Central Australians
+and seems to neglect more than one important point which goes to show
+that the Arunta have evolved their totemic system from the more ordinary
+hereditary form. Whether this be so or not, it is difficult to see how
+any idea of kinship could arise from such a condition of nescience. If
+we take the analogous case of the nagual or "individual totem" there
+seems to be no trace of any belief in the kinship of those who have the
+same animal as their nagual, but are otherwise bound by no tie of
+relationship. Yet if Dr Frazer's theory were correct, this is precisely
+what we ought to find.
+
+This is, however, no reason for rejecting the general proposition that
+kinship, at its origin, was not hereditary; or, more exactly, that the
+beginnings of the kinship groups found at the present day may be traced
+back to a point at which the hereditary principle virtually disappears,
+although the bond of union and perhaps the totem name already existed.
+If, as suggested by Mr Lang, man was originally distributed in small
+communities, known by names which ultimately came to be those of the
+totem kins, we may suppose that daily association would not fail to
+bring about that sense of solidarity in its members which it is found to
+produce in more advanced communities. In the case of the tribe an even
+feebler bond, the possession of a common language, seems to give the
+tribesmen a sense of the unity of the tribe, though perhaps other
+explanations may be suggested, such as the possession in common of the
+tribal land, or the origin of the tribe from a single blood-related
+group. However this may be, it seems reasonable to look for one factor
+of the first bond of union in the influence of the daily and hourly
+association of group-mates. On the other hand, if, as Mr Lang supposes,
+the original group was a consanguine one, the claims of the factor of
+consanguinity and perhaps of foster brotherhood and motherhood cannot be
+neglected. It may be true, as Dr Frazer argues, that man was originally
+and still is in some cases ignorant of physiological facts. But all
+races of man and a great part of the rest of the animal kingdom show us
+the phenomena of parental affection, of care for offspring and sometimes
+of union for their defence. This does not, it may be noted, imply any
+predominance of the mother.[11]
+
+We may suppose that the idea of kinship or the recognition of
+consanguinity, whichever be the more correct term to apply to these
+far-off developments of the factors of human society, extended only by
+degrees beyond the limits of the group. First, perhaps, came the naming
+of the group, already, it may be, exogamous; then came the recognition
+of the fact that those members of it, viz. the women, who passed to
+community B after being born and having resided for years in community
+A, were in reality, in spite of their change of residence, still in fact
+the kin of community A; finally came the step of assigning to their
+children the group names which were retained by their mothers from the
+original natal groups. This brings us face to face with the first of the
+fundamental questions of descent, to which allusion has been made.
+
+It is commonly assumed by students of primitive social organisation that
+matrilineal descent is the earlier and that it has everywhere preceded
+patrilineal descent; but the questions involved are highly complicated
+and it can hardly be said that the subject has been fully discussed.
+
+Much of what has been said on the point has been vitiated by the
+introduction of foreign factors. Thus, the child belongs to the tribe of
+the father where the wife removes to the husband's local group or tribe.
+But though it may be taken as a mark of matrilineal institutions, often
+associated with matria potestas or its analogue the rule of the mother's
+brother, that the husband should remove and live with the wife, we are
+by no means entitled to say that the removal of the wife to the husband
+implies a different state of things. Customs of residence are no guide
+to the principles on which descent is regulated. Consequently it is
+entirely erroneous to import into the discussion with which we are
+concerned, viz. the rules by which _kinship_ is determined, any
+considerations based on the rules by which membership of a _tribe_ is
+settled.
+
+Similarly, no proof of the existence of paternal authority in the family
+throws any light on the question of whether the children belong to the
+kin of the father rather than of the mother. Where the mother or
+mother's brother is the guardian, we are usually safe in assuming that
+descent is or has been until recently matrilineal. But from the
+undisputed existence of patria potestas no similar inference can be
+drawn.
+
+Again, as will be shown below, not even the tie of blood between parent
+and child, confined though it may be in the opinion of the people whose
+institutions are in question, to a single parent, is an index to the way
+in which is determined the kinship organisation to which the child
+belongs.
+
+It is therefore clear that the utmost discrimination is necessary in
+dealing with these questions; rules of descent must be kept apart from
+matters which indeed influence the evolution of the rules but are in no
+way decisive as to their form at any given moment.
+
+Returning now to the alleged priority of matrilineal descent in
+determining the kinship organisation into which a child passes, it may
+be said that whereas evidences of the passage from female to male
+reckoning may be observed,[12] there is virtually none of a change in
+the opposite direction. In other words, where kinship is reckoned in the
+female line, there is no ground for supposing that it was ever
+hereditary in any other way. On the other hand, where kinship is
+reckoned in the male line, it is frequently not only legitimate but
+necessary to conclude that it has succeeded a system of female kinship.
+But this clearly does not mean that female descent has in _all_ cases
+preceded the reckoning of kinship through males. Patrilineal descent may
+have been directly evolved without the intermediate stage of reckoning
+through females.
+
+The problem is probably insoluble. No decisive data are available, for
+the mere absence of traces of matrilineal descent does not necessarily
+prove more than that it had long been superseded by reckoning of kinship
+through males. All that can be said is that in the kinship organisations
+known to us female descent seems to have prevailed in the vast majority
+of cases and probably existed in the residual class of indeterminable
+examples.
+
+With patria potestas it is, of course, different. There can be little
+doubt that it might and probably did develop in the absence of kinship
+organisations and in a state of society where consanguinity is no real
+bond after the children have reached puberty. If therefore under such
+circumstances a kinship organisation were to come into existence, either
+independently or by transmission, it might well be that patrilineal
+principles prevailed from the first. But of such a case we have no
+knowledge. It may perhaps be questioned whether the actually existing
+peoples who appear to have no kinship organisations, such as the
+Hottentots, the Bushmen, the Veddahs and perhaps the Fuegians, are not
+in this state rather as a result of the break-up of their former
+organisation than because they have never evolved kinship groups. But
+our knowledge in these matters is lamentably small and the problem is
+not one which calls for discussion here.
+
+The second fundamental problem relating to rules of descent is that of
+the cause of the transition from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. The
+subject needs to be discussed in detail for each particular area before
+general conclusions can be formulated; it is quite possible that the
+causes will be found to differ widely; for no general rule can be laid
+down as to the relations between matrilineal descent and other cultural
+conditions.
+
+All that can be attempted here is an examination of the various elements
+in the problem so far as it affects Australia. To this may be prefixed a
+further discussion of the origin of matrilineal descent with especial
+reference to Australian conditions.
+
+It is commonly assumed that in a pure matrilineal community, the husband
+removes to the wife's local group (matrilocal marriage), or if not that,
+that at any rate the authority in the family rests in the hands of the
+mother's brothers, who are also the heirs to the exclusion of the
+children. But of any such custom of removal there is but the very
+slenderest evidence in Australia. According to Howitt it occurs
+occasionally in Victoria and among the Dieri; among the Wakelbura it is
+done only if a man elopes with a betrothed woman and the man to whom she
+was betrothed dies; among the Kuinmurbura it seems to have been a
+recognised thing for a man who married a woman of another tribe to
+remove, but in this case he took no part in intertribal warfare[13]. In
+all these cases, the Kurnai excepted, descent is reckoned in the female
+line.
+
+If however Dr Howitt's informant, who does not seem to have been
+particularly accurate in many cases, is to be relied on, the removal of
+the husband to the wife's group is also found among the patrilineal
+Maryborough tribes, though only if the woman belonged to a distant
+tribelet, whatever that may be[14]. To this information is added the
+statement that in such cases the husband joined his wife's tribe for
+purposes of hostilities also and that it has happened that a son has
+come into conflict with his father under these circumstances and
+endangered his life with full knowledge of what he was doing. There is,
+it is true, no definite statement to the effect that children in these
+tribes take their totems from the father, but we may assume that it is
+the case. If therefore the statement in question is accurate, it is a
+pretty clear proof of the break-up of the social system; for under no
+circumstances does the totem-kinsman, as a rule, violate the
+sacro-sanctity of his own flesh. It cannot therefore be argued that the
+fact of removal in the Maryborough tribes is any very strong evidence of
+the primitive nature of the custom. In the other tribes, on the other
+hand, it is distinctly stated that the practice prevails only when
+marriage takes place between members of two different tribes, and among
+the Wakelbura only exceptionally even when the wife is of an alien folk.
+Whatever else the custom proves in these cases, it certainly evidences
+the existence of friendly relations between the tribes in question; for
+if it were otherwise the man would hardly be disposed to give up the
+security of his own people for the perils of a strange community; on the
+other hand it is hardly likely that the man's tribe would allow him to
+pass over to the ranks of the strangers, nor would they view with
+equanimity the loss of effective fighting strength which would result
+from the fact that his children too would be numbered against them, not
+for them, if it came to hostilities. The custom is therefore clear
+evidence of fairly permanent friendly relations in the district in
+question; and it is plain that we cannot assume these to have existed in
+more primitive times. It is therefore difficult to see in what way the
+present day practices lend support to the theory that the original usage
+was for the husband to remove to his wife's group. For, be it noted,
+there is not a single case, unless we include the anomalous Kurnai, in
+which the husband removes to his wife's group within his own tribe; but
+clearly this is the custom to which the removal theory applies. So far,
+therefore, as Australia is concerned, the removal theory falls to the
+ground; it cannot of course be disproved, but we are not justified in
+assuming that matrilineal descent and matria potestas are due to a
+custom of removal.
+
+Inasmuch as patrilocal[15] marriage involves descent of group and tribal
+property rights in the male line, it might appear that in rejecting the
+hypothesis of a prior stage of matrilocal marriage, we are involving
+ourselves in difficulties; for it is clearly not easy to see how descent
+could come to be reckoned through the mother, while property descended
+through the father. But it is obviously unnecessary in the first place
+to regard the individual rights of property as originating
+simultaneously or under the same conditions as the rules as to kinship
+or even communal property; there is nothing to show how long the present
+system of land tenure in Australia has held good, and it is clearly one
+which points to a certain growth of population; for if the local group
+were remote from their neighbours, there would be little need to
+encroach; moreover, the exact delimitation of territory now in practice
+is a thing of long growth.
+
+Further consideration however shows that it is only by a confusion of
+thought that we can speak of land descending in the male line (that is,
+of course, in respect of group rights, not private property, to which we
+return later); strictly speaking the descent of landed property is
+neither in the male nor the female line but local. A man who removes to
+his wife's tribe is, so far as we can see, as truly part owner of the
+tribal land as if he were himself a member of the tribe by birth within
+its limits. The suggested difficulty, therefore, does not exist, and the
+conclusion as to removal customs holds good.
+
+We may now examine the relation of matriliny to the seat of authority in
+the family. Questions of potestas naturally range themselves under more
+than one head. We have (1) the relation of the husband (_a_) to the wife
+and (_b_) to the children; (2) the relation of the mother to the
+children, and closely connected with this the influence of the mother's
+brother; finally (3) we have the position of the widow, a matter indeed
+more intimately connected with inheritance from a legal point of view
+but in Australia more closely connected with potestas than in countries
+where slavery is a recognised institution.
+
+Small as is our information on Australian jurisprudence, it is certain
+that the husband enjoys practically unrestricted rights over the person
+of his wife, _pirrauru_ and similar customs apart. He may at will lend
+her or hire her out to strangers; he may punish her infidelity,
+disobedience or awkwardness by chastisement, not stopping short of the
+infliction of spear or club wounds; he may even, according to Roth[16],
+go so far as to kill her and yet get off scot free, his only duty in
+such a case being to provide a sister for the brothers of his dead wife
+to kill in retaliation.
+
+This custom suggests that the kin to which the woman belongs claim a
+certain property in her even after she is married, and this partial
+proprietorship naturally implies a slight protecting influence; for it
+would clearly not be in every case easy for the homicidal male to find a
+sister ready to go out and be killed as a set-off to his murdered wife.
+We should not, it is true, overlook the fact that the customs of the
+Pitta-Pitta differ from those of many of the Australian tribes, in that
+exchange of sisters is not practised. Otherwise it would be tempting to
+argue that this proprietorship in the women of their kin may go back to
+the time of Mr Lang's connubial groups and help to explain the reckoning
+of descent through females. For clearly, if a woman still belongs in a
+sense to the group she has left, so may her children belong to the same
+group, inasmuch as their relationship to her is, to us at any rate,
+unmistakeable. If any evidence could be produced for the widespread
+existence of the custom (found in various parts of the globe, though
+not, up to the present, in Australia), according to which the widow and
+her children remove to her own district, some probability would be
+imparted to this hypothesis.
+
+The ordinary rule as regards punishment inflicted by the husband on the
+wife seems to be that he may go any length short of doing her a mortal
+injury, without being liable to be called to account. The punishment of
+death however may only be inflicted for adultery and certain specified
+offences without incurring a blood-feud with the woman's relatives.
+
+It is by no means improbable that under the influence of the custom of
+exchanging sisters there may be a tendency for the control of the kin in
+this respect to diminish; in fact the Boulia example is only explicable
+on this hypothesis. At the same time we cannot overlook the fact that
+elopement, or real marriage by capture, as distinguished from formal
+abduction, would, so far as we can see, have a similar effect, and the
+rise of the custom of exchange of sisters would in that case tend to
+re-establish rather than weaken the power of the woman's kin, at any
+rate in the first instance.
+
+However this may be, the woman's kin exercises, _prima facie_, some kind
+of protectorship. At the present day the kinship may be matrilineal or
+patrilineal without affecting their right. But if, before kinship was
+reckoned at all, this protectorship were exercised for the benefit of
+the children, we clearly have a possible cause of matriliny.
+
+For a discussion of the question of the inheritance of the deceased's
+wife by his brother we have more facts at our disposal. As a matter of
+fact it is a not infrequent custom in Australia for the widow to pass to
+the deceased husband's brother[17]; or if she does not become his wife,
+he decides to whom she shall be allotted[18]. In no case do the woman's
+kin seem to have a voice in the selection of her new husband. On the
+whole therefore the proprietary rights found in the Boulia district seem
+to be the product of exceptional local conditions. If this is so, it is
+clear that in the matter of potestas the rights of the woman's kin are
+now absolutely restricted to protecting her from a death which she has
+not according to native law deserved and to avenging such a death when
+it is inflicted by the husband.
+
+The so-called levirate, or right of succession to the widow, is clearly
+of much importance, so far as questions of dominion are concerned; but
+as regards the problems of descent the evidence is less easily
+interpreted. It has sometimes been assumed that the succession of the
+brother and not the son is a mark of matriliny; but it is clear that
+where the right of appropriating the widow is concerned, this is very
+far from being the case, for the simple reason that the real matria
+potestas would put her at the disposal of the kin from whom she
+originally came; on the other hand, inasmuch as the son is naturally
+debarred from marrying his own mother or his tribal mother, who commonly
+belongs to a class into which he does not marry, there might easily
+arise in a purely patripotestal and patrilineal tribe a custom of
+handing over the widow to the father's brother.
+
+On the whole however it seems simplest to regard the matter as one in
+which the rights are determined by no considerations of inheritance or
+descent but simply by the rule that the property in the woman remains
+vested in the body of purchasers. For it must be remembered that not
+only an own but also a tribal sister may be given in exchange for a
+wife. From this it follows that, theoretically at any rate, the
+contracting parties are corporations rather than individuals, and in
+this case the death of the individual on whose behalf the transaction
+has been effected does not extinguish the proprietary rights acquired by
+handing over a woman, standing in the relation of sister to the one
+corporation, in exchange for another woman standing in the relation of
+sister to the other corporation.
+
+If this solution is correct, it is unnecessary to go into the
+complicated question of the relation of brother-inheritance to matriliny
+and patriliny. For it is by no means clear that it is an exemplification
+of the former rather than the latter principle. It may, of course, be
+argued that brothers succeed as children of the same mother; but against
+this must be set the fact that they are also children of the same
+father; for uncertain paternity can only be a _vera causa_ where
+_pirrauru_ and similar customs are found; and even here the pre-eminence
+of the primary husband might well be held to determine the legal
+paternity of the children, which is, of course, especially in Africa, a
+matter of potestas rather than procreation. However this may be, the
+position of the widow does not appear to invalidate the guardianship
+origin of matriliny.
+
+We now turn to the question of why male tends to take the place of
+female descent. The possible factors are (1) authority in the family,
+(2) the rise of chieftainship and inheritance generally, and (3) the
+organisation of the family group. Of the authority of father or mother
+over the children, there is not much trace in Australia except in the
+most youthful period of the pre-adult life. It is for example
+exceptional for a parent to correct a child. As to who decides in cases
+of infanticide we have unfortunately too little information to be able
+to generalise. Only in one important step--that of betrothal--have we
+anything like adequate information, and the interrelations between rule
+of descent and potestas are found to be in this case sufficiently clear,
+though it is not clear on what principle it is decided _who_ shall
+exercise the right.
+
+Taking first tribes with matrilineal descent, we find that the Barkinji,
+the Wakelbura, the Dieri, and in some cases the Wollaroi, assign the
+right of betrothal to the mother or mother's brother[19]. In other
+cases, transitional forms, the father, his elder brother, or the girl's
+brothers decide, or else the parents or two of these persons
+jointly[20]. Among the Mukjarawaint the betrothal rested in part with
+the paternal grandparents[21]; it may be noted that the grandfather had
+to decide also whether a child should be brought up or killed. Among the
+Kuinmurbura it falls to the mother's brother's son or the father's
+sister's son, who is, apparently, entitled to marry the girl
+himself[22].
+
+Turning now to tribes with male descent, we find that the father, his
+brother, or the parents, almost invariably make the decision[23]. Among
+the eight-class tribes, Spencer and Gillen assert in one place[24] that
+the mother's brother betroths a girl; but this is contradicted in two
+other passages[25], and cannot be regarded as reliable.
+
+On the whole therefore it appears that while there are some survivals of
+matria potestas into patrilineal descent, and in the matrilineal stage
+transitional forms are found, the right of betrothal tends to pass from
+the mother's to the father's side, when the rule of descent changes; but
+there is little to show how far a change in the right of betrothal tends
+to cause a change in the rule of descent.
+
+A curious fact may be noted here, which goes far to demonstrate the
+absolutely heterogeneous nature of kinship and consanguinity, and
+suggests that descent is not reckoned in the female line on account of
+any supposed specially close connection between the mother and her
+offspring. Of the four tribes among which, according to Howitt, the
+child is regarded as the offspring of the father alone[26], the mother
+being only its nurse, two, the Yuin and Kulin, have male descent; two,
+however, the Wolgal and Tatathi, have female descent, and among the
+latter, in addition, the right of betrothal lies with the mother or
+mother's brother.
+
+On the whole, therefore, it may be said that no questions of potestas
+seem to have exercised any influence in bringing about the transition
+from matrilineal to patrilineal descent. It does not appear necessary,
+therefore, to do more than allude in passing to a fact which may well
+have had something to do with the decay of matria potestas, at any rate,
+so far as the mother's brother is concerned, even if it did not actively
+hasten the coming of patria potestas. This fact is the considerable size
+of the area over which, with the rise of the so-called nations, it is
+possible to select a wife. The more remote geographically the mother's
+relatives, the less their influence. Allowance must of course be made
+for the opportunities of discussion afforded by the great gatherings of
+the tribes; but the wider area of bride-choice must have shaken the
+authority of the brother.
+
+It has been remarked above that there is no well-established case of the
+right of betrothal being assigned on patrilineal principles in a
+matrilineal tribe. The influence of the father's brother is not
+necessarily a mark of patrilineal tendencies, except in so far as all
+patria potestas is such. That the elder brother has authority in this
+case is no more decisive than that the elder brother has authority in
+cases of betrothal; it is no more an exemplification of the simple
+patria potestas, which has already been shown to be universal and under
+but slight limitations so far as the wife is concerned. From the point
+of view of potestas, it is a great advance that the father should be
+able to dispose of his own daughter in marriage; but if we may judge by
+the survival of matria potestas into patriliny, the cases of patria
+potestas under matriliny cannot have exercised an important influence in
+bringing about a change in the rule of descent.
+
+The case of the power of the girl's own brother is somewhat different.
+_Prima facie_ it appears to owe its origin to the fact that it is the
+brothers who are mainly interested in the transaction, inasmuch as it is
+to them that wives come in exchange for the sisters given in marriage.
+Consequently we cannot, as has already been the case with the so-called
+levirate, assign the practice definitely either to matripotestal or
+patripotestal customs, for father's and mother's authority are alike
+overruled.
+
+It has already been stated that we have but few data for estimating the
+influence of the right of betrothal on the rule of descent. Clearly the
+father has little to gain from the fact that his daughter follows him
+rather than the mother, when the inevitable effect of the marriage
+regulations is to make her children of the phratry and totem of her
+husband, and consequently to make them of a different phratry and totem
+from her father. Under matriliny on the other hand there is nothing to
+prevent the grandchildren from being of the same totem as the
+grandfather, and they are necessarily of the same class in a four-class
+tribe. If considerations with regard to the phratry and totem of the
+grandchildren played any part in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent, this must have been based on a review of the changes that would
+be brought about in the position of the son's and not the daughter's
+offspring. But this is unlikely.
+
+But on the other hand the father's disposal of the daughter's hand is
+indirectly a means of increasing his influence both with his son and in
+general. If the son gains his wife by an exchange of sisters, the
+father's authority is obviously increased. But we do not know how far
+this factor of the right of betrothal has operated.
+
+Turning now to questions of inheritance, we find that properly speaking
+the hereditary chief is unknown in Australia. There is a tendency for
+the son of the tribal headman to succeed his father, but it is subject
+to exceptions. Moreover, it is by no means a universal rule for the
+tribe to have an over-headman; it may be ruled by the council of
+district headmen. In any case the influence of the quasi-hereditary
+character of the over-headmanship upon the rule of descent cannot but
+have been comparatively slight.
+
+It is, on the other hand, usual for the local group and the totem kin to
+have headmen. In the case of the latter, age is often the qualification,
+as among the Dieri[27]; in such cases there is no possible effect on the
+rule of succession. But among some of the Victorian tribes with
+matrilineal descent the rule is for the son to follow the father in the
+headmanship[28]; and the same is the case, as we should expect, among
+the patrilineal eight-class tribes[29]. The most important tribe in
+which hereditary headmanship is combined with female descent is the
+Wiradjeri[30]; their neighbours, the Kamilaroi, showed marked respect to
+the son of a headman, if he possessed ability, though they did not,
+apparently, make him his father's successor[31].
+
+On the whole, then, we cannot assign much weight to this element in the
+list of possible causes of the transition.
+
+Of inheritance of chattels or land and fixtures we know little. From
+Spencer and Gillen we learn that among the Warramunga the mother's
+brother, or daughter's husband, succeeds to the boomerangs, and other
+moveable property[32]. Among the Kulin and the Kurnai inheritance in the
+male line seems to have been the rule. In the Adelaide district, as we
+learn from Gerstaecker[33], individual property in land was known; it
+descended in the male line. Among the Turribul there was individual
+property in _bunya-bunya_ trees; these too devolved from father to
+son[34].
+
+On the other hand on the Bloomfield property in zamia nut grounds has
+vested in women and descends from mother to daughter[35]; but in this
+remarkable variant we see, of course, not the influence of the mother's
+kin, but female influence or rather the right of females to the produce
+of their labour. In respect of other property, inheritance in North
+Queensland is in the male line, for it descends to blood brothers and
+remains in the same exogamous group from generation to generation.
+
+This brings us to the question of the part played by the local group in
+causing the change from female to male descent. Under ordinary
+circumstances, with female descent, the local group is made up of
+persons of different phratries and totems; in any case, just as the
+phratry and totem of the members of the individual family change from
+generation to generation, the complexion of the local group is liable to
+be completely changed; though in practice the changes in one direction
+are no doubt counterbalanced by changes in the other, so that the net
+result may be nil, when the original differences were small. But we
+cannot suppose that the group was often evenly balanced; and a change in
+the rule of descent would in that case have important results for the
+local group and in any case for the individual family.
+
+The importance of the difference in the constitution of the local group
+under descent in the male line is seen when we reflect that in the
+normal tribe the totem kin is practically the unit for many purposes.
+If, for example, an emu man has killed, let us say, an iguana man, it is
+the duty of the iguana men to avenge the death of their kinsman. Their
+vengeance need not, however, fall on the original perpetrator of the
+deed; according to the rules of savage justice all the emu men are
+equally responsible with the culprit; consequently it suffices to kill
+the first emu person whom they can find. Conversely, those to whom an
+emu man looks for defence, when he is attacked, or assistance, when he
+wishes to abduct a wife or anything of that sort, are his fellow emu
+men. It is therefore clear that the rule of male descent gives far
+greater security to the members of a local group; for they are
+surrounded by kinsmen. Under the rule of female descent, on the other
+hand, they probably have some kinsmen in the same group but equally a
+considerable number of members of other totem kins.
+
+Self-interest therefore, no less than the natural sympathy between
+fathers and children, as well as between members of the same group
+(quite apart from forays and fighting), must have tended to bring about
+a change in the laws of descent.
+
+The late Major J.W. Powell has already described the transition from
+matria potestas to patria potestas among the Pueblo peoples. He put it
+down to economic conditions, which lead the groups to scatter, each
+under the headship of a male, who is also the husband; this naturally
+resulted in a weakening of the influence of the mother's brother. It is,
+however, less clear that it would bring about the decay of the power of
+the mother herself, which in Australian tribes, at any rate, seems to be
+independent of the support she obtains from her male relatives.
+
+In Australia, as we have seen, the change from matria to patria potestas
+had but little influence in bringing about a change in the rule of
+descent. Here, too, the change in the rule of descent may be put down in
+the main to economic causes also in a broad sense. Dumping was not in
+those days a question of practical politics; the problem was to prevent
+the neighbours from pursuing the policy of the free and open port. The
+necessity of protecting tribal and group property in land and game would
+naturally tend to bind men closer and closer, in proportion as the
+pressure from without became greater. It is perhaps hardly accidental
+that the main area of male descent is that which has also developed the
+Intichiuma ceremonies.
+
+If Prof. Gregory's view[36] that the occupation of Victoria by the
+natives dates back no more than 300 years is correct, we may perhaps see
+in the migration one cause of the rise of patriliny. Anything which
+tended to shake the influence of the mother's kin would increase the
+father's power; and the need of protecting newly established groups
+from the incursions of their neighbours would be more urgent than in
+older districts. As we have seen, the first mentioned cause has
+elsewhere had little direct effect; but it may well have played a larger
+part under the novel conditions of migration and occupation of fresh
+territory.
+
+In South Queensland the fractionation of tribes seems to have gone
+further than elsewhere, unless we suppose that we have here an area,
+where, as in California, pressure from without has crowded together the
+remnants of many tribes. Although it is not obvious how the
+multiplication of distinct tribes has favoured patrilineal descent, we
+may, at any rate, say that the conditions in the area are exceptional;
+possibly it was more fruitful than the greater part of the continent; if
+so personal property in the shape of trees, etc., which we have already
+seen in existence in this area, would play a more important _role_ here,
+and may well have determined the transition to patrilineal descent.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[10] _Fortn. Rev._ Sept. 1905, cf. van Gennep, _Mythes et Legendes_.
+
+[11] It cannot be said that the ordinary theory of the development of
+kinship in the female line is satisfactory. The consanguine relation of
+mother and child does not appear to be a complete answer to the question
+why kinship--an entirely different thing--was reckoned through the
+mother; the alleged uncertainty of fatherhood is in the first place
+closely connected with an unproven stage of promiscuity and consequently
+hardly a _vera causa_, until further evidence of such a stage has been
+produced; and again among the Arunta, it is rather potestas than
+physical fatherhood which, on their theory, determines the kinship of
+the child so far as the class is concerned. For the primitive group
+therefore we cannot assert any predominant interest of the mother in the
+children nor yet admit that it would necessarily be important if it were
+shown to exist.
+
+[12] _Annee Sociologique_ V, 104 sq.; VIII, 132 sq.; Tylor in _J.A.I._
+XVIII, 245-272.
+
+[13] Howitt, pp. 220, 225, 234, 248; cf. 159, 269.
+
+[14] _ib._ p. 234.
+
+[15] P. 30 _infra_.
+
+[16] _Ethnological Studies_, p. 141.
+
+[17] Howitt, pp. 193, 224, 227, 236.
+
+[18] _ib._ p. 248, cf. 227.
+
+[19] Howitt, pp. 195, 221, 177, 217.
+
+[20] _ib._ pp. 210, 227, 252, 216, 177, 260.
+
+[21] _ib._ p. 243.
+
+[22] _ib._ p. 219.
+
+[23] _ib._ pp. 232, 257, 236.
+
+[24] _Nor. Tr._ p. 603.
+
+[25] _ib._ pp. 77 n., 114.
+
+[26] Howitt, pp. 263, 255, 198, 195.
+
+[27] Howitt, p. 298.
+
+[28] _ib._ pp. 306, 308 sq.
+
+[29] _Nor. Tr._ p. 23.
+
+[30] Howitt, p. 303.
+
+[31] _ib._ p. 302.
+
+[32] _Nor. Tr._ p. 524.
+
+[33] _Reisen._ IV, 347.
+
+[34] _Petrie's Reminiscences_, p. 117.
+
+[35] _N.Q. Ethn. Bull._ VIII.
+
+[36] _Proc. R.S. Vict._ XVII, 120.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.
+
+Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
+ "Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in
+ Australia. General sketch.
+
+
+Before proceeding to deal with the Australian facts it will be well to
+define the terminology to be employed, and give a brief survey of a
+typical organisation. Looking at the population from the territorial
+point of view in the first place, we find aggregates of tribes; these
+may be termed _nations_. The component tribes are friendly, one with
+another; they may and often do hold initiation ceremonies and other
+ceremonials in common; although the language is usually syntactically
+the same, and though they contain many words in common, the vocabularies
+differ to such an extent that members of different tribes are not
+mutually intelligible. How far the occurrence of identical kinship
+organisation and nomenclature should be taken as indicating a still
+larger unity than the nation is a difficult question. _Prima facie_ the
+nation is a relatively late phenomenon; but the distribution of the
+names of kinship organisations, as will be shown later, indicates that
+communication, if not alliance, existed over a wide area at some
+periods, which it is difficult to suppose were anything but remote.
+
+The idea of the _tribe_ has already been defined. It is a community
+which occupies a definite area, recognises its solidarity and possesses
+a common speech or dialects of the same.
+
+Between the tribe and the family occur various subdivisions, known as
+sub-tribes, hordes, local groups, etc., but without any very clear
+definition of their nature. It appears, however, that the tribal area is
+sometimes so parcelled out that property in it is vested, not in the
+tribe as a whole, but in the _local group_, which welcomes
+fellow-tribesmen in times of plenty, but has the right of punishing
+intruders of the same tribe who seek for food without permission; for a
+non-tribesman the penalty is death. In some cases the local group is
+little more than an undivided family including three generations; it may
+then occupy and own an area of some ten miles radius. In other cases the
+term is applied to a larger aggregate, the nature and rights of which
+are not strictly defined; it may number some hundreds of persons and
+form one-third of the whole tribe; it seems best to denominate such an
+aggregate by the name of _sub-tribe_.
+
+The term _family_ may be retained in its ordinary sense.
+
+Superposed on the tribal organisation are the kinship organisations,
+which, in the case of most Australian tribes, are independent of
+locality. Leaving out of account certain anomalous tribes, it may be
+said broadly that an Australian tribe is divided into two sets, called
+phratries, primary classes, moieties, etc. by various authors; the term
+used in the present work for these divisions is _phratry_. Membership of
+a phratry depends on birth and is taken _directly_ from the mother
+(_matrilineal descent_) or father (_patrilineal descent_).
+
+In Queensland and part of N.S. Wales the phratry is again subdivided,
+and four _intermarrying classes_ (sometimes called sub-phratries) are
+formed, two of which make up each phratry. In North Australia and
+Queensland a further subdivision of each of these classes is found,
+making eight in all. Descent in the classes is _indirect_ matrilineal or
+indirect[37] patrilineal, the child belonging to the mother's or
+father's phratry as before, but being assigned to the class of that
+phratry to which the mother or father does not belong. The classes of
+father and son together are called a _couple_. The parent from whom the
+phratry and class name are thus derived is said to be the _determinant
+spouse_.
+
+These phratries and classes regulate marriage. It is forbidden to marry
+within one's own phratry. This custom is termed _exogamy_. When the
+husband removes and lives in his wife's group the marriage is
+_matrilocal_; if the wife removes it is _patrilocal_.
+
+In addition to the division into classes each phratry is further divided
+into a number of _totem kins_. A _totem_ is usually a species of animals
+or plants; a body of human beings stands in a certain peculiar relation
+to the totem species and is termed the totem kin; each member of a totem
+kin is termed a _kinsman_. Membership of the totem kin usually descends
+directly from parent to child.
+
+The existence of these kinship organisations is universally recognised.
+Mr R.H. Mathews has recently asserted the existence of yet another form
+and at the same time controverted the accepted views as to the operation
+and meaning of those described above. He distinguishes in certain tribes
+of New South Wales kinship organisations running across the phratries;
+these are of two kinds, according to the author, but they do not seem to
+differ in function. They are termed by Mr Mathews "_blood_" and
+"_shade_" divisions, and are held by him to be the names of the really
+exogamous groups. The subject is discussed in detail below.
+
+In order to make the working of these regulations plain, let us take as
+an example the Kamilaroi tribe of N.S. Wales, with two phratries, four
+classes and various totem kins. The phratries are named Dilbi and
+Kupathin; Dilbi is divided into two classes, Muri and Kubi; Kupathin
+into Kumbo and Ipai. The Dilbi totems, which may belong to either of the
+classes, are kangaroo, opossum and iguana; those of Kupathin are emu,
+bandicoot and black snake. Every member of the tribe has his own
+phratry, class and totem; these all come to him by descent.
+
+We have little or no information as to the local grouping of the
+Kamilaroi tribes, but it was possibly not unlike that of some of the
+tribes to the north-west. In the case of the latter the tribal area was
+some 3000 sq. miles in extent, it was split up into smaller areas,
+thirty or more in number, which were the property of the local groups; a
+local group consisted frequently of three generations of relatives. When
+we come to deal below with marriage regulations it will be shown that
+husband, wife and child under the four-class system all belong to
+different classes; there were therefore in each group at least three
+classes, if not four, and consequently members of two phratries. If we
+assume that the same conditions prevailed among the Kamilaroi, the local
+groups would then be made up of members of both the Dilbi and Kupathin
+phratries; and probably all four classes, Muri, Kubi, Ipai and Kumbo,
+would be found in each group, which in Australia varied in size
+according to local conditions from 20 or 30 to 200; under special
+conditions, such as prevailed in the neighbourhood of Lake Alexandrina,
+the number might run up to 600 or more, but this was exceptional.
+
+From the fact that the totems are divided between the phratries it is
+clear that the local group may also have members of all the six totem
+kins mentioned above, among its members.
+
+The rules by which marriage and descent are regulated are apparently
+very complicated but practically very simple. Taking the Kamilaroi tribe
+again, the rule is that Muri marries Butha (a female Kumbo) and their
+children are Ipai and Ipatha: Kubi marries Ipatha and their children are
+Kumbo and Butha; in each case the children belong to the same phratry as
+the mother but to the other class in that phratry. This is termed
+indirect matrilineal descent.
+
+The rule of descent for the totem among the Kamilaroi was simpler;
+membership of a totem kin descends directly from a mother to her child.
+The combined effect of these rules is that if, for example, a male Dilbi
+of the Muri class and iguana totem wants to marry, he must choose a wife
+of the Kupathin phratry, the Kumbo class, and either the emu, bandicoot,
+or black snake totems; suppose he marries an emu woman; then his
+children are of the Kupathin phratry, the Ipai (or Ipatha) class, and
+the emu totem. These regulations are naturally more complicated among
+the eight-class tribes; on the other hand, where only phratries and
+totems are found, but no classes, descent is much simpler; for in each
+case the child takes the phratry and totem of its mother, where
+matrilineal descent prevails, or of its father, where patrilineal
+descent is found.
+
+The general rule in Australia is that the wife goes to live with her
+husband; in other words, she leaves the local group in which she was
+born and becomes a member of her husband's local group. The effect of
+this is very different according as descent is reckoned through the
+mother or through the father. Taking the Kamilaroi again, the
+Muri-iguana man brings into his group a Butha-emu woman; their children
+are Ipatha-emu. If, therefore, a local group is made up of the
+descendants of a single family, the phratry, class, and totem names vary
+from generation to generation; for the girls go to other groups, and the
+men bring in wives of a phratry, class, and totem different, as a rule,
+from their own; the children of the next generation take their kinship
+names directly or indirectly from the mother.
+
+If, on the other hand, descent is reckoned through the father, the
+phratry and totem names are always the same from generation to
+generation; from this it follows that the phratry of the wife, who comes
+from without, is also the same from generation to generation, though her
+totem name does not of necessity remain the same. The class name
+alternates both in the case of the family and of the wives in successive
+generations. It has already been pointed out that reckoning of descent
+in the male line tends to bring about local grouping of the kinship
+organisations. In the eight-class tribes, and in parts of Victoria, the
+phratries, elsewhere the totem kins, tend to be or are actually limited
+to certain portions of the tribal area.
+
+Our knowledge of these matters has not, of course, been gained at a
+bound. Before indicating the present extent of our information, it may
+be well to give an historical sketch of early discoveries in this field.
+
+Some seventy years ago the attention of students of primitive social
+institutions was drawn to the marriage regulations of the Indian tribes
+of North America by an article in _Archaeologia Americana_[38]; in which
+the author, drawing his conclusions partly from earlier writers, partly
+from his own investigations, showed that the totem kin was an exogamous
+group, while in some cases the kin bearing the name of a given totem
+were not only exogamous, but not even permitted to choose their wives
+from any of the other kins at will, being restricted in their choice to
+certain groups or, in many cases, to a single group of totem kins,
+according as the tribe was arranged in two or more phratries.
+
+At least two observers had detected the existence of Australian
+organisations of the same nature as the American phratries, so far as
+our scanty information from West Australia goes, even before the
+publication of _Archaeologia Americana_. The honour of being the first
+to publish information on the subject belongs to Nind, who had spent
+some time in the neighbourhood of King George's Sound in 1829, and
+published his observations on native customs in the _Journal of the
+Royal Geographical Society_[39] for 1832. Close on his heels came the
+authors of _Journals of Explorations in West Australia_, which appeared
+in 1833, and described journeys undertaken between 1829 and 1832.
+
+The phratries were discovered in South Australia by the Rev. C.W.
+Schuermann, whose Vocabulary[40], published in 1844, contains a mention
+of the Parnkalla phratries, without, however, any indication of their
+connection with marriage customs and exogamy. Five years earlier,
+however, Lieutenant, afterwards Sir George Grey, had observed
+institutions of the nature of totem kins, phratries, or intermarrying
+classes in West Australia, and had detected their connection with the
+marriage laws of the natives[41].
+
+In 1841 and 1842, G.F. Moore[42] called attention to the grouping of the
+native divisions or kins, and anticipated Schuermann, as will be shown
+later. Grey, before the publication of his _Journal_, had read the
+_Archaeologia_; but though he mentions the naming of "families" after
+animals, he makes no mention of any grouping, but merely distinguishes
+between "families" and "local names." Some of the names which he gives
+seem to be those of phratries, and if he had been led by his study of
+_Archaeologia Americana_ to the discovery of exogamic regulations
+dealing with the relations of individual totem kins to one another, it
+seems on the whole probable that he would not have overlooked the
+grouping of the kins which is, with certain exceptions, of a more or
+less local character, common to the whole of Australia, so far as our
+information goes. Singularly enough this information, very full,
+relatively, for the eastern and central tribes, has, so far as
+South-West Australia is concerned, only just been completed, although
+more than sixty years have elapsed since Grey wrote, the last twenty of
+which have seen much additional light thrown on the organisation of the
+tribes of the remainder of the continent.
+
+The American tribes, where simple totemic exogamy is not the rule, are
+organised in two and sometimes three or more, up to ten, phratries. It
+is possible that Grey, in spite of his attention having been drawn to
+the bi- or trichotomous organisation of American totem kins, failed to
+understand the Australian system owing to the presence of an element,
+discovered a few years later at a point remote from the scene of Grey's
+researches, to which no American analogue exists. In addition to the
+grouping of the kins into phratries, the Australian tribes over a large
+part of the continent subdivide each phratry into two or four classes or
+"castes," as they were frequently termed by the early investigators. The
+effect of the class system is to further limit the choice of a given
+individual, restricted to one-half of the women of the tribe under the
+simple phratry system, to one-fourth of them or one-eighth, as the case
+may be. Probably the first person to publish the fact of the existence
+of these classes, which he regarded as differing in rank, was C.P.
+Hodgson[43], who found them in 1846 among the blacks of Wide Bay. From a
+letter of Leichardt's however it appears that the discovery must have
+been made nearly simultaneously by several observers. Writing in
+1847[44], he says that the castes are the most interesting and most
+obscure feature among the tribes to the northward, and mentions F.N.
+Isaacs as having noticed the existence of the classes among the natives
+of Darling Downs, adding that Capt. Macarthur had also found them among
+the Monobar tribes of the Coburg Peninsula. "These castes," he adds,
+"are probably intimately connected with the laws of intermarriage."
+
+If Leichardt's words mean, as apparently they do, that the Monobar
+classes are regulative of marriage, and if his information was correct,
+the first mention of classes in Australia is found, not in Hodgson's
+work, but in Wilson's account[45]. Neither he, however, nor Stokes[46],
+who mentions them as existing among the Limba Karadjee, makes any
+mention of their connection with marriage regulations. And Earl, at a
+later period, omits in like manner to say what constituted membership of
+a caste, though he states that they differed in rank. The
+names--Manjarojally (fire people), Manjarwuli (land people), and
+Mambulgit (makers of nets, perhaps, therefore, water people), as well as
+the anomalous number of the classes, seem to indicate that they are of a
+somewhat different nature to the real intermarrying classes found
+elsewhere[47]. It is of course well known that the initiation ceremonies
+and totemic system of the northern tribes on both sides of the Gulf of
+Carpentaria differ somewhat widely from the normal Australian form.
+
+None of the observers hitherto mentioned can be said however to have
+applied himself to the scientific study of the questions raised by the
+facts which they recorded. Anthropology was in those days in its
+infancy. The first to make a really serious effort to clear up the many
+difficult questions, some of them still matters of controversy, which a
+closer study of the native marriage customs brought to the surface, was
+a missionary anthropologist, a class of which England has produced all
+too few. In 1853 the Rev. William Ridley published the first of many
+studies of the Kamilaroi speaking tribes, and, thanks to the impetus
+given to the investigation of systems of relationship and allied
+questions by Lewis Morgan, was the pioneer of a series of efforts which
+have rescued for us at the nick of time a record of the social
+organisation of many tribes which under European influence are now
+rapidly losing or have already lost all traces of their primitive
+customs, if indeed they have not, like the tribes formerly resident at
+Adelaide and other centres of population, been absolutely exterminated
+by contact with the white man with his vices and his civilisation, or by
+the less gentle method euphemistically termed "dispersion," which, if
+other nations were the offenders, we should term massacre.
+
+After Mr Ridley, Messrs Fison and Howitt turned their attention to the
+Kamilaroi group of tribes. The progress of these investigations is
+traced, historically and controversially, in the second series of
+Maclennan's _Studies in Ancient History_, and it is unnecessary to deal
+with it in detail. More and more light was thrown on totemism, marriage
+regulations, and intermarrying classes by the persistent efforts of Mr
+Howitt, by Dr Frazer's little work on Totemism, and by other students,
+until it seemed that the main features of Australian social organisation
+had been clearly established, when in 1898 the researches of Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen seemed to do much to overthrow all recognised
+principles, so far as the totemic regulation of marriage was concerned.
+How far this is actually the case it is unnecessary to consider here. It
+may be said however that the work of these two investigators and the
+enquiries of Dr Roth in North Queensland make it more than ever a matter
+for regret that the British Empire, the greatest colonial power that the
+world has ever seen, will not afford the few thousand pounds needed to
+put such researches on a firm basis.
+
+Having defined the various terms, and shown the actual working of the
+system by the aid of the best known example, we may now pass, after this
+brief historical sketch of the development of our knowledge, to the task
+of giving the broad outlines of the phratry and class organisations.
+
+If our knowledge of Australian phratries and classes is far from
+exhaustive, we have at any rate a fair knowledge of the distribution of
+the various types whose existence is generally recognised; that is to
+say, we can delimit the greater part of the continent according to
+whether the tribes show two phratries only, or two phratries, which may
+be anonymous, with the further subdivision into four classes, or into
+eight classes. We also know approximately the limits of the matrilineal
+and patrilineal systems. New South Wales, Victoria, the southern portion
+of Queensland and Northern Territory, the eastern part of South
+Australia, and the coastal regions of West Australia, are now known
+with more or less accuracy from the point of view of kinship
+organisations. On the other hand, from the Cape York Peninsula, and the
+part of Northern Territory north of Lat. 15 deg., we have little if any
+information. The south coast and its hinterland from 135 deg. westwards, as
+far as King George's Sound, is virtually a terra incognita; in fact
+beyond the south-western corner and the fringe which lies along the
+coast we know little of the West Australian blacks, and the frontiers
+between the various systems must in these areas be regarded as purely
+provisional.
+
+Broadly speaking, the tribes of the whole of the known area of
+Australia, certain coast regions of comparatively small extent excepted,
+have a dichotomous kinship organisation. The accompanying map (Map II)
+shows how the various forms are distributed. Along most of the south
+coast, and up a belt broken perhaps in the northern portion, running
+through the centre of the continent in Lat. 137 deg., are found two
+phratries without intermarrying classes; for the area west of Lat. 130 deg.
+we have, it is true, only one datum, which gives no information as to
+the area to which it applies; this portion of the field therefore is
+assigned only provisionally to the two-phratry system. On the Bloomfield
+River, which runs into Weary Bay, associated with the name of Captain
+Cook, is an isolated two-phratry organisation, unless indeed we may
+assume that the class names have either been overlooked or have passed
+out of use.
+
+The four-class system extends over the greater part of New South Wales,
+and Queensland; a narrow belt runs through the north of South Australia
+and broadens till it embraces the whole coastline of West Australia, the
+north-eastern area excluded. An isolated four-class system, which does
+not regulate marriage, is found in the Yorke Peninsula of South
+Australia.
+
+The eight-class system forms a compact mass, between the Gulf of
+Carpentaria and Roebuck Bay, extending south as far as Lat. 25 deg. in the
+centre of Australia.
+
+In reality the rule of the eight-class system extends considerably
+further south, but the classes are nameless or altogether non-existent.
+Thus, the southern Arunta have nominally four classes, but each of these
+has two sections, so that the final result is as though they were an
+eight-class tribe. In the same way the marriage regulations of the
+two-phratry Dieri are such that choice is limited among them precisely
+as it would be if they had eight classes. The same may be true of the
+remainder of the western branch of the four-class system, which is
+closely allied in name to the Arunta type; the boundary between the
+related sets of names is unknown.
+
+Among the Narrinyeri and the Yuin the kinship organisation, which is
+confined to totemic groups, takes a local form; here the regulation of
+marriage depends on considerations of the residence of the pair. Local
+exogamy also prevails among the unorganised Kurnai. The Chepara appear
+to have had no organisation, and among the Narrangga ties of
+consanguinity constituted the sole bar to marriage. We are not however
+concerned with the problems presented by these aberrant types of
+organisation, to which no further reference is made in the present work.
+
+The area covered by the dichotomous organisations is divided almost
+equally between matrilineal and patrilineal tribes. The latter occupy
+the region north of Lat. 30 deg. and west of an irregular line running from
+Long. 137 deg. to 140 deg. or thereabouts. In addition a portion of Victoria and
+the region west of Brisbane form isolated patrilineal groups. The
+problem presented by these anomalous areas has already been discussed in
+the chapter on the Rule of Descent. Where local exogamy is the rule,
+kinship is also virtually patrilineal.
+
+In the remainder of Australia, non-organised tribes of course excepted,
+the rule of descent is matrilineal, save that in North Queensland a
+small tribe on the Annan River prefers paternal descent. The
+accompanying map shows the distribution of the two forms.
+
+[Illustration: MAP I. RULE OF DESCENT.]
+
+[Illustration: MAP II. CLASS ORGANISATIONS.]
+
+[Illustration: MAP III. PHRATRY ORGANISATIONS.]
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[37] Save in the Anula and Mara tribes.
+
+[38] Vol. II.
+
+[39] Vol. I, p. 38.
+
+[40] _Vocabulary_, _s.v._ Kararu.
+
+[41] Grey, _Journals_, II, 228.
+
+[42] _Descriptive Vocabulary_, p. 3 etc.; _Colonial Mag._ V, 222.
+
+[43] _Australian Reminiscences_, p. 212.
+
+[44] Bunce, _23 Years Wanderings_, p. 116.
+
+[45] _J.R.G.S._ IV, 171, p. 88, _Narrative of a Voyage round the World_
+p. 88.
+
+[46] _Discoveries_ (1846), I, 393; cf. _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 64.
+
+[47] Cf. the local groups of the Yuin, the Wiradjeri and other tribes,
+Howitt, _passim_.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV.
+
+TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.
+
+
+In order to facilitate reference and to diminish the necessity for
+footnotes a survey of classes and phratries is here given. It will be
+well to explain how they are arranged.
+
+In the two-phratry system the rule of intermarriage is clear; a man of
+phratry _A_ marries a woman of phratry _B_ and _vice versa_. The direct
+descent of the kinship name is obviously the rule.
+
+The four classes are arranged according to the phratries; the normal
+rule is that a man _A1_ marries _B1_, _A2_ marries _B2_; their children
+are in matrilineal tribes _A2_ and _B2_, in patrilineal _B2_ and _A2_.
+In the patrilineal Mara and Anula, by exception, the rule of descent is
+direct; it will be remembered that a dichotomy of the classes prevails,
+so that they really belong to the eight-class system.
+
+In the eight-class system and among the nominally four-class southern
+Arunta the intermarriage and descent is as follows, according to Spencer
+and Gillen;
+
+ _A1_ _B1_
+ ------ = _A4_, ------ = _B3_,
+ _B1_ _A1_
+
+ _A_2 _B2_
+ ------ = _A3_, ------ = _B4_,
+ _B2_ _A2_
+
+ _A3_ _B3_
+ ------ = _A2_, ------ = _B1_,
+ _B3_ _A3_
+
+ _A4_ _B4_
+ ------ = _B4_, ------ = _B2_.
+ _B4_ _A4_
+
+In each case the male is the numerator, the woman the denominator, and
+the = shows the child.
+
+Tribes with conterminous territories usually know what phratries and
+classes are equivalent in their systems. In the tables which follow the
+phratries and the classes of matrilineal tribes are arranged to show
+this correspondence so far as it is known. A * shows that no information
+on the point is to hand. A rearrangement of patrilineal classes is
+necessary to make them equivalent to the organisations of matrilineal
+tribes; this cannot be shown in the tables; but full details will be
+found in the works of Spencer and Gillen. A [+] indicates patrilineal
+descent.
+
+Where the names of phratries and classes are translated, the meanings
+are shown in the tables; where the authorities do not give the
+translation but a word of the same form is in use in the tribe or group
+of tribes the meanings are given in round brackets; words in use in
+neighbouring tribes are put in square brackets.
+
+
+TABLE I.
+
+_The Class Names._
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_ _Meaning_
+ I. Muri (Bya)[48] Matha (Red kangaroo)
+ Kubi Kubitha (Opossum)
+ Kumbo (W[=o]mbee)[49] Butha
+ Ipai Ipatha (Eaglehawk)
+
+These class names are found in the following tribes:
+
+Kamilaroi (Howitt, p. 107); Wiradjeri (_ib._ 107); Wonghi (_ib._ 108);
+Euahlayi (Mrs L. Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 13); Ngeumba (Mathews in
+_Eth. Notes_, p. 5); Murawari (_id._ in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, 1906, 55);
+Moree (_R.G.S. Qu._ X, 20); Turribul (_R.S. Vict._ I, 102); Wollaroi
+(Howitt, 109); on Narran R. (Curr, I, 117); Pikumbul (_ib._); Unghi
+(Howitt, 217); Peechera (Curr, III, 271); Wailwun (_ib._ I, 116);
+Wonnaruah (_Sci. Man_, I, 180); Geawegal (Howitt, 266).
+
+Associated with these class names are the following phratry names:
+
+(_a_) Kamilaroi, etc. Dilbi Kupathin
+(_b_) Wiradjeri to N. of Budthurung Mukula
+ Lachlan
+(_c_) Wonghibon Ngielbumurra Mukumurra (Howitt)
+(_d_) " & Ngeumba {Ngumbun Ngurrawan (Mathews)
+ {Numbun
+(_e_) Euahlayi Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen
+(_f_) Murawari Girrana Merugulli
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_
+ II. Kurbo Kooran
+ Marro Kurgan
+ Wombo Wirrikin
+ Wirro Wongan
+
+The proper arrangement of these names is unknown.
+
+_Tribe_: Kombinegherry (_J.A.I._ XIII, 304; Howitt, 105).
+
+_Science of Man_ (IV, 8) gives:
+
+ Carribo Gooroona
+ Maroongah Carrigan
+ Womboongah Werrican
+ Weiro Warganbah
+
+For the Anaywan, Thangatty, etc., R.H. Mathews gives (_J.R.S.N.S.W._
+XXXI, 169):
+
+ Irpoong Matyang
+ Marroong Arrakan
+ Imboong Irrakadena
+ Irroong Palyang
+
+ _Class name (Fem. termination, -an or -gan)_ _Meaning_
+III[+][50]. Parang (Moroon) (Black wallaby. Emu)
+ Bunda [Kangaroo]
+ Balgoin (Banjoor, (Red wallaby. Native
+ Pandur) bear)
+ Theirwain (Kangaroo)
+
+_Tribes_: Maryborough tribes (Howitt, 117); Kabi (Curr, III, 163):
+Kiabara (_J.A.I._ XIII, 305); ? (Hodgson, 212; Mathew, _Eaglehawk_,
+100); Wide Bay (Curr, I, 117).
+
+For the Emon, Howitt (p. 109) gives:
+
+ Barah
+ Bondan
+ Bondurr
+ Taran
+
+With these classes are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) The Maryborough tribes Dilbi Kupathin.
+ and the Kiabara
+(_b_) Dippil Deeajee Karpeun
+
+are the forms given by Mathews (_Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXVIII, 329).
+
+ _Class names (Fem. termination, -an)_ _Meaning_
+ IV. Karilbura Barrimundi
+ Munal Hawk
+ Kurpal Good water
+ Kuialla (Koodala) Iguana
+
+_Tribes_: Kuinmurbura (_J.A.I._ XIII, 341; Howitt, 111). The Taroombul
+have the form Koodala (_Proc. R.S. Qu._ XIII, 41).
+
+For the Kangulu, Mathews (_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 111) gives:
+
+ Banniar[51]
+ Banjoor
+ Koorpal
+ Kearra
+
+With these may be compared Howitt's (p. 111):
+
+ Kairawa
+ Bunjur
+ Bunya
+ Jarbain (? Tarbain)
+
+The phratries associated with these are:
+
+ _Tribe_
+(_a_) Kuinmurbura Witteru Yungaru
+(_b_) Kangulu Wutthuru Yungnuru
+
+ _Class names_ _Fem. termination_ _Meaning_
+ V. Wongo
+ Kubaru (Ubur, Obu) -an (Gidea tree)
+ Bunburi (Anbeir, Unburri,
+ Bunbai)
+ Koorgilla (Urgilla)
+
+_Tribes_: Ungorri (Howitt, 109); Kogai (Curr, I, 117; _J.A.I._ XIII,
+337); Yuipera etc. (Curr, III, 45, 64; _J.A.I._ XIII, 302); Akulbura,
+Bathalibura (Howitt, 113, 141); Wakelbura (Howitt, 112); on Belyando
+(Curr, III, 26); Dalebura (Howitt, 113), Buntamurra (Howitt, 113, 226);
+Purgoma (Roth, 66); Jouon (_ib._ 67); Pitta-Pitta, Goa, Miorli (Roth,
+56-7); Ringa-Ringa (_J.A.I._ XIII, 337); Mittakoodi (Roth, 56-7);
+Woonamurra (_ib._); Yerunthully (Mathews in _R.G.S. Qu._ X, 30); Badieri
+(_id. ib._ 1905, 55).
+
+With these class names are associated the phratries
+
+(_a_) Kogai, Wakelbura etc. Wuthera Mallera
+(_b_) Yuipera, Bathalibura Wootaroo Yungaroo
+(_c_) Purgoma Naka Tunna
+(_d_) Jouon Chepa Junna
+(_e_) Pitta-Pitta etc., Ootaroo Pakoota
+ Mittakoodi, Woonamura
+(_f_) Badieri Wootaroo Yungo
+
+Aberrant forms, probably inaccurate, are given by Curr (II, 424) for
+Halifax Bay: Korkoro, Korkeen, Wongo, Wotero; by Lumholtz (p. 199) for
+the Herbert R.: Gorilla, Gorgero, Gorgorilla, Otero, by Curr (II, 468)
+for the Yukkaburra: Utheroo, Multheroo, Yungaroo, Goorgilla.
+
+On the Tully R. Roth (_Ethn. Bull._ V, 20) found the following:
+
+ _Class names_
+ VI. Karavangi
+ Chikun
+ Kurongon
+ Kurkilla
+
+With these may be compared the names given by Mathews for the Warkeman
+(_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXII, 109, 251):
+
+ Karpungie
+ Cheekungie
+ Kellungie
+ Koopungie
+
+On the Annan R. we find (Howitt, 118) with male descent:
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ VII. Wandi Eaglehawk
+ Walar Bee
+ Jorro Bee
+ Kutchal Saltwater Eaglehawk
+
+With these are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Walar Murla
+
+VIII. Ranya (Arenia)
+ Rara (Arara)
+ Loora
+ Awunga (Arawongo)
+
+_Tribes_: Wollongurma (Roth, 68); Goothanto (Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._
+XXXIII, 109).
+
+Connected with these forms are:
+
+ _Class names_
+ Barry (Ahjereena)
+ Ararey (Arrenynung)
+ Jury [? Loory] (Perrynung)
+ Mungilly (Mahngal) [diamond snake][52]
+
+_Tribes_: Koogobathy (_J.A.I._ XIII, 303); Koonjan etc. (Mathews in
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 110, XXXIV, 135). Probably Perrynung and
+Ahjereenya should be transposed.
+
+ _Class names_ _Feminine_
+ IX. Jimmilingo Carburungo
+ Badingo Ngarrangungo
+ Maringo[53] Munjungo
+ Youingo (Kapoodungo) Goothamungo
+
+_Tribes_: Miappe (Roth, 56-7); Mycoolon (_J.A.I._ XIII, 302);
+Workoboongo (Roth, _ib._).
+
+For the Kalkadoon, Roth (_ib._) gives:
+
+ Kunggilungo
+ Patingo
+ Toonbeungo
+ Marinungo[53]
+
+With these are associated the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Kalkadoon Ootaroo Mullara
+(_b_) Miappe Woodaroo Pakutta
+
+ _Class names_
+ X. Murungun
+ Mumbali
+ Purdal
+ Kuial
+
+_Tribe_: Mara (_Northern Tribes_, 119).
+
+With these the phratry names:
+
+(_a_) Urku Ua
+
+In this tribe is male descent, and, as in the S. Arunta, the classes are
+themselves divided; for equivalence the numbers of the eight-class
+system are arranged (_Nor. Tr._ 123), 1, 4; 3, 2; 5, 7; 6, 8.
+
+Leichardt (_Journal_, 447) reports from the Roper R., Gnangball, Odall,
+Nurumball, which from their form seem to be class names and identifiable
+with some of the Mara names.
+
+ _Class names_
+ XI. Awukaria
+ Roumburia
+ Urtalia
+ Wialia
+
+_Tribe_: Anula (_Nor. Tr._ 119).
+
+XII. For the eight-class system see Table I a; in which it is assumed
+that patrilineal descent prevails in all the tribes.
+
+With these are associated the following phratries:
+
+(_a_) Umbaia, Gnanji Illitchi Liaritchi
+(_b_) Warramunga, Walpari, Uluuru Kingilli
+ Wulmala
+(_c_) Worgaia " Bimgaru
+(_d_) Bingongina Wiliuku Liaraku
+
+Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ pp. 100-102, 119. On p. 102 is a
+statement about the Bingongina inconsistent with that on the following
+page; according to the former the phratry names are Illitchi, Liaritchi,
+as among the Umbaia.
+
+ _Class names_
+XIII. Panunga
+ Bulthara
+ Purula
+ Kumara
+
+_Tribe_: S. Arunta (_Nat. Tr._ 90).
+
+XIII_a_. Deringara
+ Gubilla
+ Koomara
+ Belthara
+
+_Tribe_: Yoolanlanya etc. (_R.G.S. Qu._ XVI, 75).
+
+The arrangement suggests that matrilineal descent prevails, but there is
+probably some error.
+
+ _Class names_
+XIII_b_. Burong (Parungo)
+ Ballieri (Parajerri; Butcharrie)
+ Banaka (Boogarloo)
+ Kymerra (Kaiamba)
+
+_Tribes_: Gnamo, Gnalluma (_Int. Arch._ XVI, 12); Nickol Bay and
+Kimberley have the alternative forms of 1, 2, and 4 (Curr, I, 296;
+_Kamilaroi_, 36, Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXV, 220), Weedokarry (_id._
+in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89) have third form of 2; at Murchison
+R. Boorgarloo comes into use (_West Australian_, Ap. 7, 1906).
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ XIV. Tondarup (Namyungo) Fish hawk
+ Didaruk Sea
+ Ballaruk (Yangor) (Opossum)
+ Naganok (Fish)
+
+_Tribes_: S.W. Australia, Tarderick etc. (_West. Aust._, _loc. cit._;
+Moore, _Desc. Voc._, _Col. Mag._ V, 422.
+
+The phratries are
+
+(_a_) Wartungmat Munichmat
+
+The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Class names_
+ XV. Langenam
+ Namegor
+ Packwicky
+ Pamarung
+
+_Tribe_: Joongoongie of N. Queensland (Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._
+XXXIX, 93).
+
+Associated with them the phratries:
+
+(_a_) Jamagunda Gamanutta
+
+The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Class names_ _Meaning_
+ XVI. Kari Emu
+ Waui Red kangaroo
+ Wiltu Eaglehawk
+ Wilthuthu Shark
+
+_Tribe_: Narrangga of Yorke Peninsula (Howitt, p. 130).
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[48] The Darkinung have Bya for Muri (_J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 170).
+
+[49] Some of the Wiradjeri have W[=o]mbee for Kumbo (Gribble, 113).
+
+[50] Male descent.
+
+[51] Some of the names given by Howitt and Mathews seem to be identical
+with those of the Kiabara, but there is a difficulty about the
+arrangement, for Koorpal-Keeara=Yungnuru=Bunya-Jarbain; but Banniar,
+which seems to be the same as Bunya, falls in the other moiety.
+
+[52] Curr, II, 478.
+
+[53] Marinungo seems to be the same as Maringo but is not equivalent.
+
+
+TABLE I a: XII. CLASS NAMES OF EIGHT-CLASS TRIBES.
+
+ +---------------------+ +-------------------------------------------------+
+-|----------+----------|-+-|----------+-----------+------------+-------------|-+
+ Oolawunga | Bingongina | Umbaia[56] | Yookala | Binbinga |Gnanji[59] |
+ [54] etc. | [55] | | [57] etc. | [58] | |
+------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+---------------+
+ Janna | Thama } | Tjinum |Jinagoo |Tjuanaku |Uanuku |
+ _Nanakoo_ | Tchana} | _Ninum_ | |_Niriuma_ |_Nuanakurna_ |
+ | _Nana_ | | | | |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jimidya | Tjimita | Tjulum |Joolanjegoo|Tjulantjuka |Tjulantjuka |
+ _Namaja_ | _Namita_ | _Nulum_ | | _Nurlum_ |_Nurlanjukurna_|
+ | | | | | |
+ Dhalyeree | Thalirri | Paliarinji |Bullaranjee|Paliarinji |Paliarinji |
+ | _Nalirri_ | _Paliarina_| |_Paliarina_ |_Paliarina_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Dhongaree | Thungarie | Pungarinji |Bungaranjee|Pungarinji |Pungarinji |
+ | _Nungari_ |_Pungarinia_| |_Pungarina_ |_Pungarinia_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Joolama | Tjurla | Tjurulum |Jooralagoo |Tjurulum |Uralaku |
+ _Nowala_ | _Nala_ | _Nurulum_ | | _Nurulum_ |_Nuralakurna_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jungalla | Thungalla | Thungallum |Jungalagoo |Thungallum |Thungallaku |
+ | _Nungalla_ | _Nungallum_| | _Nungallum_|_Nungallakurna_|
+ | | | | | |
+ Jeemara | Tjimara | Tjamerum |Jameragoo |Tjamerum |Tjameraku |
+ | _Nunalla_ |_Niameragun_| | _Niamerum_ |_Niamaku_ |
+ | | | | | |
+ Jambijana | Tjambitjina| Yakomari |Yukamurra |Yakomari |Yakomari |
+ _Nambean_ |_Nambitjina_| _Yakomarin_| |_Yakomarina_|_Yakomarina_ |
+------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+---------------+
+
+
+ +--------------------------------------+
+-|----------+--------------+------------|-+-------------+-----------------+
+ Worgaia[60]| Yangarella | Inchalachie | Yungmunnie | Tjingillie[64] |
+ | [61] | [62] | [63] | |
+------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+
+ Wairgu | Narrabalangie|{Narrabalangie| Unwannee | Thamininja |
+ | _Neonammer_ |{Warkie | _Imbannee_ | _Namininja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Blaingunjhu| Bolangie | Bolangie | Eemitch | Tjimininja |
+ | _Nolangmer_ | | _Immadena_ | _Truminginja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Biliarinthu| Bulleringie | Belyeringie | Uwallaree | Thalaringinja |
+ | _Nulyarammer_| | _Imballaree_| _Nalaringinja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ | | | | |
+ Pungarinju | Bongaringie | Beneringie | Uwungaree | Thungaringinta |
+ | _Nongarimmer_| | _Imbongaree_| _Namaringinta_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Warrithu | Burralangie |{Burralangie | Urwalla | Tjurulinginja |
+ | _Nurralammer_|{Narechie | _Imbawalla_ | _Nalinginja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Kingelunju | Kunuller | Kungilla | Yungalla | Thungallininja |
+ | _Nungalermer_| | _Inkagalla_ | _Nalangininja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Tjameramu | Kommerangie |{Kommerangie | Unmarra | Thamaringinja |
+ | _Nemurammer_ |{Boonongoona | _Inganmarra_| _Namaringinja_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Ikamaru | Yakomari |{Akamaroo | Tabachin | Tjapatjinginja |
+ | _Jumeyunyie_ |{Thimmermill | _Tabadenna_ | _Nambitjinginja_|
+------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+-----------------+
+
+
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+ {Ilpirra[65] |{Warramunga[66] | Meening[67] | Mayoo[68] | Koorangie |
+ {Arunta |{Walpari | | | [69] etc.|
+ {Kaitish |{Wulmala | | | |
+ {Iliaura | | | | |
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+ Panunga | Thapanunga | Chowan | Chinuma | Janna |
+ | _Napanunga_ | _Nowana_ | _Nanagoo_ | _Nanakoo_ |
+ | | | | |
+ Uknaria | Tjinguri | Choongoora | Choongoora | Jamada |
+ | _Namigili_ | _Nangili_ | _Narbeeta_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ {Bulthara | Tjapeltjeri | Chavalya | Chavalya | Dhalyeree |
+ {Kabidgi | _Naltjeri_ | _Nanajerry_ | _Nabajerry_| |
+ _Appitchana_ | | | | |
+ | | | | |
+ Appungerta | Thapungarti | Chowarding | Changary | Dhungaree |
+ | _Napungerta_ | _Nabungati_ | _Nhermana_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Purula | Tjupila | Chooara | Choolima | Joolam |
+ | _Naralu_ | _Nooara_ | _Naola_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Ungalla | Thungalla | Changally | Chungalla | Jungalla |
+ | _Nungalla_ | _Nangally_ | _Nungalla_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Kumara | Thakomara | Chagarra | Chapota | Jameram |
+ |_Nakomara_ | _Nagarra_ | _Nemira_ | |
+ | | | | |
+ Umbitchana | Tjambin | Chambeen | Chambijana | Jummiunga |
+ | _Nambin_ | _Nambeen_ | _Nambjana_ | |
+---------------+----------------+-------------+------------+-----------+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[54] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, X, 72.
+
+[55] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[56] _Ib._, 100, cf. _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIV, 121; XXXIX, 105.
+
+[57] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._, XXXVIII, 77.
+
+[58] _Northern Tribes_, 111.
+
+[59] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[60] _Northern Tribes_, 101.
+
+[61] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXII, 251.
+
+[62] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIII, 111.
+
+[63] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIV, 130.
+
+[64] _Northern Tribes_, 100; cf. _Am. Anth._, N.S. II, 495; _Proc.
+R.G.S. Qu._, XVI, 72, 73.
+
+[65] _Native Tribes_, 90; cf. _Proc. R.S. Vict._, N.S. X, 19;
+_T.R.S.S.A._, XIV, 224; _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXII, 72.
+
+[66] _Northern Tribes_, 100; cf. _J.A.I._, XVIII, 44; _J.R.S.N.S.W._,
+XXXII, 73.
+
+[67] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, XXXIII, 112; XXXV, 217.
+
+[68] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, XVI, 70.
+
+[69] Mathews in _Am. Phil. Soc._, XXXVIII, 78.
+
+
+TABLE II.
+
+_Phratry Names._
+
+ _Phratries_ _Meanings_ _Name of Tribe_
+ 1. [+]Waa(ng) Crow Wurunjerri[70]
+ Bunjil or Wrepil Eaglehawk
+ 2. Yuckembruk " Ngarrego[71]
+ Merung
+ 3. Umbe Crow Wolgal[72] etc.
+ Malian or Multa Eaglehawk
+ 4. Muquara " Berriait[73], Tatathi[74],
+ Kilpara Wathi-Wathi[74], Keramin[75],
+ Waimbio[76], Barkinji[77],
+ Milpulko[78], Wilya[78],
+ Itchumundi[79]
+ 5. Kumit (Gamutch, Black cockatoo
+ Kaputch, Kulitch)
+ Kroki (Krokitch, White cockatoo Booandik[80], Wotjoballuk[81],
+ Krokage) Gournditchmara[82] etc.
+
+The feminine terminations are -egor, -gurk or -jarr.
+
+For South-West Victoria Dawson (_Aborigines_, p. 26) gives two groups
+and an odd totem kin (?):
+
+ _Phratries_ _Meaning_ _Name of Tribe_
+
+ 6. Kuurokeetch Longbilled cockatoo
+ Kartpoerappa Pelican
+ Kappatch Banksia cockatoo
+ Kirtuuk Boa snake
+ Kuunamit Quail
+ 7. Kararu (Kiraru, Dieri[83], Parnkalla & Nauo[84],
+ Kararawa) Yandairunga[85], Urabunna[86]
+ Matteri
+ 8. Tinewa Yandrawontha, Yowerawarika[87]
+ Koolpuru (? Emu)
+ 9. Yungo (? Kangaroo)
+ Mattera Kurnandaburi[88]
+10. Kookoojeeba
+ Koocheebinga Geebera[89]
+
+The equivalence is not known.
+
+11. Koorabunna
+ Kooragula Goonganji[90]
+
+ _Phratry_
+
+12. Darboo* Bloomfield River[91]
+ Tooar
+
+*The equivalence is unknown.
+
+ _Phratry names._ _Four-class system_ _Meaning_
+20. Dilbi Kupathin Ia, IIIa[+]
+21. Budthurung(1) Mukula Ib (1)=black duck
+22. Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen Ie Light blood; dark blood
+23. Ngielbumurra Mukumurra Ic
+24. Ngumbun Ngurrawan Id
+25. Girana Merugulli If
+26. Deeajee Karpeun IIIb
+27. Witteru Yungaru IVa, b; Vb (? Kangaroo; ? emu)
+27_a_. " Yungo Vf
+28. " Mallera Va, IXa
+29. " Pakoota Ve, IXb
+30. Naka Tunna Vc
+31. Walar Murla* VIIa Bee; bee
+32. Cheepa Junna Vd
+33. Jamagunda Gamanutta* XIa
+34. Wartungmat Munichmat* XIVa Crow; white cockatoo
+
+ _Eight-class system_[+]
+40. Illitchi Liaritchi XIIa
+41. Uluuru Biingaru XIIc (? Curlew)
+42. " Kingilli XIIb (? Curlew)
+43. Wiliuku Liaraku XIId
+44. Urku Ua Xa
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[70] Howitt, p. 126.
+
+[71] _Id._ p. 101.
+
+[72] _Id._ p. 102, Lang, _Secret_, p. 163.
+
+[73] Curr, II, 165.
+
+[74] _J.A.I._ XIII, 338; Howitt, p. 195.
+
+[75] _J.A.I._ XIV, 349.
+
+[76] Taplin, p. 17; Howitt, p. 100.
+
+[77] _J.A.I._ XIV, 348; Curr, II, 188, 195.
+
+[78] Howitt, p. 98.
+
+[79] _Id._ p. 106 n. For the Kurnai, Bunjil and Ngarregal were perhaps
+phratry names (Howitt, p. 135).
+
+[80] Curr, III, 461; Howitt, p. 123.
+
+[81] _Id._ p. 121.
+
+[82] _Id._ p. 124.
+
+[83] Howitt, p. 91.
+
+[84] Woods, p. 222.
+
+[85] Howitt, p. 187.
+
+[86] _Nor. Tr._ p. 60.
+
+[87] Howitt, p. 97.
+
+[88] Howitt, p. 92; Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIII, 108.
+
+[89] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 187.
+
+[90] _Sci. Man_, I. 84; Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89; in
+_J.R.S.N.S.W._ he reports a third name in certain
+districts--Koorameenya.
+
+[91] Mathews in _Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._ XXXIX, 89.
+
+
+TABLE III.
+
+Allusion has been made in Chapter III to kinship organisations
+denominated "bloods" and "shades" by Mr R.H. Mathews. Whether it is that
+some observers have mistaken these for phratries or _vice versa_, it
+seems that the names of the two classes of organisation are at present
+inextricably intermingled, as the following table shows:
+
+ _Tribe_ _Phratry_ _Blood_ _Meaning_
+Itchmundi[92] Kilpara-Muquara {Mukulo-Ngielpuru [+]Sluggish and
+ " {Muggula-Ngipuru[+] swift blood
+Wiradjeri[93] Mukula-Budthurung
+Wonghibon[94] Mukumura-Ngiel-
+ bumura
+Wonghi- }[95]
+ bon and } Ngumbun- Gwaigullimba- [++]Swift and sluggish
+ Ngneumba} Ngurrawan Gwaimudhan[++] blood
+Euahlayi[96] Gwaigullean- Light and dark
+ Gwaimudthen blooded
+Murawari[97] Girrana-Merugulli Muggulu-BumbirraSec. Sec.Sluggish and
+ swift blood
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[92] Howitt, p. 106 n.; Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXIX, 118.
+
+[93] _Id._ p. 107.
+
+[94] _Id._ p. 108.
+
+
+TABLE IV.
+
+The areas covered by the different class and phratry names are not
+co-extensive, that is to say a class is associated with more than one
+phratry and _vice versa_. The Undekerebina[98] and Yelyuyendi[99] have
+phratries (No. 29) which are usually associated with classes but in
+their case none have been noted. On the other hand it is not uncommon to
+find classes without the corresponding phratry names; this is the case
+in the eight class area, among the tribes of N.S. Wales, S. Queensland,
+etc.; but no special significance attaches to it unless we are certain
+that it is not the negligence of the observer nor the disuse of the
+names which has produced this state of things. On the other hand the
+relation of phratry and class areas is of the highest importance, as is
+shown in Chapter V. The following table shows the anomalies:
+
+ _Tribe_ _Phratry_ _Class_
+Wiradjeri 21 I
+Euahlayi 22 I
+Ngeumba, Wonghi 23, or 24 I
+Murawari 25 I
+Kiabara, etc. 20 III
+Dippil 26 III
+Kuinmurbura, Kongulu 27 IV
+Yuipera, Badieri, Yambeena, etc. 27 V
+Kogai, Wakelbura, etc. 28 V
+Woonamura, Mittakoodi, Miorli, etc. 29 V
+Purgoma 30 V
+Jouon 32 V
+Miappe 29 VIII
+Kalkadoon 28 VIII
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[95] Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._ xxxix, 116. _Eth. Notes_, p. 5.
+
+[96] Mrs Langloh Parker, _Euahlayi Tribe_, p. 11.
+
+[97] Mathews in _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._, 1905, 52.
+
+[98] Rota, p. 56.
+
+[99] Howitt, p. 192.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V.
+
+PHRATRY NAMES.
+
+The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
+ Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts.
+ Intercommunication. Tribal Migrations.
+
+
+It has been shown in Chapter III that from the point of view of kinship
+organisations Australia falls into three main areas--occupied by the
+classless two-phratry, the four-class and the eight-class organisations.
+The total number of phratry names, thirty-three pairs in all, does not
+of course fall solely to the count of the two-phratry tribes, but is
+divided between the three kinds of organisation, the two-phratry having
+twelve pairs with one anomalous area, the four-class sixteen, and the
+eight-class five such sets. As regards the relative size of the areas
+thus organised, the largest seems to be that occupied by the
+Matteri-Kiraru system, though the Muquara-Kilpara (5) probably runs it
+close, especially if we take into account the names of like meaning
+(1-4) in the East Victorian area. The remainder of the two-phratry
+systems do not range over a wide extent of country, so far as is known;
+but 10, 11, and 33 are of unknown extent.
+
+In the four-class area are two extensive systems, ranking next after
+those of South Australia and N.S. Wales; these are Mallera-Wuthera (27)
+and Pakoota-Wootaro (29); they have a single phratry name in common,
+which is also found in two other systems; if we add these together, as
+we may perhaps do on this evidence of a common basis, we have by far the
+largest phratric system in Australia as the result. Almost equal in
+extent to either of the two areas occupied by 27 and 29 is that claimed
+by the better known Kamilaroi system--Dilbi-Kupathin, which spreads over
+a long, comparatively narrow region, but had possibly at one time a
+wider field from which at the present time only the corresponding class
+names can be recovered. Of the remaining thirteen in the two-class
+region, only 28, one of the Wuthera systems already mentioned, has more
+than a restricted field of influence. Of moderate size are the four
+areas in the eight-class system proper, that of the Mara being small in
+comparison.
+
+Taking now the native names, we find that, in addition to the Wuthera
+(Ootaroo) sets already mentioned, the Dieri and Kurnandaburi have
+Matteri (Mattera) in common, while the latter have in the Baddieri tribe
+a neighbour which shares the Yungo phratry name with them. The fact, if
+correct, that with the Badieri Yungo is associated with Wutheru, and
+takes the place of the more usual Yungaru, suggests that we may equate
+the latter with Yungo. In the eight-class area Uluuru is common to two
+systems, while a third has Wiliuku, and the fourth Illitchi, all of
+which seem to be allied, if we may take it that uru, uku, and tchi are
+suffixes; that they are is borne out by the corresponding names
+Liaritchi and Liaraku. Other possible equations are Mukula--Mukumurra,
+and Cheepa--Koocheebinga, but in the latter case, even if koo is a
+prefix, the distance of the two systems makes any such correspondence
+improbable. In Victoria the Malian-Multa equation is indisputable; it is
+interesting to note that the former is found in N.S. Wales as the name
+of the bird, while Multa belongs to Yorke Peninsula.
+
+As regards the meaning of these names, we find that of the fifty-eight
+names which remain after deducting those which occur in more than one
+system, nineteen can be translated with certainty, and we can guess at
+the meaning of some half dozen more. Of translateable names the most
+widely spread are various titles of Eaglehawk and Crow, which appear in
+five different systems in Victoria and New South Wales[100]. Crow
+reappears in West Australia under the name of Wartung, with white
+cockatoo, also a Victorian phratry name, as its fellow. In North
+Queensland, as a parallel to the black and white cockatoo of the south,
+we find on the Annan River two species of bee giving their names to
+phratries; and the Black Duck phratry of the Waradjeri suggests that
+here too might be found another contrasting pair, if we could translate
+the other name. For the Euahlayi phratry names, on which more will be
+said in discussing the "blood" organisations, Mrs Parker gives the
+translation "Light-blooded" and "Dark-blooded," which comes near that
+suggested by Mr Mathews--slow and quick blooded. In the Ulu, Illi, and
+Wili of Northern Territory we seem to recognise Welu (curlew). Koolpuru
+(emu), Yungaru and Yungo (kangaroo), and Wutheroo (emu) are also
+possible meanings.
+
+The problems raised by the phratriac nomenclature are complex and
+probably insoluble. They are in part bound up with the problem of the
+origin of the organisation itself; of this nature, for example, is the
+question whether the names correspond to anything existing in the
+pre-phratriac stage, or whether the organisation was borrowed and the
+names taken over translated or untranslated into the idiom of the
+borrowers. If the latter be the solution, we have a simple explanation
+of the wide-spread Eaglehawk-Crow system as well as of other facts, to
+which reference is made below.
+
+If on the other hand the names have not been much spread by
+borrowing,--and the increasing number of small phratry areas known to us
+tells in favour of this, though it also suggests that the widely-found
+systems have gained ground at the expense of their neighbours,--then we
+obviously need some theory as to the origin of the organisation, before
+we can frame any hypothesis as to the origin of the names.
+
+The prominent part, however, played by the Eaglehawk among phratry names
+raises some questions which can be discussed on their merits. One of
+these is the age of phratry names. Some of the earliest records of
+initiation ceremonies in New South Wales mention that the eaglehawk
+figured in them[101]. In West Australia this bird is the demiurge, and
+the progenitors of the phratries, of which crow is one, are his nephews.
+This is not the only case in which these birds figure in mythology.
+
+As the Rev. John Mathew has pointed out in his work, _Eaglehawk and
+Crow_, there are found in Australia, especially in the south-eastern
+portion, a number of myths relating to the conflicts of these birds.
+These myths he interprets as echoes of a long-past conflict between the
+aboriginal Negrito race and the invading Papuans, and traces the origin
+of the phratries to the same racial strife. As an explanation of exogamy
+the hypothesis is clearly insufficient, but it is evident that no theory
+of the origin of the phratries can leave exogamy out of the question.
+The point, however, with which we are immediately concerned is the myth
+on which in the main Mr Mathew based his theory. Unfortunately, he did
+not think it necessary to attempt to define either the area covered by
+the different phratry names--an omission which is remedied by the
+present work--nor yet the limits within which the myth in question or
+its analogues are part of the native mythology. These analogues to the
+story of the battle of Eaglehawk and Crow, ended in the Darling area
+according to tradition by a treaty between the contending birds, are
+myths in which birds are said to have destroyed the human race, or a
+large portion of it, to have contended with Baiame, or one of the other
+gods, or to have figured in some other conflict[102]. The bird of this
+myth--the bird conflict myth, as it may be termed--is the Eaglehawk.
+Possibly, as I have pointed out in the note in _Man_, both bird conflict
+myths and Eaglehawk-Crow myths--they may be termed collectively bird
+myths--may go back to a common origin. So far as Mr Mathew's evidence
+goes, bird myths do not seem to be told outside the colony of Victoria
+and the Darling area of New South Wales.
+
+A little research, however, shows that this idea is altogether
+erroneous. There are unfortunately large areas in Australia, as to the
+mythology of which we know absolutely nothing. Therefore it must not be
+supposed that the bird conflict myth is confined to the districts in
+which we have evidence of its existence. We may rather infer that a myth
+so widely distributed--it ranges from the head of the Bight, 129 deg. E., to
+the coast north of Sydney, and probably as far as Moreton Bay; to the
+north it is found among the Urabunna, and probably elsewhere--is common
+property of the Australian Tribes.
+
+A glance at the map will show that the eaglehawk and crow myth covers
+but a small portion of the area in which the bird conflict myth is
+found. On the other hand we find within the eaglehawk-crow myth district
+the phratry names Cockatoo, three names of unknown meaning, and the
+doubtful Kiraru--Kirarawa. Now if a racial conflict is indicated by the
+names eaglehawk and crow, this must be either because the contending
+races were already known by these names, or because the two birds in
+question are proverbially hostile to each other. In either case we are
+left without any explanation of the two cockatoo phratries. It may
+indeed be argued that the locality in which the eaglehawk-crow phratry
+names are found tells strongly in favour of the racial conflict
+hypothesis; for it is precisely in this area that the last stand of the
+aborigines against the invaders may, on the theory put forward by Mr
+Mathew and accepted by some anthropologists[103], be supposed to have
+taken place. But against this must be set the fact that in this area
+also we find two cockatoos, and on the Annan River two bees, arrayed
+against one another; unless it can be shown that these two birds are
+also proverbial foes, or that the Australian native had reached a point
+in his biological investigations at which he recognised that the
+presence of two closely allied species in a district involves a
+particularly keen struggle for existence (which they would, however,
+regard in such an advanced stage of knowledge as appropriate to the
+designation of intra-racial rather than inter-racial feuds), the two
+sets of facts balance one another, and leave us still engaged in a vain
+quest for a conclusion.
+
+Putting theories as to racial conflicts aside, and dealing with the
+facts as we find them, we seem to have a choice of two hypotheses.
+Either the eaglehawk-crow myths were told before the phratry names came
+into existence, or they were invented to explain the existence of the
+phratry names. Let us assume that none of the unknown names mean
+eaglehawk or crow, and that the eaglehawk-crow area has remained
+approximately the same size, or has, at any rate, not diminished
+(excluding, of course, those cases where it seems to have lost ground
+owing to the disappearance of phratry names altogether, as among the
+Kurnai); we must then, on the second theory, assume that the story of
+the combat spread to tribes with completely different phratry names like
+the Urabunna, and got mixed up with their ceremonies of initiation (the
+most sacred part of the mythology of the Australian natives, and one not
+likely to be much influenced by chance intruders); and that it came even
+in some cases to be told of Baiame, the creator and institutor of the
+rites of initiation, who is represented as himself taking part in the
+conflict and gaining a victory over the foes of mankind[104]. On the
+whole, therefore, this view of the case appears improbable.
+
+To the theory that the Eaglehawk-Crow story was originally independent
+of the phratry names no such objections apply. We are indefinitely
+remote from the period at which the anthropologist will be able to do
+for Australia what Franz Boas has done for the North-West of
+America--draw up a table showing the resemblances and differences
+between the stock of folktales of the different tribes, or, which is
+more important for our present purpose, of the main divisions, eastern,
+central, and western, which the analysis of initiation ceremonies gives
+us--a tripartite division which Curr also makes on the linguistic side,
+though Mathew's map shows considerable intermixture in this respect.
+Until we know to what extent the Urabunna or the Ikula have folktales in
+common with the Victorian area, or,--which is perhaps more important,
+though we do not seem to hear of any communication on this line,--how
+far there is a stock of folktales common to the Darling district and the
+central area, it is obviously idle to speculate as to how it comes that
+an Eaglehawk myth is told in both areas. The physical anthropology of
+the Australian natives is at present a little-worked field, in which,
+singularly enough, the French have done more than the English, to our
+shame be it said. Possibly a somatological survey might disclose to what
+extent the central tribes are distinct from the eastern group, and how
+far we may assume movements of population, subsequent to the original
+peopling of the country by the stocks in question, in either or both
+directions. In the absence of such data, and until an Australian Grimm
+has arisen to bring order into the present linguistic chaos, the
+evidence from folktales seems to promise most light on the question of
+migrations.
+
+We are, of course, confronted by the difficulty that this evidence may
+simply disclose the lines along which tribal intercommunication has been
+most easy, whether in the way of simple interchange of commodities,
+evidence of which we have over considerable areas in Australia, or in
+the way of intermarriage, which, as we see by the example of the
+Urabunna and the Arunta, is found in spite of fundamental differences of
+tribal organisation. A common stock of folktales due to this cause would
+leave unexplained the prominence of the bird myth in the sacred rites,
+and leave the present hypothesis, in this regard, on a par with that of
+post-phratriac dissemination, in respect of probability. On the other
+hand we have the Scylla of tribal property in land, an idea so firmly
+rooted in our own day in the minds of the Australians as to make wars of
+conquest unthinkable to them, and to transform the practical part of
+their intertribal feuds into mere raids. If, therefore, investigation
+showed that the central and eastern tribes are in possession of a stock
+of folktales with many items in common, we should always have to take
+into consideration the possibility that these tales antedate the
+complete occupation of Australia, and go back to a period when the
+eastern and central divisions were in close relation. The probability of
+this view would, of course, depend on the extent of the resemblance
+between the two stocks of tales, or, perhaps, rather on the extent of
+the resemblance between those tales which they have in common; for it is
+clear that a close resemblance between comparatively few items would be
+more effective proof of intercommunication than a less marked general
+resemblance between the tale-stocks as a whole.
+
+In spite of the deficiencies of our evidence we may perhaps incline to
+the view that the bird myth dates back to a very early period. Until it
+has been shown that intrusive elements are not only taken up into the
+tribal stock of tales, but also incorporated in the more sacred portion
+of those tales, which are told at the tribal mysteries, it will always
+remain more probable that the myth belongs to the two divisions as a
+result of lineal and not lateral transmission. If this is so the
+differences between the initiation ceremonies, no less than the
+anthropomorphic form of the myth in the eastern division, as compared
+with the purely theriomorphic story of the central division and the
+mixed form of the Ikula, will enable us to say that the period when the
+separation of the divisions took place must be very remote.
+
+There is, therefore, no inherent improbability in supposing that the
+bird myth was told before the phratry names were invented or adopted,
+and that the latter were in some cases taken from the principal
+characters in the myth. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
+the phratry names seem to be subsequent to the present grouping, if we
+may take as our guide the fact that the frontiers of the phratry names
+correspond with the boundaries between the central and eastern
+divisions. The fact that there is a cross division, if we base our
+reasoning on the class organisation, need not of course be taken into
+account, for we have every reason to believe that the classes are
+subsequent to the phratries.
+
+In favour of the derivation of the phratry names from the myth tells
+also the five-fold division of the eaglehawk-crow groups into Muquara
+and Kilpara, Bunjil and Waa, Merung and Yuckembruk, Multa or Malian and
+Umbe. For it is clearly more probable that the names should have been
+taken from a common object than that they should have been in their
+origin identical in form and subsequently differentiated, as the
+languages changed; we have in fact direct evidence of a tendency to
+preserve the old names, which we may perhaps regard as the sacred names,
+after the bird has been rebaptised in the terminology of daily life.
+Over and above this we have of course the fact that the sacred language
+has, generally speaking, both in Australia and elsewhere, this
+unchanging character. But this simple name-borrowing theory, it is
+clear, is equally valid as an explanation of the facts.
+
+Although we cannot determine the meaning of the names the quadripartite
+division of the Mallera-Wuthera[105] and allied phratries in the north is
+evidence of a similar tendency. It is by no means impossible that
+Mallera, Yungaroo, and Pakoota all mean the same thing. (This ignorance
+of the meaning of the phratry and class names is _prima facie_ evidence
+of their high antiquity.) In the newly-discovered phratry names of the
+eight-class tribes we have yet another instance of tripartite division.
+If we may assume that Illitchi, Uluuru, and Wiliuku are from the same
+root (which, as we have seen, is probably _welu_, the terminations
+_-uku_, _-itchi_, and _-uru_ (=_-aree_) being formative suffixes), we
+have here too a single phratry name on the one side and three sister
+names on the other. While it is clear that the names cannot be in any
+sense of the term recent, from the fact that linguistic differentiation
+had already gone some distance in what we may call, for want of a better
+term, groups speaking a stock language (in proof of which we have only
+to look at the formative suffixes), it seems equally clear that the
+present phratry names must be considerably later than the final
+settlement of the country. At the same time it must not be forgotten
+that the existence of numerous small phratries, the number of which may
+yet be largely increased by more exact research, is _prima facie_ a
+proof that the groups which adopted them had not reached the stage at
+which anything like that tribal (still less national) organisation was
+known, which is at the present day characteristic of the Arunta, and,
+perhaps, we may say, of all groups organised on a class system with
+class names known and used over an area far beyond that over which the
+(in a restricted sense) tribal language extends.
+
+The recurrence of crow in the phratry name of the far west lends further
+support to the view that the phratry names were selected in some way,
+and were not due to some accident of savage wit. The view has been taken
+that the phratry animals were originally totems, or animals that became
+totems at a later stage. In view of the large number of totems found in
+many tribes, or even restricting their number to six or eight in each
+phratry, it is not difficult to estimate the probability that cockatoo
+and crow would recur in different areas, and that an opposition of
+characters should be found in other cases. The hypothesis needs at any
+rate to be combined with a theory, firstly, of borrowing of phratry
+names, a process which must indeed have played a large part in the
+development of the present system, but which does not necessarily
+involve the supposition that the borrowed names replaced previously
+existing home-made names; and, secondly, of selection of such names as
+were not borrowed.
+
+It has been mentioned that the principle of tribal property in land or,
+to be strictly accurate, in hunting grounds, is, at the present day, a
+fundamental one in native Australian jurisprudence. But, as is shown by
+the map, in some cases the phratries are split into two or more
+segments[106], more or less remote from one another, geographically
+speaking. Now this apparent segmentation must be due to migration; it
+can hardly arise from the chance adoption of identical names; for the
+groups in which the names occur are, though separated by a considerable
+distance, not so remote as, on the theory of chance selection, we should
+expect them to be, in other words the probability is in favour of the
+segmentation of an original group or its cleavage by an intrusive
+element. Of the causes of this drift of population, which on a large
+scale, and under pressure of any kind, might well overrule even the
+rights of property, we have naturally no idea. In a homogeneous mass
+like the population of Australia, and especially in a mass whose level
+of culture is so low as to leave no remains behind which we could use
+for the purposes of chronology, it is hopeless to expect any solution of
+any of the problems connected with drift of population. One thing only
+seems clear, and on this point we may hope for some light from the data
+of philology, namely that the migration was long subsequent to the
+original _Volkerwanderung_; for this must have preceded the rise of
+phratry names, which again must have preceded the migration of which the
+segmentation of groups, evidenced by the names themselves, is at
+present, and in default of the aid of philology, our only proof.
+
+The migrations of which we are speaking must, if the possession of one
+phratry name in common be worth anything as evidence of a closer
+connection between the groups, have been internal to a group or, if the
+term be preferred, to a nation occupying the south of Queensland. For in
+the absence of evidence that phratry names are to be found outside their
+own linguistic groups, we cannot but infer from the quadripartite
+division of the Wuthera phratries both the linguistic unity (and
+language must be in Australia the ultimate test of racial relationship
+on a large scale) and the internal movements of the group in which they
+occur.
+
+In favour of the primitive unity of the Wuthera groups, is the fact that
+with small exceptions, and those on the outskirts of the district, the
+area occupied by the assumed homogeneous pre-phratry group has the same
+class names throughout--which is at the same time a proof that the class
+names are posterior to the phratry names; for the later the date, the
+more extensive the group, may be taken to be the rule in savage
+communities; if the phratry names came later than the class names we
+should expect them to be identical, and the class names different
+instead of the reverse. But to the relative age of classes and phratries
+we return at another point of our argument.
+
+The available data being few, it could hardly be expected that a
+discussion of them would be very fruitful. In the present chapter we
+have, however, shown that the phratry names and organisation are
+probably of very early date, that considerable movements of population
+took place within the linguistic groups subsequent to the adoption of
+the phratry names, and that these names have been selected for some
+explicit reason and not adopted at haphazard.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[100] For references, meanings, etc. see chap. IV.
+
+[101] See _Man_ 1905, no. 28.
+
+[102] Cf. _Man_, 1905, no. 28.
+
+[103] But see _J.R.S. Vict._ XVII, 120.
+
+[104] See _Man_, 1905, no. 28, where I show that in the Wellington
+Valley was current a myth of the conflict between Baiame and Mudgegong
+(=Eaglehawk).
+
+[105] Chap. IV, phratries, nos. 27-29.
+
+[106] See Map III, phratry no. 28.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.
+
+Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split groups.
+ The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory of
+ phratriac origin.
+
+
+If a pre-phratry organisation developed into the system as we find it,
+it is a little difficult to see how selection can have operated, unless,
+indeed, as Mr Lang suggests, the phratries are _transformed_ connubial
+groups, in which case they may have received new names. It is perhaps
+simpler to suppose that the cases of selection of phratry names cited
+above are those in which the organisation has been borrowed with full
+knowledge of its meaning. If this view is correct, no criticism of
+theories of the origin of phratries is possible from the point of view
+of the names actually existing, for we cannot say which, if any, are
+those which were evolved in the organisation which served as a model to
+the remainder.
+
+Broadly speaking the theories of origin at present in the field may be
+reduced to two: in the first place, the conscious reformation theory,
+which supposes that man discovered the evils of in-and-in breeding, a
+point on which some discussion will be found in a later portion of this
+work. In the second place, there is the unconscious evolution theory put
+forward by Mr Lang, whose criticism of the opposing view makes it
+unnecessary to deal with the objections here[107].
+
+Mr Lang's original theory took for its basis the hypothesis, put forward
+by the late Mr J.J. Atkinson, in _Primal Law_, of the origin of
+exogamy. His starting-point was mankind in the brute stage. At the point
+in the evolution of the human race at which Mr Atkinson takes up his
+tale, man, or rather Eoanthropos, was, according to his conjecture,
+organised, if that term can be applied to the grouping of the lower
+animals, in bodies consisting of one adult male, an attendant horde of
+adult females, including, probably, at any rate after a certain lapse of
+time, his own progeny, together with the immature offspring of both
+sexes. As the young males came to maturity, they would be expelled from
+the herd, as is actually the case with cattle and other mammals, by
+their sire, now become their foe. They probably wandered about, as do
+the young males of some existing species, in droves of a dozen or more,
+and at certain seasons of the year, one or more of them would, as they
+felt their powers mature, engage the lord of their own or of another
+herd in single combat, until with the lapse of time the latter either
+succumbed or was driven from the herd to end his days in solitary
+ferocity, his hand against everyone, just as we see the rogue elephant
+wage war indiscriminately on all who approach him.
+
+In process of time, so Mr Atkinson suggests, with the lengthening
+childhood conditioned by the progress of the race, maternal love of a
+more enduring kind developed, than is found among the non-human species
+of the present day. This led eventually to the presence of a young male,
+perhaps the youngest born of a given mother, being permitted to remain,
+on conditions, in the herd after he had attained maturity. The original
+lord and master of the herd retained, Mr Atkinson supposes, his full
+sovereignty over the females born in the herd as well as over those whom
+his prowess had perhaps added to it from time to time. The young male on
+the other hand was not condemned to a life of celibacy as a condition of
+his non-enforcement of the traditional decree of banishment. He was
+permitted to find a mate, but she must be a mate not born in the herd,
+nor one of the harem of his sire; he had, if he wished to wed, to
+capture a spouse for himself from another herd. For the detailed working
+out of this ingenious theory we must refer our readers to Mr Atkinson's
+work, _Primal Law_. Here it suffices to state the primal law which
+resulted from the process sketched above. This primal law was "thou
+shalt not marry within the group." This law, at first enforced by the
+superior strength of the sire, came in the process of time to be a
+traditional rule of conduct, almost an instinct. And with this we reach
+the theory put forward in _Social Origins_ by Mr Andrew Lang, according
+to which local groups received animal names, perhaps from their
+neighbours. These local groups being exogamous for the reason just
+given, and the group name being eventually[108] given, not only to the
+actual members of the group, but also to the women, captured or
+otherwise, who became the mates of the men of the adjoining groups, it
+necessarily resulted that the men of a group, so long as the mother's
+group name did not descend to her children, were of one name, while
+their wives were of another, or more probably of many other names. The
+group became definitely heterogeneous when the maternal group name
+descended to the children born in the alien group, and in process of
+time these maternal group names became totem names.
+
+Meanwhile the original group names had been retained and applied, along
+with the totem or quasi-totem names, to the members of the group; the
+name being probably, in the first place, that of the group in which they
+were born, but, with the rise of the matrilineal descent, which has been
+discussed above, eventually taken from the group to which the mother
+belonged.
+
+During these processes the custom had sprung up to select a wife, not at
+random from any of the probably more or less hostile surrounding groups,
+but from one particular group with which the group of the candidate for
+matrimony had in the course of time come to be on friendly terms.
+
+The names of these two groups, which drew in other smaller groups,
+became the phratry names of the newly-formed aggregate, the largest unit
+known to primitive society at that stage of its evolution, and
+corresponding roughly to what we have defined as a tribe; for it was
+united by bonds of friendship, and in the course of time the language,
+originally very different no doubt, how different we can, indeed, hardly
+say, must have so far coalesced, owing to the interchange of wives (in
+so far as a distinct woman's language, traces of which are found among
+some savage tribes, was not developed), as to produce a single tongue.
+
+This theory Mr Lang has now fortified and elaborated in _The Secret of
+the Totem_, the most important new point being the demonstration of the
+fact that totem kins which bear names of the same significance as the
+phratry names are almost invariably in the eponymous phratries--a clear
+proof that law and not chance has determined their position.
+
+As an explanation of the distribution of phratry names Mr Lang adopts a
+theory which combines the hypotheses of evolution and borrowing, and
+thus explains both the wide area covered by some systems, and the
+increasing multitude of organisations confined to small districts, which
+more minute research reveals. This does not, it is true, explain the
+geographical remoteness of different parts of the same system or of
+allied systems, shown to be so by the identity of phratry animal or
+name. Not only is Wuthera-Mallera split into two sections; but a portion
+of Wuthera-Yungaru seems to be in the same position; if we may take the
+Badieri Yungo as equivalent to Yungaru, dispersion alone suffices to
+explain the case; but if Yungo is derived from the Kurnandaburi, who
+have Mattera as the sister phratry, then we have the Badieri phratry
+names borrowed each from a different tribe, at any rate in appearance.
+
+In reality this state of things affords the strongest possible support
+to Mr Lang's hypothesis, if only we can suppose that the formation of
+tribes is subsequent to the elaboration of the phratriac system. For it
+might well happen that an original Yungo local group divided, from
+economic causes, but that each half retained its original name. Under
+these circumstances the two portions formed connubial alliances with
+other groups; and in the tribes as we see the names of these split
+groups are found as phratry names, combined in each case with a
+different sister phratry name. We find for example Wuthera-Yungo,
+Yungo-Mattera, Matteri-Kiraru in the central area. The same theory will
+explain the appearance of Wuthera beside three other sister names,
+though here we must call in the borrowing and migration theories as
+well, to explain the wide area over which the names are found. We have
+seen that in the northern tribes one of the phratry names appears to be
+in each case from the same root; if this is so, we can apply to them too
+the split-group hypothesis.
+
+The case of Eaglehawk-Crow is less simple. Separated from the Darling
+area by a considerable space lie four systems of the same name in the
+east of Victoria. Here it is hardly possible to assume that the latter
+systems have migrated; on the other hand the area covered by the Darling
+group suggests that it is unlikely to have been forced from its original
+home by pressure from outside. Perhaps it is simplest to suppose that
+the Wiradjeri have gradually forced their way in, wedge fashion, between
+the different sections, and either swallowed up the intervening members
+or driven them before them; this would account for the existence of the
+anomalous groups to the south-west.
+
+In this area, too, we seem to have a case of the split group; but the
+identity of meaning of the other phratry names (Malian and Multa both
+mean Eaglehawk) makes it clear that it is simply a case of
+translation--a possibility which must be kept in mind in the other cases
+also. It is a common phenomenon for two tribes to have the name of one
+animal in common, while for that of another entirely different words are
+in use. The four Victorian groups appear to have borrowed the phratry
+names, but the centre from which they took them must remain uncertain.
+
+It may be noted in passing that the view of Prof. Gregory, who holds
+that the occupation of Victoria by the blacks dates back no more than
+300 years, is hardly borne out by the distribution of the phratriac
+systems. It is clearly improbable that they were developed _in situ_,
+for this would make the organisation of very much more recent date than
+we have any warrant for supposing. On the other hand it is improbable
+that four tribes, all with the same phratriac names, should have taken
+their course in the same direction, and settled in proximity to one
+another, at any rate, unless the natural features of the country made
+this course the only possible one.
+
+To return to Mr Lang's theory, it obviously suggests, if it does not
+demand, that such phratries as are spread over wide areas should in the
+main follow the lines of linguistic or cultural areas. Our knowledge of
+these is hardly sufficient to enable us to say at present how far the
+presumption of coincidence is fulfilled; but it is certain that in more
+than one large area the facts are as Mr Lang's theory requires them to
+be.
+
+On the other hand in New South Wales we find an area in which we fail to
+discern the lines on which the phratriac systems are distributed. Here,
+however, we are at a disadvantage in consequence of the uncertainty
+introduced by the unsettled question of "blood" organisations[109].
+Further research may show that the supposed phratriac areas, which are
+apparently only portions of the Wiradjeri territory, are in reality to
+be assigned to the "blood" organisations, which we may probably assign
+to a later date than the phratries and classes.
+
+Perhaps Mr Lang's theory hardly accounts for the fact that eaglehawk and
+crow figure not only as phratry names but also in the myths and rites.
+It is not apparent why eaglehawk and crow groups should take the lead
+and give their names to the phratries unless it was as contrasted
+colours; on the other hand, if they were selected as the names from
+among a number of others this difficulty vanishes, but then we do not
+see why these names are not more widely found, unless indeed the
+untranslated names mean eaglehawk and crow; but possibly all express a
+contrast of some sort.
+
+On the whole, however, it may be said that Mr Lang's theory holds the
+field. Not only is it internally consistent, which cannot be affirmed of
+the reformation theory, but it colligates the facts far better. This may
+be illustrated by a single point.
+
+On the reformation theory, unaccompanied, as it is, by any hypothesis of
+borrowing of phratry names, we should _prima facie_ find the latter,
+where they are translateable, to be those of the animals which are most
+frequently found as totems. Now in the area covered by Dr Howitt's
+recent work, omitting those tribes for which our lists of totems are
+admittedly not complete, we find that emu, kangaroo, snake, eaglehawk,
+and iguana are found as totems in about two-thirds of the cases; then,
+after a long interval, come wallaby and crow, less than half as often,
+with opossum rather more frequently, in half the total number. But it is
+clearly outside the bounds of probability that four of the commonest
+totems should not give their names, so far as is known, to phratries,
+while eaglehawk recurs five, crow six, and cockatoo three times, the two
+latter in one case in a remote area. Not only so, but the opposition
+between the phratry names--black and white or the like--is
+unintelligible, if, as on Dr Durkheim's theory, the phratries are simply
+the elementary totem groups which intermarried and threw off secondary
+totem kins. But criticism of other theories opens a wide field, into
+which it is best not to diverge.
+
+On the development theory the phratries came into existence perhaps as
+the result of the persistence of an old custom of exogamy, non-moral in
+its inception, or, it may be, as a result of the rise of totemic tabus.
+The reformation theory, on the other hand, makes the conscious
+attainment of a better state of society the object of the institution of
+a dichotomous organisation. It will therefore be well to see what
+results in practice from the phratriac organisation.
+
+In the two-phratry area (other rules, which usually exist, apart) it is
+impossible for children of the same mother or father, or of sisters or
+of brothers, to marry, nor can one of the parents, either mother or
+father, according to the rule of descent, take her or his own child in
+marriage. Now if the object of the reformation was to prevent parents
+from marrying children, it was clearly not attained. If, on the other
+hand, it was intended to prevent children of the same mother or father
+from intermarrying, the result could have been attained far more simply,
+either by direct prohibition, such as is found in other cases, or by the
+institution of totemic exogamy, which, in the view of some authorities,
+already existed, and consequently made the phratry superfluous.
+
+According to Dr Frazer's 1905 theory, phratries were introduced to
+prevent brother and sister marriage and exogamous bars began in the
+female line[110]. Against this hypothesis may be urged not only the
+objections first stated but also the fact that for Dr Frazer the Arunta
+are primitive and yet reckon descent (of the class) in the _male_ line.
+If, as he conceives, conceptional totemism was transformed in the
+central tribes into patrilineal totemism, I fail to see why the
+phratries or classes should descend in the female line.
+
+If in the third place, it was proposed to prevent children of sisters or
+of brothers from intermarrying, it is completely mysterious why children
+of brothers and sisters should not only not have been prevented in the
+same way, but absolutely be regarded as the proper mates for each other.
+Even if a single community reformed itself on these lines, it is hardly
+conceivable that many should have done so, even if we suppose that the
+advantages of prohibition were preached from tribe to tribe by
+missionaries of the new order of things. _Ex hypothesi_, cousin marriage
+was not regarded as harmful; and it is highly improbable that any people
+in the lower stages of culture should have discovered that in-and-in
+breeding is harmful, for the results, especially in a people which
+contained no degenerates, would not appear at once, even if they
+appeared at all.
+
+On this point therefore the probabilities are wholly on the side of
+development as against reformation.
+
+An additional reason against the reformation theory is found in the fact
+that phratries, on this theory, would never exceed two in number, but in
+practice there are, as shown in Chapter II, wide variations.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[107] _Secret of the Totem_, pp. 31, 91 sq.
+
+[108] Mr Lang's view is that the women from the first retained their
+original group names wherever they went. _Letter of July 27th_, 1906.
+
+[109] See pp. 31, 50.
+
+[110] _Fortn. Rev._ LXXVIII, 459.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+CLASS NAMES.
+
+Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
+ Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
+ Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the
+ Names: Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names.
+
+
+The priority of phratries over classes is commonly admitted and it is
+unnecessary to argue the question at length. The main grounds for the
+assumption are: (1) that it is _a priori_ probable that the fourfold
+division succeeded the twofold division, exactly as the eightfold
+division has succeeded, and apparently is still gaining ground, at the
+expense of the four-class system. (2) Over a considerable and compact
+area phratries alone are found without a trace of named classes, if we
+except the anomalous organisation recorded by Dawson in S.W. Victoria.
+On the other hand, while we find certain tribes among whom no phratry
+names have yet been discovered, it is inherently probable that this is
+due to their having been forgotten and not to their never having
+existed. It is possible that the encroachments of an alien class system
+have in some cases helped on the extinction of the phratry names. (3) We
+find classes without phratry names, not in a compact group, but
+scattered up and down more or less at random, suggesting that chance and
+not law has been at work to produce this result. (4) Where class names
+are found without corresponding phratry names, they are invariably
+arranged in what may be termed anonymous phratries; that is to say, in
+pairs or fours, so that the member of one class is under normal
+circumstances not at liberty to select a wife at will from the other
+three, but is usually limited to one of the other classes. This state of
+things clearly points to a time when the phratries were recognised by
+the tribes in question.
+
+(5) While the classes are arranged in pairs or fours, according to
+whether the system is four- or eight-class, the totems, on the other
+hand, are distributed phratry fashion; in other words, one group of
+totems belongs to each pair or quadruplet of classes. This divergent
+organisation of the classes (four or eight for the whole tribe) and
+totems (two groups for the whole tribe) can only be explained on the
+supposition that the phratry everywhere preceded the class organisation.
+
+The spatial relations of the phratries and classes are sufficiently
+clear from the map; and a table shows how far cross divisions are found.
+
+The main area of disturbance of the normal relations is, as shown in
+Table IV (p. 51), the district occupied by the Koorgilla class-system
+and its immediate neighbourhood. The Yungaroo-Witteru group has three
+representatives in the Koorgilla class and one in the Kurpal class. The
+Pakoota-Wootaroo phratry has likewise three in the Koorgilla class, a
+fourth being in the Yowingo organisation. A large area is occupied by
+the Mallera-Witteru phratry in the Koorgilla class, and one tribe is
+again found in the Yowingo group. No class names are recorded for the
+Undekerebina in the Pakoota group, and no phratry names for the Mycoolon
+and Workobongo in the Yowingo group, nor for the Yerunthully in the
+Koorgilla group, which in addition to tribes belonging to the three
+Wuthera phratries also embraces within its limits the small Purgoma and
+Jouon tribes.
+
+The only other anomaly recorded in addition to those mentioned is among
+the tribes on the south and south-east of the area just dealt with,
+which have the Barang class names with the Kamilaroi phratry names, or
+the Kamilaroi class names with tribal phratry names. In four cases
+therefore the phratry is found outside the limits of the class usually
+associated with it, or, in other words, it is associated with a strange
+class system. In one case, that of the Kalkadoon, this is sufficiently
+explained by the fact that the tribe is itself now remote geographically
+speaking from its fellows, owing to the interposition of Pitta-Pitta
+and allied tribes. In the other three cases the facts seem to point to a
+change in the intertribal relationships in the period intervening
+between the adoption of phratry names and the introduction of the class
+system. If the lines of intercourse and intermarriage had suffered a
+revolution in the interval, the names, the origin of which we have yet
+to consider, would naturally show a different grouping of the tribes;
+for it is on the grouping of the tribes that the spread of the names,
+whether of phratries or classes, must have depended.
+
+The main mass of the tribes organised on the four-class system lies in
+Queensland and New South Wales, and whereas only two sets of names are
+found in the latter colony, no less than fifteen (some of which are,
+however, of more than doubtful authenticity) are reported from various
+parts of Queensland. From Northern Territory two (Anula and Mara) of
+small extent are reported[111]; a considerable area of this colony, as
+well as of South and West Australia, is occupied by the Arunta system,
+and the closely allied classes to the north-west of them. The only other
+four-class system in West Australia of which we have definite
+information is that west and north of King George's Sound and eastwards
+for an unknown distance.
+
+Covering nearly the whole of New South Wales outside the area occupied
+by the two-phratry tribes of the Darling country, and extending far up
+into Queensland, we find the well-known Muri-Kubbi, Ippai-Kumbo classes
+(1) of the Kamilaroi nation[112]. The Kamilaroi system appears to have
+touched the sea in the neighbourhood of Sydney. According to Mr Mathews,
+the Darkinung, who inhabited this part of New South Wales, substituted
+Bya for Muri. (1_a_) In like manner the Wiradjeri are stated by Gribble
+to have replaced Kumbo by Wombee; this may however be no more than a
+dialectical variant.
+
+Lying along the sea coast north-east of the Darkinung and east of the
+main mass of Kamilaroi tribe were the Kombinegherry and other tribes,
+whom Mr Mathews denominates the Anaywan. Their classes are given by him
+as Irrpoong, Marroong, Imboong, and Irrong; but an earlier authority
+gives the forms Kurbo, Marro, Wombo, and Wirro (2); at Wide Bay we find
+Baran, Balkun, Derwen, and Bundar (3) with an alternative form Banjoor.
+
+North of them, still on the coast, we find the Kuinmurbura with Kurpal,
+Kuialla, Karilbura, and Munal (4); for the Taroombul, which I am unable
+to locate, Mr Mathews gives Koodala in place of Kuialla and Karalbara
+for Karilbura. For the Kangoollo, lying inland from this group, Mr
+Mathews gives Kearra, Banjoor, Banniar, and Koorpal. This suggests that
+there is some confusion, for the names include two from 4, and one or
+two from 3.
+
+A very large area is occupied by tribes with the classes (5) Koorgila,
+Bunburi, Wunggo, and Obur (and variants). They include the Yuipera and
+allied tribes, the Kogai, the Wakelbura and allied tribes, the Yambeena,
+the Yerunthully, the Woonamurra, the Mittakoodi, the Pitta-Pitta, etc.,
+together with the Purgoma of the Palm Islands and the neighbouring
+Jouon, whose headquarters are at Cooktown. In the southern portion of
+this group a correspondent of Curr's has reported the classes Nullum,
+Yoolgo, Bungumbura, and Teilling. We have class names analogous in form
+to the third of these names, it is true, but it resembles tribal names
+so closely as to suggest that the observer in question was really
+referring to a tribe and not to a class. If this is so we may perhaps
+identify Teilling with the Toolginbura. There seems to be no reason for
+admitting these four names to a place among the other groups of class
+names. In like manner we may dismiss the class names assigned to the
+Yukkaburra by an inaccurate correspondent of Curr's, who gives Utheroo,
+Multheroo, Yungaroo, and Goorgilla. It seems clear that the first and
+third of these are really phratry names; possibly the second is a
+dialectical form for Utheroo.
+
+From Halifax Bay and Hinchinbrook Island are reported the names Korkoro,
+Korkeen, Wongo, and Wotero (with variants). Among the Joongoongie of
+North Queensland we find Langenam, Namegoor, Packewicky, and Pamarung
+(15); and among the Karandee Curr gives an anomalous and probably
+defective set, Moorob, Heyanbo, Lenai, Roanga, and Yelet.
+
+The Goothanto and Wollungurma have Ranya, Rara, Loora, and Awunga (8);
+allied to these perhaps are the Jury, Ararey, Barry, and Mungilly of the
+Koogobathy; the Ahjeerena, Arrenynung, Perrynung, and Mahngal of the
+Koonjan are clearly variants of the latter set. East of the Koogobathy
+lie the Warkeman with Koopungie, Kellungie, Chukungie, and Karpungie
+(6), with an allied tribe on the Tully River with classes, Kurongon,
+Kurkulla, Chikun, Karavangie, the two latter obviously corresponding to
+Warkeman classes, the second to Koorgilla.
+
+The Miappe, Mycoolon, Kalkadoon, and Workoboongo have Youingo, Maringo,
+Badingo, and Jimmilingo (9), with alternatives Kapoodingo, Kungilingo,
+and Toonbeungo.
+
+The Yoolanlanya and others have Deringara, Gubilla, Koomara, and
+Belthara, possibly a defective list, for Mr Mathews adds to these for
+the Ullayilinya Lookwara and Ungella (probably a defective set) in
+another communication. Two of these are obviously identical with the
+Arunta Koomara and Bulthara, with which are associated Purula and
+Panungka (13), while Ungilla and Gubilla are taken from the eight-class
+system to which we may probably assign the tribe. North-west of the
+Arunta, outside the eight-class area, the class names are almost
+identical with, though they differ widely in form from the Arunta names.
+They are Burong, Ballieri, Baniker, and Caiemurra (13). The form
+Boorgarloo is given as a variant. Mrs Bates has found a system (14) in
+S.W. Australia.
+
+On the western shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria we find the Mara with
+Purdal, Murungun, Mumbali, and Kuial (10); and the Anula with Awukaria,
+Roumburia, Urtalia, and Wialia (11).
+
+The only two remaining four-class systems of which the names are known
+are on the Annan River with Wandi, Walar, Jorro, and Kutchal (7)--the
+Ngarranga of Yorke Peninsula, with Kari, Wani, Wilthi, and Wilthuthu.
+
+Attention has been called in the course of the above exposition to
+various cases in which the class names found among one group of tribes
+are in part if not entirely identical with those found among their
+neighbours. A close examination discloses other possible though hardly
+probable points of contact besides those already enumerated. The variant
+form Banjoora in 3 seems to be the same as the Banjoor of the Kangulu,
+which again has Koorpal in common with 4, and also Kearra, if we may
+equate the latter with Kuialla. This again is perhaps the Kuial of the
+Mara tribe (9).
+
+The Marroong of 2 seems to be the Maringo of 9, and we may perhaps also
+equate the Kurbo of this group with the Kurpal of 4. Irroong resembles
+the roanga of the Karandee which is probably the Arawongo of the
+Goothanto.
+
+In 5 Wongo suggests the Youingo of 9; it reappears in the Halifax Bay
+list, as also does Koorgilla in one of the variants. Again Kubi (1)
+corresponds to Koobaroo (5), and Kumbo (Wombee) to Bunburi (Unburi), but
+we can hardly regard them as the same words. Koodalla and Koorpal (4)
+may be the same as Kellungie and Koopungie (6); the other pair shows no
+resemblance.
+
+Possibly the Wiradjeri Wombee is the Kombinegherry Wombo; it is at any
+rate significant that the name is found in the portion of the tribe
+nearest the Kombinegherry.
+
+We have seen that the Arunta and their north-western neighbours have a
+four-class system, the component names of which are found with little
+variation over a range of nearly 25 deg. of longitude. In the forms
+Kiemarra, Palyeri, Burong, and Baniker, the class names in vogue among
+the southern Arunta meet us again near the North-West Cape, thus
+covering a larger area than even the widespread Koorgila-Bunburi class
+names of Queensland, and forming a striking contrast to the narrow
+limits of the majority of the four-class system. This peculiarity is
+reproduced in the compact area of the central eight-class tribes, north
+and north-east of the Koomara four-class area, though with much greater
+variations in the names. Bulthara however in the form Palyeri is found
+in more or less disguised shapes in the whole of the eighteen tribes,
+whose class names are shown in Table I a; Koomara is found in shapes
+which are on the whole harder to recognise, and Panunga and Purula in
+two or three cases, either replaced by another word or so changed as to
+be unrecognisable. Of the supplementary names belonging to the
+eight-class Arunta, Uknaria, Ungalla, Appungerta, Umbitchana, Ungalla is
+found in the whole of the tribes under consideration, and Appungerta
+undergoes on the whole but little change; Uknaria is practically not
+found outside the Arunta area, and Umbitchana is in six cases replaced
+by Yacomary, which seems to be a form of Koomara (to this point we recur
+later).
+
+Although this suggests that the names were in the first case taken from
+the Arunta a comparison of them shows that it is not among this tribe
+that the greatest number of forms common to the whole group and the
+greatest general resemblance of the names is to be found, as is shown by
+the comparative tables below. Judged by the standard of resemblance the
+Oolawunga of the north-west, on the Victoria River, have preserved the
+names nearest their original forms. Judged by the standard of least
+deviation from the common stock of names and basing the comparison, not
+on resemblances but on differences, the Koorangie of the upper waters of
+the same river take the first place, with the Oolawunga not far behind.
+In each case the Inchalachee, the most easterly of the group, take the
+last place, followed in the table of resemblances by the Walpari and the
+Worgaia; and in the table of differences by the Worgaia and, though at a
+considerable distance, the Mayoo and the Walpari.
+
+_Figure of Resemblance_[113].
+
+Oolawunga 55
+Bingongina 54
+Umbaia 51
+Koorangie 50
+Yookala, Binbinga 48
+Gnanji 47
+Meening 43
+Warramunga, Yungmunni 41
+Arunta, Mayoo 40
+Kaitish, Yungarella, Tjingilli 39
+Worgaia 37
+Walpari 31
+Inchalachee 28
+
+_Figure of Difference_[114].
+
+Koorangie 31
+Oolawunga 33
+Umbaia 35
+Bingongina 37
+Yungmunni 42
+Gnanji, Tjingilli 44
+Warramunga 45
+Arunta 46
+Binbinga 49
+Yookala 50
+Meening 52
+Kaitish 54
+Yungarella, Walpari 56
+Mayoo 57
+Worgaia 69
+Inchalachee 84
+
+Attention has already been drawn to the resemblance between the Arunta
+four-class names and the names of the eight-class group. It is clearly
+of high importance to determine whether the resemblance is on the whole
+between the names of the western group and the eight-class names, or
+whether the latter can more readily be derived from those of the Arunta.
+In the latter case it is obvious that the position of the Oolawunga and
+Koorangie in the comparative tables is due, not to their having been the
+tribes from which all the others derived their names, but rather to
+movements of population subsequent to the adoption of the class names.
+If on the other hand it appears that the names came in the first
+instance from the more western portion of the Koomara group, we have
+some grounds for supposing that the names and the system reached the
+eight-class area from the west and not from the south.
+
+We have already seen that in the case of Palyeri-Bulthara all the
+evidence points to the name having come from the west. In the case of
+Panunga the evidence is weaker, certain of the forms being derivable
+from either Baniker or Panunga, but with the exception of the
+Warramunga, and possibly the Tjingili, there are no tribes of whom we
+can definitely say that they took the name from the Arunta, whereas
+there are at least four cases where the resemblance is distinctly with
+the western class names, and several more in which it can more readily
+be derived from them. The resemblance between Koomarra and Kiemarra or
+Kiamba is already considerable, and makes it difficult to estimate the
+probabilities in most cases; the problem is complicated by the question
+of prefixes, which will come up for discussion later, and on the whole
+there appears to be no certain solution of the problem, though the Mayoo
+seem to have taken over and varied the western form. In the case of
+Purula-Burong there appear to be indeterminate cases; six seem to tell
+in favour of a southern origin; three suggest a western origin; and one
+word Chupil (f. Namilpa) seems to be from a different root.
+
+The problem is further complicated by the anomalous class name Yakomari,
+to which allusion has already been made. As will be seen later, _cha_ or
+_ja_ seem to be prefixes, and if that is so we can hardly avoid the
+conclusion that Yakomari is Koomara or Kiemara. But in the table it
+takes the place of Umbitchana, with which it is not even remotely
+connected philologically; Jamara and its various forms take the place in
+the table occupied by Koomara among the Arunta when Yakomari holds the
+eighth place as well as in other cases. If therefore _ku_, _ja_, and
+_ya_ are simply prefixes, as seems to be the case, we have this class
+name duplicated among five of the tribe--the Umbaia, Yookala, Binbinga,
+Worgaia, Yangarella, and Inchalachee, of which one comes near the top,
+and two fairly high in the comparative table. It is however worthy of
+notice that these six tribes form the eastern group, and are
+consequently precisely those among which we should, on the hypothesis
+that the class names originated in the western portion of the area,
+expect to find the greatest amount of variation and the most numerous
+anomalies. Dividing the six tribes into two groups, western and eastern,
+each of three tribes, we find that the cumulative resemblance of the
+western group to the Arunta is 132, to the Oolawunga 186; the same
+figures for the eastern group, more remote from the Oolawunga, but
+practically equidistant with the western group from the Arunta, are 91
+and 112. This again seems to lend support to the hypothesis of a western
+origin. It is perhaps simplest to suppose that the majority of the names
+came from the west; but that Yakomari, travelling upwards from the
+south-west, displaced the more usual eighth class name, or perhaps we
+should say, replaced it, when the eight-class system was adopted, for a
+name is not likely to have gone out of use when it had once been applied
+as a designation.
+
+Attention has been called in connection with the phratries to the
+suffixes such as _um_, _itch_, _aku_[115], etc. Their precise meaning is
+usually uncertain. An attentive consideration of the class names seems
+to show that similar suffixes have been used in forming them. If we
+compare Panunga and Baniker, it seems a fair conclusion that the _ban_
+or _pan_ is compounded with _iker_ (_aku_) or _unga_, for among the
+Yookala, the nearest neighbours of the Bingongina, who have it as a
+phratriac suffix, the _-agoo_ of the class names is unmistakeably
+independent of the root word, whatever that may be. In addition to
+_unga_ we find _inginja_, _angie_, _inja_, _itch_ (recalling the _itji_
+of the phratries), _itchana_, and the form _anjegoo_ which seems to have
+a double suffix. _Ara_, _yeri_, _aree_, _um_, _ana_, _ula_ (as we see by
+comparing Purula with Burong), _ta_, and the possibly double form
+_tjuka_, seem to be further examples.
+
+The feminine forms Nalyirri for Thalirri (=Palyeri), Nala for Chula,
+Ninum for Tjinum, Nana for Tjana or Thama, etc. suggest that prefixes
+are also to be distinguished. They seem to be _choo_, _joo_, _ja_, _ya_,
+_n-_, _yun_, _u-_, _ku_, _pu_, _bu_, _nu_, etc. We are however on very
+uncertain ground here, for the feminine forms may be deliberate
+creations. Allowance has to be made too for the personal equation of the
+observer, which is by no means inconsiderable. Possibly this factor,
+together with ordinary laws of phonetic change, the most elementary
+principles of which have yet to be established for the Australian
+languages, will suffice to account for the variations in the names as
+recorded. Otherwise the words are in most cases reduced to monosyllabic
+roots from which it seems hopeless to attempt to extract a meaning.
+
+These questions of suffixes and prefixes are intimately connected with
+the very difficult problem of the origin of the classes. The languages
+of these tribes are at present, if not distinct linguistic stocks, at
+any rate very far from being mere dialectical variations of a common
+tongue, for the members of two tribes appear to be mutually
+unintelligible, unless, contrary to the custom of the American Indians,
+they are bilingual. But if each tribe added a suffix, and thus adopted
+into their own language words which, from the general agreement among
+the class names of this group, seem to have come to them from outside,
+it is a reasonable hypothesis that the word which they adopted had some
+meaning for them. Of course we may suppose that the class names were all
+adopted in the far off time when all spoke a common language. But apart
+from the difficulty that this presupposes the existence of an
+eight-class system at that early period, it is clear from the Queensland
+evidence that class names have been handed on from tribe to tribe, and
+it is reasonable to suppose this to have been the case with the northern
+tribes. This conclusion is borne out by the forms of the suffixes, which
+do not appear to have been developed from one root determinative, as
+must have been the case if we suppose that the names originated when the
+language spoken by these tribes was undifferentiated; and by the facts
+as to the apparent duplication of Koomara, to which allusion has already
+been made.
+
+The important point about the class, as distinguished from the phratry
+systems, is the great extent covered by the former. The north-west area
+of male descent is virtually one from the point of view of class names;
+two other areas are very large, six are of medium size, three are small,
+and the remaining one is probably medium.
+
+Although the question of the meaning of the class names is closely bound
+up with that of their origin, the problem is closely bound up with some
+of the points discussed in this chapter. The meaning of the eight-class
+names is connected with the area of origin of the system, and linguistic
+questions, such as those relating to suffixes, come in. We may therefore
+briefly discuss at this point the meaning of the class names.
+
+On the whole it may be said that we know the meaning of the class names
+only in exceptional cases. The Kiabara, Kamilaroi, Annan River,
+Kuinmurbura, Narrang-ga, and two of the West Australian names can be
+translated (see Table I). But with these exceptions we have no certain
+knowledge of the meaning of the single class names.
+
+Conjectures are of comparatively little value. For in the first place
+the number of words recorded from any given tribe is as a rule very
+small, and little or no indication of the pronunciation is given even in
+the latest works on Australian ethnography. The variations, evidently
+purely arbitrary and due to the want of training in phonetics, are
+frequently very considerable. And finally the area over which the names
+prevail is sufficiently great to give us our choice from half a dozen or
+more different tribal languages, which combined with the variation in
+the form of the words, adds very considerably to the probability that
+there will be found somewhere within the area a word or words bearing a
+deceptively close resemblance to the class names. How far this is the
+case may be made clear by one or two instances of chance resemblances
+between animal names (it seems on the whole probable that if the names
+are translateable they will turn out to be animal names) in the same or
+neighbouring tribes. The meaning of Arunta seems to be white
+cockatoo[116], but we also find a word almost indistinguishable from it
+in sound--eranta--with the meaning of pelican[117]. Kulbara means emu
+and koolbirra kangaroo[118]. Malu (=kangaroo), mala (=mouse), and male
+(=swan) are found in tribes of West Australia, though not of tribes
+living in immediate proximity one to another[119]. But perhaps the best
+example is that of Derroein, which, as we have seen, means kangaroo. In
+addition to durween (young male kangaroo) we find at no great distance
+the words dirrawong (=iguana) and deerooyn (=whip snake), either of
+which bears a sufficiently close resemblance to the class name to be
+accepted as a translation for it in the absence of other
+competitors[120].
+
+With these facts in mind such suggestions as an attentive study of
+vocabularies has disclosed are naturally put forward with a full sense
+of their uncertainty, they are of a purely tentative nature.
+
+For the Koobaroo (var. Obur) of the Goorgilla set I find in the same
+group the homophone _obur_ (gidea tree), which is also a totem of the
+group of tribes in question[121]. The Wotero of Halifax Bay suggests
+Wutheru, for which I am unable to find a meaning, unless it be emu, as
+given by one observer, who however on another occasion gave a different
+translation. Korkoro in the same set may be the same as korkoren
+(opossum) of a tribe some 150 miles away[122]. The muri[123] and kubbi
+of the Kamilaroi and Turribul (?) mean kangaroo and opossum in the
+latter language, and ibbai means Eaglehawk in Wiraidhuri[124]. The
+Kamilaroi bundar (=kangaroo) may give us a clue to the meaning of the
+Dippil Bundar[125]; the Kiabara Bulcoin has a homophone in the Peechera
+tribe, where it means kangaroo; on the Hastings River it means red
+wallaby. Balcun however means native bear according to Mathew[126].
+
+If we turn to the eight-class tribes the results are hardly more
+striking. The Dieri Pultara, Palyara and Upala[127], are homophones of
+the class names which we have seen as alternative forms; but this very
+fact makes it certain, or nearly so, that one of the homophones is due
+to chance coincidence. Bearing in mind that the Arunta alone have the
+form Bulthara, we may perhaps see in the change undergone by the word in
+their language the result of attraction, though it must be confessed
+that the hypothesis is far-fetched in the case of a non-written
+language. On the other hand it tells against the Palyeri=Palyara
+equation that the Arunta, who are by far the nearest to the Dieri, use
+the form Bulthara. The equation Kanunka=Panunga is not backed by any
+evidence that the p-k change is admissible. Finally three of the four
+words mentioned seem to be compounded with a suffix; and if this is so
+it is clearly useless to equate them with words in which this suffix is
+a component part.
+
+One class name only, Ungilla, is found in the Arunta area itself (and
+far beyond it, as far as the Gulf of Carpentaria) with the meaning
+crow[128]. If we may regard the _j_ and _k_ of the forms jungalla,
+kungalla, as a prefix, the equation seems justified; otherwise it seems
+an insuperable difficulty that not the original form of the class name,
+but the derivative and shortened form is the one to which the equation
+applies. Our very defective knowledge of the languages of the
+eight-class tribes makes it possible that when we know more of them
+other root words may be discovered. At present it can only be said that
+in very few instances have we either in the four-class or the
+eight-class areas any warrant for saying that we know the meaning of the
+class names, much less that we know them to be derived from the names of
+animals.
+
+One piece of evidence on the subject we need mention only to reject. The
+Rev. H. Kempe, of the Lutheran Mission among the southern Arunta, has on
+two occasions stated that the classes in signalling to each other use as
+their signs the gestures employed to designate animals[129]. On one
+occasion however he assigns to the Bunanka class the eaglehawk gesture,
+on another the lizard gesture; the remaining three, which he added only
+on the second occasion, were ant, wallaby and eaglehawk. It may be noted
+that the eaglehawk sign is attributed by him to the two classes which
+would form the main part of the population of a local group; in the
+second place all four animals are among the totems of the tribe; it
+seems therefore probable that Mr Kempe has merely confused the sign made
+to a man of the given kin with a sign which he supposed to be made to a
+man of a certain class. If he paid little attention to the subject, and
+especially if on the second occasion he gained his information at a
+large tribal meeting, the large number of totems would render it
+improbable that conflicting evidence would lead him to discover his
+mistake. If he pursued his enquiries far enough he might, it is true,
+get more than one sign for a given class; but if he contented himself
+with asking four men, one of each class, the probability would be that
+he would get four separate gestures. In any case we have no warrant for
+arguing that the gesture in any way translates the class name.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[111] In practice they are eight-class.
+
+[112] The numbers refer to those used in chapter IV.
+
+[113] These are merely rough percentages based on arbitrary values for
+partial resemblances.
+
+[114] This table shows what percentage of names is completely different;
+partial differences are not allowed for.
+
+[115] Possibly a prefix also; cf. _Koocheebinga_, _Koorabunna_ and their
+sister names.
+
+[116] Curr, vocab. no. 37.
+
+[117] ib. no. 39. Spencer and Gillen give "loud voiced" as the meaning.
+
+[118] ib. nos. 34, 40, 49 _a_, 104.
+
+[119] Moore, _Vocab._; Mathew, p. 226.
+
+[120] Mathew, p. 232; Curr, nos. 164, 170, 178.
+
+[121] ib. no. 143.
+
+[122] ib. no. 110.
+
+[123] Elsewhere muri means red kangaroo.
+
+[124] ib. nos. 168, 181, 190; Mathew, _Eaglehawk_, p. 227.
+
+[125] Curr, no. 181.
+
+[126] Mathew, _Eaglehawk_, p. 100; Curr, no. 177.
+
+[127] ib. no. 55.
+
+[128] Roth, _Studies_, p. 50; Curr, nos. 37, 38, 39.
+
+[129] _Halle Verein fur Erdkunde_, 1883, p. 52; _Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._
+II, 640.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VIII.
+
+THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.
+
+Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
+ totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory
+ of classes.
+
+
+In dealing with the origin of the classes it is important to bear in
+mind that they are undoubtedly later than the phratries. This is clear,
+not only from the considerations urged on p. 71, but also from the fact
+that the areas covered by the same classes are in the three most
+important cases immensely larger than any covered by a phratriac system.
+We may therefore dismiss at the outset Herr Cunow's theory, which makes
+the classes the original form of organisation.
+
+To explain the origin of the classes, as of the phratries, two kinds of
+theories have been put forward, which are in this case also classifiable
+as reformatory and developmental respectively. The former labour under
+the same disadvantages, so far as they assume that particular marriages
+were regarded as immoral or objectionable, as do the similar hypotheses
+of the origin of phratries.
+
+What is the effect of dividing a phratry into two classes? Firstly and
+most obviously, to reduce by one half the number of women from whom a
+man may take his spouse. Secondarily, to put in the forbidden class both
+his mother's generation and his daughters' generation. It must however
+not be overlooked that it is the whole class of individuals that are
+thus put beyond his reach and not those only who stand to him in the
+relation of daughters in the European sense. Now it is certain that the
+savage of the present day distinguishes blood relationship from tribal
+relationship; of this there are plenty of examples in Australia
+itself[130]. In fact the hypothesis that the introduction of class
+regulations was due to a desire to prevent the intermarriage of parents
+and children, more especially of fathers and daughters, the mothers
+being of course of the same phratries as their sons in the normal tribe,
+depends for its existence on the assumption that consanguinity was
+recognised. But it is clearly a clumsy expedient to limit a man's right
+of choice to the extent we have indicated solely in order to prevent him
+from marrying his daughter, when the simple prohibition to marry her
+would, so far as we can see, have been equally effective.
+
+Dr Durkheim has suggested that phratries and classes originated
+together.
+
+If we start with two exogamous local groups in which the determinant
+spouse removes, the result is two groups in which both phratries are
+found, as is evident from the following graphic representation. The two
+sides represent the local grouping, the letters A and B the phratry
+names, and m or f male or female; the = denotes marriage, the vertical
+lines show the children, the brackets show that the person whose symbol
+is bracketed removes, and the italics that the symbol in question is
+that of a spouse introduced from without.
+
+ mA=_fB_ mB=fA
+ _______| |_______
+ | | | |
+ [fB] mB=_fA_ _fB_=mA [mB]
+ _________| |_________
+ | | | |
+ [fA] mA=_fB_ _fA_=mB [fB]
+ _________| |_________
+ | | | |
+ [fB] mB=_fA_ _fB_=mA [fA]
+ etc. etc.
+
+We see from this that the alternate generations are in each group A and
+B, whose spouses are in the same alternation B and A, the male remaining
+in the group, the female removing in each case, if we assume that the
+matrilineal kinship is the rule. The permanent members of each group
+therefore, and in like manner the imported members, are by alternate
+generations A and B, though of course there is no difference of age
+actually corresponding to the difference of generation.
+
+By the simple phratry law that A can only marry B, and may marry any B,
+local group mates are marriageable. The law however which forbids the
+marriage of phratry mates is on Mr Lang's original theory founded on the
+prohibition to marry group mates. If we suppose that the primal law or
+the memory of it continued to work, we have at once a sufficient
+explanation of the origin of the four-class system. The tribes or
+nations in which the instinct against intra-group marriage was strong
+enough to persist as an active principle after the law against
+intra-phratry marriage had become recognised, may have proceeded to
+create four classes at a very early stage, while those in whom the
+feeling for the primal law was less strong adhered to the simple phratry
+system.
+
+But it is an insuperable objection to this theory that it makes the
+four-class system originate simultaneously with, or at any rate shortly
+after, the rise of the phratries. For we cannot suppose that the feeling
+for the primal law remained dormant for long ages and then suddenly
+revived. On the other hand we have seen that if the difference in the
+distribution of the phratry and class names is any guide, a considerable
+interval must have separated the rise of the one from the rise of the
+other. Unless therefore it can be shown that some other explanation
+accounts for the non-coincidence of phratry and class areas, we can
+hardly accept any explanation of the origin of classes which makes them
+originate at a period not far removed from the introduction of the
+phratries.
+
+The fact that a certain number of class names are in character totemic,
+that is, bear animal names, suggests that the class system may be a
+development of the totem kins, which in certain cases are grouped within
+the phratries or otherwise subject to special regulations. In the
+Urabunna the choice of a man of one totem is said to be limited to women
+of the right status in a single totem of the opposite phratry. Among the
+similarly organised Yandairunga the limitation is to certain totems, and
+Dr Howitt gives other examples of the same order. In the Kongulu tribe
+these totemic classes seem to have been known by special names. In the
+Wotjoballuk tribe there are sub-totems, grouped with certain totems,
+which again seem to be collected into aggregates intermediate between
+the phratry and the simple totem kin. But it is difficult to see why, if
+the classes have arisen out of such organisations, there should be found
+over the great part of Australia four, and only four, classes from which
+the eight have obviously developed. In any case we have no parallel in
+these modifications to the alternate generations of the class system.
+
+These find an analogue, according to an old report, not subsequently
+confirmed, in the Wailwun tribe, where, however, it is supplementary to
+the classes. We are told that there are four totems in this tribe,
+though this does not agree with other reports, and that they are found
+in both phratries indiscriminately. A woman's children do not take her
+totem, nor, apparently, the totem of her brother, who belongs to a
+different kin, but are of the remaining two totems according to their
+sex[131]. From this it follows that the totems alternate, precisely as
+do the classes; the difference in the arrangement consists in the
+distinction of totem falling to males and females, which has no analogue
+in the class system. But such arrangements, even if we may take them as
+established facts, are clearly of secondary origin, and can hardly give
+a clue to the origin of the classes.
+
+There is an important difference between the four-class and eight-class
+organisations in respect of the totem kins. In the former systems the
+kins are almost invariably divided between the phratries; but within
+them they do not belong to either of the classes, though certain classes
+claim them[132]; but on the contrary, of necessity are divided between
+them. In the eight-class tribes this seems to be the case in some tribes
+also; in others, like the Arunta, abnormalities of development cause the
+totems to fall in both phratries. But in the Mara, the Mayoo, and the
+Warramunga[133] they fall, or are stated to fall, in the first case into
+groups according to the four classes, in the other cases according to
+the "couples," i.e. the two classes which stand in the relation of
+parent and child (the son of Panunga is Appungerta, his son is again
+Panunga, and so for the other pairs). This suggests that totemism has
+something to do with the division of the four classes into eight, as was
+pointed out by Dr Durkheim in 1905[134]. His argument is that as long as
+descent was in the female line, the rule was that a man could not marry
+a woman of his mother's totem. When the change to male descent took
+place, the mother's totem, as we see by actual examples[135], did not
+lose the respect which it formerly enjoyed; there is in more than one
+tribe a tabu of the mother's as well as of the father's totem. That
+being so, it is natural to suppose that the new marriage organisation
+according to male descent might be modified to take account of this
+fact. By dividing the classes and arranging that one member of a couple
+should be debarred not only from intermarrying with the class of his
+mother, for which the four-class system also provides, but also from
+intermarrying with the second member of the same couple too, this result
+was attained, in the view of Dr Durkheim.
+
+It remains however to be established that this segregation of totems is
+actually found in the tribes in question. For the Warramunga Spencer and
+Gillen distinctly state[136] that the arrangement is dichotomous, in
+which case the alleged result would not be brought about. The Anula and
+Mara are exceptional tribes with direct male descent; it is hardly
+likely that the eight-class system spread from them. The Mayoo have not
+yet been reported on by an expert. Finally some of the tribes have not
+even the dichotomous arrangement of totems but distribute them in both
+phratries. The basis of the hypothesis, therefore, is hardly
+established.
+
+Singularly enough, Dr Durkheim[137] expresses his adherence to a
+previous theory of his own as to the method of effecting the change from
+female to male descent in four-class tribes. This he supposes to have
+been done by transferring one of the two classes from each phratry to
+the opposite one; and in the former discussion (_Annee Soc._ V, 82 sq.)
+he showed that this procedure would result in scattering the totems
+through both phratries, as we find them to be in the case of the Arunta.
+It is therefore singular to find that he adheres to this theory when his
+new hypothesis demands that the totems, so far from being more widely
+distributed, should be actually confined to the members of one couple.
+Beyond the Urabunna custom in intertribal marriages, however, which is
+hardly decisive evidence, there does not appear to be any proof that the
+transference from one phratry to the other ever took place.
+
+The further support claimed by Dr Durkheim for his hypothesis from the
+alleged male descent of the totem in tribes where female descent of the
+class names prevails, rests on too uncertain a basis to make it
+necessary to deal with it at length; some criticism of the evidence will
+be found elsewhere.
+
+We have seen above that the Dieri rule is precisely parallel to that of
+the eight-class tribes in practice; it is however expressed, not by a
+class system, but by enacting that people standing in a certain degree
+of kinship or consanguinity shall marry. If Dr Durkheim's theory of the
+origin of the eight-class system is correct, it should also apply to the
+Dieri. Now the rule that a man must marry his maternal great-uncle's
+daughter clearly prevents intermarriage with one of the mother's totem;
+but this cannot be the object of the rule, for it is prevented already
+by the phratry system. Dr Durkheim's theory therefore finds no support
+in the Dieri rule.
+
+On the other hand, unless the totems have been scattered through the
+phratries since the southern Arunta divided their classes, Dr Durkheim
+will have difficulty in explaining why a tribe where the totem does not
+concern marriage at all has found it necessary to split the classes; and
+that though the child does not take its totem from mother or father.
+
+Herr Cunow has advanced the view that the classes correspond to
+distinctions of age; but he took as his basis, not the differentia of
+elder and younger, but the distinction made by the initiation customs,
+which divide the community, in his view, into three strata--young, adult
+and old. Into the difficulties created by this theory we need not here
+enter. Suffice it to say that the theory depends on the supposition that
+an age-grade had to marry within itself. Now the age-grade is not a
+fixed body, but is continually changing its personnel; not only so, but
+it is difficult to see how marriage could take place, given the
+initiation ceremonies, in any other way; unions of "old men" with adult
+women apart, which are not, in fact, prohibited, so far as is known, the
+only marriages possible are those within the adult grade. Although
+father and son can rarely belong to the adult grade simultaneously,
+mother and daughter can readily do so. If not, these grades are clearly
+generation classes, and what Herr Cunow really takes as the basis of his
+theory is the generation in each family. This can readily be shown by a
+consideration of the kinship terms.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[130] Roth, _Eth. Stud._ p. 182; Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ p. 616;
+Howitt, p. 262; _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 166.
+
+[131] _J.A.I._ VII, 249, cf. _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 172.
+
+[132] Howitt, p. 110.
+
+[133] _Nor. Tr._ p. 167; _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XVI, 70; _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXX,
+111, 112.
+
+[134] _Ann. Soc._ VIII, 118.
+
+[135] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._ p. 166.
+
+[136] _Nor. Tr._ p. 163.
+
+[137] p. 142.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+KINSHIP TERMS.
+
+Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
+ Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
+ Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger.
+
+
+Some classless two-phratry tribes observe in practice the same rules as
+the four and eight class tribes when they are deciding what marriages
+are permissible. The Dieri and Narrangga follow the eight-class rule;
+the position of the Urabunna is somewhat uncertain owing to the
+obscurity of our authorities, which again is probably due to their lack
+of intimate acquaintance with the tribe; and the Wolgal, Ngarrego and
+Murring have the simple four-class rule that a man marries his mother's
+brother's daughter.
+
+We have seen in an earlier chapter that kinship and consanguinity are
+distinct in their nature, though among civilised peoples they are not in
+practice distinguishable. In the lower stages of culture it is otherwise,
+as will be shown in detail below. Corresponding to this distinction of
+consanguinity and kinship but not parallel to it we have two ways of
+expressing these relationships--the descriptive and the classificatory.
+The terminology of the former system is based on the principle of
+reckoning the relationship of two people by the total number of steps
+between them and the nearest lineal ancestor of both. The latter does not
+concern itself with descent at all but expresses the status of the
+individual as a member of a group of persons. Thus, to take a single
+example, in a typical Australian tribe the word applied by a child to its
+father is not used of him alone but of all the other males on the same
+level of a generation provided they belong to the same phratry; to the
+other half of the generation is applied the term usually translated
+"mother's brother."
+
+Unfortunately but few Australian lists of kinship terms have been drawn
+up, and the anomalous tribes like the Kurnai have absorbed a large share
+of attention. It is however possible to give tables for the three classes
+of tribes with which we have been in the main concerned. Those given are
+in use among the Wathi-Wathi of Victoria, the Ngerikudi-speaking people
+of North Queensland and the Arunta[138].
+
+_Wathi-Wathi Tribe: two-phratry._
+
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----
+ _Phratry A_ | _Phratry B_ |Gen-
+ |_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |er-
+ |(mother's father) | |(mother's mother)|at-
+ |_Miimui_ | |_Matui_ |ion
+ |(father's mother) | |(father's father)|
+ | | | | I
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Mamui_ | |_Kukui_ | |
+(father) | |(mother) | |
+_Niingui_ | |_Gunui_ | | II
+(father's sister= | |(mother's brother=| |
+_Nalundui_, | |_Nguthanguthu_ | |
+wife's mother) | |wife's father) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Malunui_ | | EGO |
+ |(father's | |_Wawi, mamui_ |
+ |sister's son) | |(elder brother, | III
+ |_Neripui_ | |sister) |
+ |(father's sister's| |_Tatui, minukui_ |
+ |daughter=wife) | |(younger do.) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Waipui_ | |_Ngipui_ | |
+(son, daughter) | |(sister's son) | |
+ | |? (sister's dau. | | IV
+ | |=_Boikathui_, | |
+ | | son's wife) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Naponui_ | |_Kokonui_ |
+ |(daughter's son) | |(sister's |
+ |_Miimui_ | |daughter's son) | V
+ |(sister's son's | |_Matui_ |
+ | son) | | (son's son) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+---
+
+
+_Ngerikudi: Four-class._
+
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
+ | | | |Gen-
+ | | | |er-
+_Phratry A:_ |_Class a_1_ |_Phratry B:_ |_Class b_1_ |at-
+_Class a_ | |_Class b_ | |ion
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Daida_ (mother's | |_Mite_ (mother's |
+ |father) | |mother) | I
+ |_Baida_ (father's | |_Laeta_ (father's|
+ |mother) | |father) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Naider_ (father) | |_Naibeguta_ | |
+_Waita_ (father's | |(mother) | |
+brother) | |_Miata_ (brother) | |
+_Niata_ (elder | |_Goete_ (elder | | II
+sister) | |sister) | |
+_Wiata_ (younger | |_Datu_ younger | |
+do.) | |( do.) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ | | | EGO |
+ |_Danuma_ (wife= | |_Maneinga_ (elder|
+ |mo. bro. dau.) | |brother) |
+ |_Lanti ngenuma_ | |_Goete_ (elder | III
+ |(sister's husband | |sister) |
+ |=mo. bro. son) | |_Otro_ (younger |
+ | | |brother or |
+ | | |sister) |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+_Yuta_ (son or | |? (sister's son | |
+daughter) | |or daughter) | |
+ | |_Yamaanta_ (dau.'s| | IV
+ | |husband) | |
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+
+ |_Yudanta_ | |_Yuunta_ (son's |
+ |(daughter's child)| |child) | V
+------------------+------------------+------------------+-----------------+----
+
+So far as deficiencies in our information would allow, these tables have
+been drawn up on corresponding lines, and the first point which strikes
+us is the great similarity between the three tables, in spite of the
+apparent wide divergence in the kinship organisation of the tribes. To
+facilitate comparison the Wathi-Wathi terms have been arranged, not only
+according to the system in use in the tribe, but in such a way as to
+show how the terms would be arranged under the four-class system.
+
+
+_Arunta: Eight-class._
+
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+ _Panunga_ | _Uknaria_ | _Bulthara_ | _Appungerta_ |Gen-
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
+ | |_Ipmunna_ (mother's|_Arunga_ (father's|at-
+ | |mother, wife's |father) |ion
+ | |mother's father) | |I
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Oknia_ (father)|_Mura_ (wife's | | |
+_Uwinna_ |mother, wife's | | |II
+(father's |mother's | | |
+sisters) |brothers) | | |
+ | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | | EGO |
+ | |_Ipmunna_ (father's|_Okilia_ (elder |
+ | |sister's daughter's|brothers) |
+ | |husband, son's |_Ungaraitcha_ |III
+ | |wife's mother) |(elder sisters) |
+ | | |_Itia_ (younger |
+ | | |brothers and |
+ | | |sisters) |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Allira_ | | | |
+(children, | | | |
+brother's | | | |IV
+children) | | | |
+----------------|---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | |_Arunga_ (son's |
+ | | |son) |V
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+ _Purula_ | _Ungalla_ | _Kumara_ | _Umbitchana_ |Gen-
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+er-
+ | |_Tjimmia_ |_Aperla_ |at-
+ | |(mother's father) |(father's |ion
+ | | |mother) |I
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Mia_ (mother, |_Ikuntera_ | | |
+mother's sister)|(wife's father)| | |II
+_Gammona_ | | | |
+(mother's | | | |
+brother) | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | | | |
+ | |_Unkulla_ (father's|_Unawa_ (wife, |
+ | |sister's sons) |wife's sisters) |
+ | | |_Umbirna_ |III
+ | | |(wife's brother= |
+ | | |sister's |
+ | | |husband) |
+- | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+_Gammona_ (son's|_Umba_ | | |
+ wife) |(sister's | | |IV
+ |children) | | |
+ | | | |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+
+ | |_Tjimmia_ | |
+ | |(daughter's child) | |V
+ ---------------+---------------+-------------------+------------------+----
+
+In the Wathi-Wathi system, we observe that in each generation there are
+two groups of males and two of females, corresponding to the two-phratry
+system, which are distinguished by names differing for each generation.
+Precisely the same arrangement is found in the four-class tribe. The
+four-class are therefore simply a systematisation of the terms of
+kinship in use under the two-phratry system.
+
+Comparing now the eight-class with the four-class system, we do not see
+at a glance the essential principle of the former. The clue is given by
+the fact that classes I and IV, II and III in phratry A, I and II, III
+and IV in phratry B, are what we have termed a couple, that is to say
+stand in the relation of parent and child alternately. Marriage being
+between classes of corresponding numbers, it follows that
+Kumara-Bulthara and Appungerta-Umbitchana are the maternal and paternal
+grandparents of the man EGO. The grandparents of his wife are in the
+same classes but with reversal as regards the sex. Bulthara is the
+cousin of Appungerta, Kumara of Umbitchana and so on. We see therefore
+that, just as among the Dieri, a man may not marry his cousin, but must
+marry his second cousin, to use ordinary terms, which in this case are
+not misleading.
+
+Looking now at the Ngerikudi system, we see that elder and younger
+sisters are distinguished in the generations of EGO and his parents.
+Possibly they are the eight-class tribe of Queensland to which Dr Howitt
+alludes. If not, we have in them a tribe one stage earlier than the
+southern Arunta, who have their four classes divided but as yet without
+any corresponding names.
+
+The Dieri rule is that of the eight-class tribes. The person designated
+as the proper spouse for a male is his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter, in other words, the grandchildren of brother and
+sister intermarry. This, as we have already seen, is precisely the
+effect of the eight-class rules. We are therefore confronted with three
+possibilities. Either the Dieri regulations are aberrant or they have
+introduced these rules under the influence of the neighbouring
+eight-class system; or the eight-class organisation is a systematisation
+of the Dieri rule, adopted perhaps to facilitate the determination of
+marriageableness or otherwise in the case of persons residing at some
+distance from each other and therefore less likely to be acquainted
+with genealogical niceties than the members of a small community. Now if
+the second of these hypotheses is correct, it is by no means clear why
+the Dieri, having in view the attainment of the object of the
+eight-class system, did not simply adopt it; for this we can find no
+reason; and it is clearly more reasonable on other grounds to suppose
+that these regulations are of independent origin. But we know the
+eight-class rule to have arisen from a division within a generation,
+which the Dieri rule is not. Therefore the latter must be sporadic.
+
+The same is probably true of the Urabunna, but here our information is
+very scanty and the precise working of the rules is far from clear. What
+happens is that an elder brother (A) of a woman (B) marries an elder
+sister (D) of a man (C); the daughter of this elder sister (D) is the
+proper mate for the son of the younger sister (B) of her husband; this
+younger sister's husband is the younger brother, C. Now the term elder
+brother, elder sister, does not seem to refer to age; the rule appears
+to be--once an elder brother, always an elder brother from generation to
+generation.
+
+We learn from Spencer and Gillen, that all the women of a generation in
+the one phratry, and presumably within the right totem only, are to a
+man either _nupa_ (=marriageable) or _apillia_. In the case given by Dr
+Howitt the younger sister is _nupa_ to the younger brother, the elder to
+the elder brother; but we do not learn how elder and younger are
+distinguished, if it is not by descent. Apparently it cannot be by
+descent, however; for we find that the son of the younger brother and
+sister marries the daughter of the elder brother and sister. As to what
+would happen if the younger brother and sister have a daughter, the
+elder a son, we have no information; but apparently they cannot marry.
+Such a daughter must find the son of two people who stand to her father
+and mother as they stood to A and D.
+
+From this example it is clear that the boundaries of the _nupa_ and
+_apillia_ groups are not fixed in a given group of women; it is not
+possible to divide the women and the men into elder brothers and sisters
+on the one hand, younger brothers and sisters on the other. But if this
+is the case, we are quite in the dark as to the meaning of the marriage
+regulations.
+
+One thing however seems certain; viz., that the Urabunna regulations do
+not give the same result as the four-class regulations. With them the
+division is within the generation. There is no class of women, who, with
+their descendants, are the normal spouses of a class of men, with their
+descendants. That being so, the Urabunna case can hardly throw light on
+the genesis of the four-class system.
+
+Among the Urabunna, however, like the Wathi-Wathi, we find the rule that
+a man must marry in his own generation; and this is _prima facie_ the
+meaning of the four-class rule. It is true that the origin of the
+eight-class rule was not what its _prima facie_ meaning suggests, viz.,
+the desire to prevent the marriage of cousins, for we know that it
+originated in the distinction between elder and younger sisters. But no
+similar theory appears to fit the case of the four-class tribes. No
+division within the generation could possibly produce an alternation of
+generations.
+
+The Red Indians have in many cases different names for the elder and
+younger sister; the Hausa impose on persons standing in these relations
+certain prohibitions and avoidances, which are not the same for both
+elder and younger; in Australia a man may speak freely to his elder
+sisters in blood, but only at a distance to his tribal _ungaraitcha_. To
+his younger sisters, blood and tribal, he may not speak save at such a
+distance that his features are indistinguishable. In many parts the
+elder brother has special rights with regard to the younger, and many
+similar customs might be quoted[139].
+
+The question why marriage within the generation--the rule of four-class
+and two-phratry tribes alike--should have come into existence is a
+complicated one and involves that of the origin of kinship terms. If we
+take a crucial case of kinship terminology, we find that a child applies
+the same term to its actual mother as to all the women whom its father
+might have married, to its potential mothers in fact. If therefore we
+have to choose between the gradual extension of the terms from the
+single family to the group or their original application to a group,
+this instance seems decisive in favour of the latter theory.
+
+Now if marriage was originally not "group" but individual, a question to
+be fully discussed in later chapters, we can hardly doubt that
+parent-child marriage was forbidden or perhaps instinctively avoided.
+But this would be equivalent to prohibiting marriage with one of a
+number of men or women embraced under a common kinship term. In the
+lower culture generally and especially among the Australians there is a
+tendency to follow things out to their logical conclusions. If this were
+done in the present case, the result would be to extend the prohibition
+to all the persons embraced under the kinship term.
+
+In any case the natural tendency in a small group would be to marry
+within the generation, and this might readily become crystallised in the
+kinship terms.
+
+The eight-class system, as we have seen, resulted from the distinction
+between elder and younger sister. What is the meaning of this and what
+analogies do we find to it?
+
+Widely extended also are the systems of age-grades. In all parts of the
+world the men, and sometimes the women, are or have been divided into
+associations, to which reference was made in Chapter I, which begin by
+being co-extensive with the tribe for all practical purposes, since all
+pass through the initiation ceremonies. The various initiation
+ceremonies during what may be termed the involuntary stage of these
+associations, no less than in their later form of secret societies,
+determine the rights and duties of the individuals who undergo them. The
+period at which they take place is determined, broadly speaking, by the
+age of the individual. It is therefore clear that for the peoples in the
+lower stage of culture considerations of age are of the highest
+importance.
+
+We find that in practice the elder brother has much authority, both over
+the younger brother and the sister. In Victoria he decides whom they are
+to marry. As we have seen in the tables of terms, the Wathi-Wathi man
+distinguishes both elder and younger of either sex by special terms,
+which points to their having special rights or duties[140].
+
+If therefore we cannot see why primitive man should have enacted that
+the elder rather than the younger, or the daughter of the elder rather
+than the daughter of the younger, should be preferred, it is at any rate
+of a piece with his other customs.
+
+From the terms of kinship tabulated above various conclusions have been
+drawn. It will be seen that a man applies to all the women in the other
+phratry on the level of his generation the same term as he applies to
+his actual wife. On this basis it has been argued that at one time all
+the men in one phratry were united in marriage with all the women in the
+other within the limits of the generation. Before this again a stage of
+absolute promiscuity is supposed to have existed. This alternative
+explanation of the kinship organisations demands to be considered.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[138] _J.A.I._ XIV, 354; _N. Queensl. Eth. Bull._ VI, 6; Spencer and
+Gillen, _Northern Tribes_, p. 90.
+
+[139] Morgan, in _Smithsonian Contr._ vol. XVII; _Globus_, LXIX, 3;
+_Nat. Tribes_, pp. 88-9.
+
+[140] For lists of tribes where this distinction is found see Mathew,
+_Eaglehawk_, p. 223-4.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER X.
+
+TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.
+
+Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types. Hypothetical
+ and existing forms.
+
+
+Students of the sociology of white races enjoy conspicuous advantages
+over those who devote themselves to the investigation of the
+organisation of races in the lower stages of culture. In the first place
+they deal with conditions and forms with which they are personally
+familiar; and this familiarity is shared by those who form the audience,
+or the reading public, of these investigators, who may thus count on
+making themselves understood. Even should they find the already existing
+terminology insufficient, the knowledge of the phenomena enables them to
+introduce suitable modifications or innovations without fear of causing
+misunderstanding. It is true that terminology is often loose, but it
+exists and can be made to express what is meant.
+
+The student of primitive sociology, on the other hand, is called upon to
+digest the reports of other observers, who have not always understood
+the conditions which they describe, who have failed to define to
+themselves what they are endeavouring to make clear to others, and who
+make use of a terminology created for an entirely different set of
+conditions, as if exact definition and care in the use of terms were the
+last and not the first duty of the observer when he frames his report.
+
+Thus, to take a concrete example, there is not much danger that a writer
+who discusses the question of marriage in civilised communities will
+deal with one form of union of the sexes, while his readers may imagine
+that he is dealing with another form. For marriage is the form of
+sexual union recognised by the law of the land, and its legal sanction
+distinguishes it from all other forms of sexual union, however permanent
+they may be, and however short may be the period before the marriage is
+dissolved by an appeal to the courts of law. In fact in civilised
+communities the fulfilment of legal forms and ceremonies constitutes
+marriage, whatever might be said of a union sanctioned by legal forms
+but unaccompanied by the cohabitation of the parties. When, however, we
+are dealing with a people ruled by custom and not by law, the case is
+far different. The force of custom may and usually does in such cases
+far exceed the force of law in civilised communities. In the lower
+stages of culture there is far more reluctance to overstep the
+traditional lines of behaviour than is felt by the ordinary member of a
+European state, and this though there are penalties in the latter which
+do not necessarily exist in the former case. But law, in the sense of a
+rule of conduct, promulgated by a legislator and enforced by penalties
+inflicted by law courts and carried out by the agents of the state, does
+not necessarily exist, and, at most, exists only in a very inchoate
+state. If therefore we read of marriage among such a people, we are left
+in complete uncertainty whether it is a union corresponding to marriage
+in civilised lands, or whether it belongs to a different category. The
+difficulty of the case lies partly in the inability of the observer to
+distinguish _de jure_ from _de facto_ unions, partly in the fact that
+one may be transformed into the other, and no ceremony of any sort mark
+the change. An Australian may, for example, have a wife who is
+recognised as his by tribal custom and tradition; if she is abducted the
+aggrieved husband may vindicate his rights but will not necessarily be
+supported by even his own kin, and will certainly not find anything to
+correspond to the tribunal before which an Englishman would sue for the
+restitution of conjugal rights. If the aggrieved husband proves the
+weaker, he necessarily abandons his wife, and she becomes _ipso facto_
+the wife of the aggressor; divorce is in fact pronounced by the issue of
+an ordeal by combat. So far the matter is clear to the observer.
+
+But if the aggrieved husband take no steps to vindicate his rights, the
+woman will equally pass to the aggressor, and in this case there will
+be no customary ceremonial to mark for the benefit of the observer the
+exact moment of the transition from a marriage, recognised by public
+opinion, or tribal custom, with the first husband A to the same kind of
+union with B.
+
+Again, even where no second mate intervenes to complicate the question,
+the observer may be confronted with delicate problems; at what point,
+for example, does a mere liaison pass into something worthy of the name
+of marriage? What is the status of a union in which the parties are more
+or less permanently associated, but which confers no rights as against
+aggressors? If by native custom the union is not of such a nature as to
+confer on the male party to it any rights over the female, such as the
+liberty to chastise or punish without fear of the intervention of the
+woman's kin, are we to regard the tie as equivalent to marriage if only
+it is permanent? At what point does mere cohabitation pass into
+marriage?
+
+All these are questions which have to be debated and decided before we
+are in possession of a suitable terminology for dealing with the unions
+of the sexes in the lower stages of culture. But they are commonly
+neglected in controversies as to the origin and history of human
+marriage.
+
+We have seen above that in a European community we mean by marriage a
+union between two persons of opposite sexes, entered into with due legal
+formalities, and not dissoluble simply at the will of either or both the
+parties concerned. When we go further afield the connotation of the term
+is extended to embrace (1) polygyny, in which one male is associated
+with two or more females, (2) polyandry, in which one female is
+similarly associated with more than one male, and (3) the condition
+which I propose to term polygamy, in which both these conditions are
+found. In all these cases the union is properly termed marriage, in so
+far as it cannot be entered upon without due formalities nor be
+dissolved without the concurrence of the authority upon the carrying out
+of whose conditions in the preliminary steps the union depends for its
+marriage-character.
+
+When however we come to the so-called group marriage, using the term in
+its original sense of limited promiscuity, we are dealing with an
+entirely different state of things, and it is difficult to see any
+justification for the use of the term marriage in this connection at
+all. By group marriage is meant a condition only removed from absolute
+promiscuity by the existence of age-classes or of two or more exogamous
+classes in the community; it demands no special ceremonies prior to the
+individual union[141], it permits this union to be dissolved at will,
+and it consequently confers no rights on either of the parties to it,
+other than perhaps the right to the produce, or some of the produce, of
+each other's labour.
+
+If the confusion did not extend beyond the terminology, the advance of
+knowledge would perhaps be but little impeded; but experience shows that
+confusion in terminology is apt to go hand in hand with confusion in
+ideas. As will be shown later, this seems to be particularly true of
+investigations into the history of marriage and sexual relationships. It
+seems desirable therefore to clear the way by classifying the ideas with
+which we have to deal, and by defining the terms corresponding to them.
+
+Before classifying the various forms of sexual relationships, it may be
+well to say a few words on the definition of marriage in general. Dr
+Westermarck has defined it from the point of view of natural history as
+a more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting
+beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the
+offspring.
+
+It may not be possible to propose a better definition from the point of
+view selected by Dr Westermarck, which is certainly the one from which
+anthropology must regard sexual relationships. At the same time it is
+not entirely free from objection. In the first place we are employing
+the word marriage in a sense which has but little in common with its
+ordinarily accepted meaning. Suppose, for example, we are dealing with
+marriage in Europe, it is confusing to be compelled by our definition to
+regard as a marriage the _faux menage_, not to speak of the not uncommon
+fairly permanent unions in which there is no common residence. Such
+monogamous relationships may be, technically speaking, marriages, in Dr
+Westermarck's sense, but it seems desirable to make use of some other
+term for them and reserve marriage for the unions sanctioned by legal
+forms. Or take the union of two people, each of whom has prior
+matrimonial engagements. Such a union may, as the records of the divorce
+court show, be anything but impermanent; but it does not make for
+clearness to call such an union marriage. Let us take a third example--a
+New Hebridean girl purchased, or in Upa stolen, for the use of the young
+men, who, of course, reside in their club-house. If any of the bachelors
+there resident chooses to recognise her children, they are regarded as
+his children; if not, they are supported by the whole of the residents
+in the club-house. How are we to classify the position of the mother of
+these children? The union is obviously fairly permanent, although some
+of the group enter into sexual relationships of an ordinary type and
+join the ranks of the married men, and others enter the club-house from
+the ranks of those hitherto shut out from the enjoyment of the
+privileges of the adult unmarried male. But the relationship established
+with the whole body of unmarried men and indistinguishable, so far as
+definition goes, from polyandry, hardly seems to be a permanent union of
+the type which Dr Westermarck had in mind when he framed his definition,
+much less a marriage in any accepted sense of the term.
+
+For Dr Westermarck's general term marriage it would be well to
+substitute _game_ or gamic union, to express all kinds of sexual
+relationships other than temporary ones. As sub-heads under this we
+have:
+
+(1) Marriage, a union recognised by law or custom, which imposes duties
+and confers rights on one, both, or all the parties to it.
+
+(2) Free union, a relationship not recognised by the community as
+conferring rights, but at the same time not punished and not necessarily
+regarded as immoral. Temporary unions we may classify as (_a_)
+promiscuity where marriage does not exist or is temporarily in abeyance:
+(_b_) free love, the relationships of the unmarried: (_c_ i.) temporary
+polyandry or polygyny of married people, where the unions are limited
+and recognised by custom: (_c_ ii.) marital licence where the husband is
+complaisant in the face of public opinion: (_c_ iii.) adultery where
+neither the husband nor public opinion permits them.
+
+(3) Liaison, a union in which one or both parties have other ties, which
+renders them liable to punishment, or to some kind of atonement.
+
+Ten various possible forms of sexual relationship actually found or
+assumed to have existed may now be classified.
+
+
+A. PROMISCUITY.
+
+I. Unregulated Promiscuity. (_a_) Primary unregulated promiscuity is the
+hypothetical state assumed by Morgan and others to be the primitive
+state of mankind. It may be noted that promiscuity _de jure_, which is
+all that is implied by Morgan's hypothesis, is not necessarily also _de
+facto_ promiscuity. Unless it be assumed that jealousy was absent at
+this stage, it is clear that free unions must have been the rule rather
+than the exception. But if this be so, the only distinction between
+Morgan's promiscuity and the ordinary state of things in an Australian
+tribe is constituted, intermarrying rules apart, by the fact that the
+Australian husband is at liberty to reclaim his wife, if he can, without
+fear of blood feud if perchance he slays his successor in the
+affections, or perhaps rather in the possession, of his wife, whereas in
+Morgan's primitive stage might was right and the abductor was on an
+equal footing with his predecessor and successor. (_b_) Secondary
+unregulated promiscuity is distinguished from primary promiscuity by the
+co-existence of other forms of sexual relations. It may temporarily
+supersede these as in Australia; or it may take their place, as among
+the Nairs.
+
+II. Regulated Promiscuity. This again falls into (_a_) primary regulated
+promiscuity, the hypothetical stage postulated for Australia before the
+introduction of individual marriage; and (_b_) secondary regulated
+promiscuity, which is found in certain tribes as an exceptional
+practice. With this custom I deal in greater detail below.
+
+
+B. MARRIAGE.
+
+III, Polygamy. This state is constituted by the union of several men
+with several women. It may be distinguished, as before, into primary and
+secondary polygamy. We may further distinguish (_[alpha]_) simple
+and (_[beta]_) adelphic polygamy; and the latter may be (i)
+unilateral or (ii) bilateral, according as either the males or females,
+or both males and females, are brothers and sisters. A further
+sub-division is constituted by the relations of the groups of males or
+females, or both, within themselves. I distinguish these unions by the
+names of dissimilar (M.) and dissimilar (F.) according as one husband or
+one wife has a position superior to the others[142].
+
+IV, Polyandric and V. polygynic unions fall into the same divisions,
+save that they are naturally always unilateral. As a designation for the
+hypothetical stage postulated by Mr Atkinson in _Primal Law_, we may
+take "patriarchal polygyny," meaning thereby the state in which (_a_) in
+the earlier stage all the females of the horde[143] are _ipso facto_
+mates of the one adult male of the horde; or (_b_) in the second stage
+all females born in the horde are equally allotted to him.
+
+Finally we have VI, monogamy.
+
+To the three forms of marriage we can apply the determinants "regulated"
+and "unregulated," "temporary[144]," "permanent," as in the case of
+promiscuity.
+
+We have further two well-marked types of marriage and a mixed form in
+which (_a_) the husband goes to live with the wife; (_b_) he lives with
+the wife for a time and then removes to his own village or tribe; and
+(_c_) the wife removes to the husband. For the first of these Maclennan
+has proposed the name _beena_ marriage; Robertson Smith has proposed to
+call the third type _ba[']al_ marriage, and to include both _beena_ and
+_mot[']a_ marriages under the general name of _[s.]ad[=i]ca_. This
+terminology is unnecessarily obscure and has the further disadvantage of
+connoting the domination or subjection of the husband, a feature not
+necessarily bound up with residence. I therefore propose to term the
+three types matrilocal, removal, and patrilocal marriages. I suggest
+compounds of _pater_ and _mater_, not as being specially appropriate,
+but as being parallel to matrilineal and patrilineal, denoting descent
+in the female and male lines respectively.
+
+For the somewhat complicated relationships of _potestas_ in the family I
+propose two main divisions, (_a_) patri-potestal, (_b_) matri-potestal;
+the latter may be further subdivided according as the authority is in
+the hands (1) of the actual mother, (2) of the maternal uncles, (3) of
+the mother's relatives in general, and so on.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[141] The _pirrauru_ union is preceded by a ceremony, but this is no
+proof that primitive group marriage, if it existed, was contracted in
+the same way.
+
+[142] Dissimilar polygamy is, in respect of the inferior spouses, hardly
+to be distinguished from promiscuity, save that the number of them is
+limited. But in Australia the lending of _pirraurus_ sweeps away even
+this distinction.
+
+[143] He says family, or Cyclopean family. Harem in fact is the idea.
+
+[144] i.e. not life-long.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.
+
+Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
+ harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts.
+
+
+The arguments for group marriage in Australia are of two kinds--(1) from
+the terms of relationship, that is to say of a mixed philological and
+sociological character, and (2) from the customs of the Australian
+tribes.
+
+The argument from the terms of relationship is so intimately connected
+with the theories of Lewis Morgan that it may be well to give a brief
+critical survey of Morgan's hypotheses. I therefore begin the treatment
+of this part of the subject by a statement of Morgan's views on the
+general question of the origin and development of human marriage.
+
+As a result of his enquiries into terms of relationships, mainly in
+North America and Asia, Morgan drew up a scheme of fifteen stages,
+through which he believed the sexual relations of human beings had
+passed in the interval between utter savagery and the civilised family.
+We are only concerned with the earlier portion of his scheme. It is not
+even necessary to discuss that in all its details. Morgan's first eight
+(properly five) stages are:
+
+I. Promiscuous Intercourse.
+
+II. Intermarriage or Cohabitation of Brothers and Sisters.
+
+III. The Communal Family (First stage of the Family).
+
+IV. The Hawaian Custom of Punalua[145], giving the Malayan Form of the
+Classificatory System[146].
+
+V. The Tribal Organisation, i.e. totemic exogamy plus promiscuity,
+giving the Turanian and Ganowanian System[147].
+
+VI. Monogamy.
+
+The objections to this theory or group of theories are numerous, and it
+will not be necessary to consider them all here. Were it not that no one
+has since Morgan's day attempted to trace in detail the course of
+evolution from promiscuity to monogamy, it would be almost superfluous
+to discuss the theories of a work on primitive sociology dating back
+nearly thirty years.
+
+With some points Morgan has failed to deal in a way that commends itself
+to us in the light of knowledge accumulated since his day; with others
+he has not attempted to deal, apparently from a want of perception of
+their importance.
+
+First and foremost among the points with which Morgan has failed to deal
+is that of the constitution of the primitive group. Was it composed of
+parents and children only or were more than two generations represented?
+If the former, why were the children expelled? if the latter, how are
+brother and sister marriages introduced, when _ex hypothesi_ the father
+of any given child was unknown and may have been any adult male? If
+Morgan and his supporters evade this difficulty by defining brother and
+sister as children of the same mother, they are met by the obvious
+objection that no revolution in a promiscuous group would result in the
+marriage of children of the same mother. _Ex hypothesi_ there were
+several child-bearing women in the group, and their children, if a
+reform were introduced prohibiting marriage outside one's own
+generation, would intermarry; but the children of these women are, on
+the definition adopted, not brothers and sisters.
+
+If brother and sister does not mean children of the same mother, what
+does it mean?
+
+By what process are these names supposed to have come into existence in
+a promiscuous group? If brother in this sense is taken to imply common
+parentage, the name must clearly denote the relation between two males
+because, although a whole group of men had access to the mother, the
+male parent was or may have been the same person in each case, and this
+whether the mother was the same or not. Now, quite apart from the fact
+that primitive man was unlikely to have evolved a term for such an
+indefinite relationship, except in so far as it involved rights or
+duties, it is obvious that great complications would arise which would
+in practice make the nomenclature unworkable. For to call two boys
+brothers because they have the same group of men as possible fathers is
+only practicable in a society which has already evolved a system of age
+grades, and has established restrictions on intercourse between
+different generations, to use a somewhat indefinite term. For it is
+clear that in a state of promiscuity the class of adults is continually
+being recruited and that the boy passes at puberty, in so far as
+restrictions in the nature of initiation ceremonies are not imposed,
+from the class of sons to that of fathers. In other words, if a group
+consists of M_1 M_2 M_3 M_4, and they have male children of all
+ages N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4, as soon as N_1 reaches puberty he
+becomes a possible father of the children O_1 O_2 O_3 O_4, who
+differ in age from N_4 only by a few years at most and reckon as his
+brothers. But this means that N_1 is the son of M_1, for example,
+but at the same time the father of O_1, who is likewise the son of
+M_1; in the same way O_1 is the brother of N_4, who is the brother
+of N_1; but O_1 is not the brother of N_1. The extraordinary
+complexity of the relations that would arise is at once obvious, and it
+seems clear that relationship terms could never come into existence
+under such circumstances unless they implied something beyond mere
+relationship and denoted rights and duties[148]. But if they denoted
+rights and duties, these must have preceded the relationship term, which
+consequently need not be held to apply to kinship in any proper sense of
+the term.
+
+It is clear that the same difficulties apply when we try to work out the
+development on the hypothesis that a group of mothers existed. We are
+therefore reduced to the supposition that the term brother denoted
+originally a person born within a given period of time, and that this
+period was the same for whole sections of the community; in other words
+that the name brother was given to all males born between, let us say,
+B.C. 10,000 and B.C. 9,990. This is of course equivalent to the
+establishment of age grades and is in itself not unthinkable; age grades
+are of course perfectly well known among primitive peoples; but the
+establishment of age grades implies a degree of social organisation;
+and, what is more important, this hypothesis makes the term brother
+quite meaningless as a kinship term; for at the present day a common
+term of address for members of an age grade does not imply any degree of
+consanguinity, and unless it be proved that age grades are a product of
+the period of "group marriage" it cannot be argued that they ever did
+imply kinship.
+
+It is sufficiently clear from these examples that Morgan entirely failed
+to work out the process by which the transition from pure to regulated
+promiscuity came about. But if the process is uncertain the causes are
+equally obscure. In Mr Morgan's view, or at any rate in one of the
+theories on which he accounted for the change, it was due to "movements
+which resulted in unconscious reformation"; these movements were, he
+supposes, worked out by natural selection. These words, it is true,
+apply primarily to the origin of the "tribal" or "gentile" organisation,
+as Mr Morgan terms totemism, but they probably apply to the original
+passage from promiscuity to "communal marriage," and I propose to
+examine how far such a theory has any solid basis.
+
+Natural selection is a blessed phrase, but in the present case it is
+difficult to see in what way it is supposed to act. The variation
+postulated by Mr Morgan as a basis for the operation of natural
+selection is one of ideas, not physical or mental powers. Now under
+ordinary circumstances we mean by natural selection the weeding out of
+the unfit by reason of inferiorities, physical or psychical, which
+handicap them in the struggle for existence. But it cannot be said that
+the tendency to marry or practice of marrying outside one's own
+generation is such a handicap to the parents. How far is it injurious to
+the children of such unions? Or rather, how far have children who are
+the offspring of brothers and sisters or of cousins a better chance of
+surviving than the offspring of unions between relatives of different
+generations?
+
+It is at the outset clear that savages are not in the habit of taking
+account of such matters. Even if it were otherwise, it is not clear how
+far they would have data as to the varying results of unions of near
+kin. For though on this question, so far as the genus homo is concerned,
+we have very few data on which to go, such data as we have hardly bear
+out his view. Modern statistics relate almost exclusively to the
+intermarriage of cousins, and apply, not to primitive tribes, such as
+those with which, _ex hypothesi_, Mr Morgan is dealing, but to more or
+less civilised and sophisticated peoples, among whom the struggle for
+existence is less keen owing to the advance of knowledge and the
+progress of invention, and among whom possibly the rise of humanitarian
+ideas not only tends to counteract the weeding out of the unfit, but
+even makes it relatively easy for them to propagate their species. What
+the result of the intermarriage of cousins is when war, famine, and
+infanticide are efficient weeders out of the unfit, we cannot say.
+Possibly or even probably the ill results would be inappreciable. It
+must not be forgotten that the marriage of near relatives is only
+harmful because or if it hands on to the children of the union an
+hereditary taint in a strengthened form, a result which is likely to
+follow in civilised life because hereditary taints are allowed to
+flourish unchecked by prudence and controlled by natural selection only
+so far as humanitarianism will permit it. These hereditary degeneracies
+however are probably largely if not entirely absent among savages. It is
+therefore open to question how far intermarriage of cousins would prove
+harmful under such conditions.
+
+Statistics of the influence of cousin-marriage are not however what Mr
+Morgan wants. It is essential for him to prove that father-daughter
+marriage is more harmful than brother-sister unions.
+
+It might be imagined that the data for estimating the effect of the
+union of father and daughter would be non-existent, but this is not so.
+Within the last few years it has been stated that such unions are common
+in parts of South America, and that the children, so far from being
+degenerates, are remarkably healthy and vigorous[149]. This is of
+interest in connection with Mr Atkinson's speculations as to the history
+of the family. In this connection it may be pointed out that such
+unions, _ex hypothesi_, are unlikely to result in continual in-and-in
+breeding, and would in all probability seldom be continued beyond the
+first alliance of this nature.
+
+We are practically in complete darkness as to the results of brother and
+sister marriage in the human species. We have of course various cases of
+ruling families who perpetuated themselves in this way, but the data
+from such peoples refer to an advanced stage of culture and to a
+favoured class. They are not therefore applicable to similar unions
+among savages where they formed, as Mr Morgan suggests, the invariable
+practice. It is however possible to deduce from very simple
+considerations the probabilities as to the respective effects of
+adelphic and father-daughter unions. In the first place, as has been
+already pointed out, the father-daughter union implies only one family
+of in-and-in-bred children; in the case of brother and sister marriage,
+on the other hand, this state of things may go on indefinitely. If this
+is not enough to turn the scale against adelphic unions there is the
+further fact that, taking the descendants of the first pair of
+intermarrying descendants of common parents, whose tendency to disease
+or deformity is we will suppose x^1 on both sides, and assuming that
+this tendency increases in a simple ratio, the offspring have the same
+tendencies to the second power of x. If their children marry each other
+the measure of degeneracy in the third generation is x^4. Suppose now
+a father and mother with index of degeneracy each x^1; a daughter of
+this union will have as her index x^2; if the daughter bears children
+to the father, their index will be not x^4, but x^3, if the simple
+law which I have assumed for the purposes of argument holds good.
+
+It is therefore clear that the offspring of adelphic unions, so far from
+being at an advantage compared with the offspring of father-daughter
+unions, are at a disadvantage in the proportion of 4 to 3. In the third
+place, in father-daughter unions the male is physically as well as
+sexually mature. In adelphic unions both parties are probably immature.
+Consequently from this point of view also the advantage is with the
+supposed injurious type of union. Now if the father-daughter union was
+less harmful than the brother-sister union, _a fortiori_ are uncle-niece
+and similar unions less harmful. Yet Morgan supposes them to have been
+prohibited in favour of brother and sister unions.
+
+Mr Morgan's reformation therefore turns out to have been no reformation
+at all, but a retrograde step. Assuming however that the facts were as
+he supposed them to be, and that the reformation was a real one, it is
+by no means clear how he supposes it to have been brought about. It was,
+as we have seen, an unconscious[150] reformation; it is not supposed
+therefore that the primeval savage detected more pronounced signs of
+degeneracy in the offspring of one class of union and by the force of
+public opinion caused such unions to fall into disrepute and ultimately
+into desuetude. So far as can be seen the method which Mr Morgan had in
+his mind was this: certain unions resulted in offspring less able to
+maintain the struggle for existence, and these families consequently
+tended to die out. Other unions--those of sisters and brothers--on the
+other hand produced more vigorous children, and tended to perpetuate
+themselves. Whereas originally there was no tendency either one way or
+the other, some families developed from unknown causes, which, whatever
+they were, were neither moral nor utilitarian, the practice of brother
+and sister marriage. This diathesis followed the ordinary laws of
+descent, and eventually those families which were fortunate enough to be
+affected in that way exterminated their rivals.
+
+Now, as will be shown immediately, this course of events seems to be in
+contradiction with the facts of savage society at the present day and
+with all probability. Apart from that however, how does Mr Morgan
+suppose his eugenic diathesis to be transmitted? It can hardly be
+maintained that this was the result of the different social conditions
+of the families in which brothers and sisters intermarried. Obviously
+there would be nothing to prevent the male in one of these unions from
+reverting to the other type of marriage. This would indeed be highly
+probable for reasons to be developed in the next paragraph. But if
+social conditions were not the determining factor, we are left with the
+somewhat grotesque theory of innate ideas. It is hardly necessary to
+refute this origin of social evolution.
+
+Perhaps the strongest objection, however, to Mr Morgan's theory is the
+fact that in the most primitive communities the female tends to be
+younger, often much younger, than her mate. It is a readily
+ascertainable fact, though it seems to have been neglected by Mr Morgan,
+that the age of puberty does not coincide with the greatest development
+of the physical powers, but precedes it in the human subject by many
+years. The result of this is that the younger males are, as a rule, in
+the case of many mammals, held in subjection by the patriarch of the
+herd, the result being what I have termed above patriarchal polygyny, as
+long as the old male retains his powers. We have, it is true, no
+evidence of any such conditions among the anthropoids; but it must not
+be forgotten that we have no evidence of the consanguine family either
+among anthropoids, other mammals or human beings.
+
+It tells against the hypothesis of patriarchal polygyny that both among
+horses and among camels there is evidence of the existence of actual
+sexual aversion between both sire and filly and dam and colt in the
+first case; and, as Aristotle tells us, at least between dam and colt in
+the case of camels; but we can hardly argue from Ungulata to Primates.
+
+However this may be, the objections to Morgan's theories do not lose
+their strength. Enough has perhaps been said of them from the point of
+view of theory. We may look at them in the light of the known facts of
+social evolution among races of low stages of culture.
+
+If we now turn for a moment to see what light Australian facts throw on
+the first two stages postulated by Mr Morgan, we find that the
+theoretical objections are amply supported by the course of evolution
+which can be traced in Australian social regulations. It will be
+recollected that in his view father-daughter marriage disappeared first,
+then brother and sister marriage. Totemism apart, there are in
+Australia, as we have seen, two kinds of organisation for the regulation
+of marriage--phratries, the dichotomous division of the southern tribes,
+and classes, the four-fold or eight-fold division of the other areas as
+to which we have any knowledge. Of these the phratry is demonstrably
+older than the class. But the result of the division of a tribe into two
+phratries is to prevent brother and sister marriage, while, so far as
+phratry rules are concerned, father and daughter are still free to marry
+in those tribes where the descent is matrilineal. The result (though not
+necessarily the original object) of the class-system, on the other hand,
+is to prevent the marriage of fathers and daughters and generally of the
+older generation with the younger, so far as the classes actually
+represent generations. In actual practice the class into which a man may
+marry includes females of all ages, so that he is only debarred from
+marrying young females if they are his own daughters. But if we may
+assume that the original object of the classes was to prevent the
+intermarriage of different generations, it is at once obvious that in
+Australia the evolution postulated by Mr Morgan, if it took place at
+all, took place in reverse order, the brother and sister marriage being
+the first to be brought under the ban.
+
+The objections to which attention has been called seem to make it
+difficult if not impossible to accept Morgan's explanations either of
+the processes or of the causes which led to the passage from promiscuity
+to communal marriage.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[145] This is not really material.
+
+[146] Properly speaking these are not stages in the same sense as the
+other forms.
+
+[147] See note 2 on previous page. [Transcriber's Note: Refers to [146]]
+
+[148] We find that in practice change of age grade, i.e. of relationship
+term, does exist; a clearer proof could not be given that the term of
+relationship has nothing to do with descent.
+
+[149] _Wiener Med. Wochenschrift_, 1904; cf. _Fort. Rev._ LXXXIII, 460,
+n. 18. There is, as Mr Lang informs me, a curious Panama case in records
+of the Darien expedition, 1699.
+
+[150] Sometimes but usually not, for Morgan is utterly inconsistent.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.
+
+Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. _Noa._ Group Mothers.
+ Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms
+ express status. The savage view natural.
+
+
+We may now turn to consider the terms of relationship from the point of
+view of marriage, more especially in connection with Australia. We have
+already seen that there are great difficulties in the way of Morgan's
+hypothesis that the names accurately represent the relations which
+formerly existed in the tribes which used them. I propose to discuss the
+matter here from a somewhat different standpoint.
+
+It seems highly probable that if any individual term came into use,
+whether monogamy, patriarchal polygyny, "group marriage," or promiscuity
+prevailed, it would be that which expresses the relationship of a mother
+to her child. The only other possibility would be that in the first two
+conditions mentioned the relation of husband to wife might take
+precedence.
+
+In actual practice we find that the name which a mother applies to her
+own child is applied by her equally to the children of the women whom
+her husband might have married. This state of things may obviously arise
+from one of three causes, (_a_) In the first place the name may have
+been originally that which a mother applied to her own son, and it may
+have been extended to those who were her nephews in a state of monogamy,
+or stepsons (=sons of other women by the same father) in a state of
+polygyny either with or without polyandry. (_b_) The theory that a name
+was applied originally to own and collateral relatives has already been
+discussed, so far as it refers to the "undivided commune." The case of
+regulated promiscuity is different and must be considered here. (_c_) On
+the other hand the name which she uses may have been expressive of
+tribal status or group status, and may have had nothing to do with
+descent.
+
+It is unnecessary to say much about the first of these possibilities.
+First, there is no evidence to show that such a thing has taken place;
+secondly, we can see no reason why such a thing should take place;
+thirdly, if such a change of meaning did take place, it is quite clear
+that we have no grounds for regarding the philological evidence for
+group marriage as having the slightest significance.
+
+In connection with the second hypothesis--that the names actually
+represent the relations formerly existing, it may be well to preface the
+discussion by a few remarks on the regulation of marriage in Australia.
+The rules by which the Australian native is bound, when he sets out to
+choose a wife, make the area of choice as a rule dependent on his
+status, that is to say, he must, in order to find a wife, go to another
+phratry, class, totem-kin, or combination of two of these, membership of
+which depends on descent, direct or indirect; on the other hand he may
+be limited by regulations dependent on locality, that is to say he may
+have to take a wife from a group resident in a certain area. There is
+reason to suppose that the latter regulations are the outcome of earlier
+status regulations which have fallen into desuetude. However this may
+be, all that we are here concerned with is the fact that regulations in
+this case also are virtually dependent on descent, inasmuch as a man is
+not in practice free to reside where he likes, but remains in his own
+group, though occasionally he joins that of his wife (this does not
+apparently affect the exogamic rule). The groups are therefore to all
+intents and purposes totem-kins with male descent.
+
+Taking the Kurnai as our example of the non-class-organised groups, we
+find that the fraternal relationship once started goes on for ever; the
+result of this is that with few exceptions the whole of the
+intermarrying groups, so far as they are of the same generation, are
+brothers and sisters. Dr Howitt, whose authority on matters of
+Australian ethnology is final, recognises that on the principles on
+which group marriage is deduced from terms of relationship, this fact
+should point to the Kurnai being yet in the stage of the undivided
+commune (why, it is difficult to see, when they are definitely
+exogamous), but regards the argument from terms of relationship as
+untrustworthy in this instance. If it is not reliable in one case it may
+well be unreliable in all; we are entitled to ask supporters of the
+hypothesis of group marriage what differentiates this case from those in
+which they have no doubt of the validity of the philological argument.
+
+Now if Dr Howitt's doubts as to the interpretation to be put upon the
+Kurnai terms of relationship are correct, we may reasonably, in the
+absence of proof that they originated in a different way from the
+Malayan terms, ask ourselves upon what basis the case for promiscuity
+rests. Beyond a few customs, and it will be shown below that it is
+unnecessary to regard them as survivals of a period when marriage was
+unknown, the proof is purely philological, and on examination the
+philological proof is found to be wanting.
+
+Dr Howitt, in his recent book, rests the case for the undivided commune
+(i.e. promiscuity) on the Australian terms of relationship which he
+discusses, viz. those of the Dieri and the Kurnai. He will not admit
+that the Kurnai terms point to the undivided commune; we are therefore
+left with the Dieri terms. But the Dieri organisation, so far from being
+that of an undivided commune, is the two-phratry arrangement by which a
+man is by no means free to marry any woman in his tribe, but is limited
+to one-half of the women; further, tribal customs limit his choice still
+further and compel him to marry his mother's mother's brother's
+daughter's daughter (these terms do not refer to blood but so-called
+"tribal" relationship, i.e. it is a woman with a certain tribal status
+whom he has to marry). Where then does Dr Howitt find his proof of
+promiscuity?
+
+We have, it is true, a certain number of tribal legends, according to
+which the phratry organisation was instituted to prevent the marriage
+of too near kin. But, quite apart from the fact that tribal legends are
+not evidence, the legends merely point to a period when marriage was
+unregulated, when a man was free to marry any woman, not when he was _de
+facto_ or _de jure_ the husband of every woman. Even if it be proved
+beyond question that marriage was once unregulated, it does not follow
+that promiscuity prevailed.
+
+The existence of the undivided commune is a proof of promiscuity only
+for those who discover proofs of group marriage in the divided commune,
+in other words in the terms of relationship and the customs of the
+ordinary two-phratry tribe of the present day. We may therefore let the
+decision of the question of the validity of terms of relationship as a
+proof of extensive connubial activities rest upon the discussion of the
+evidence to be drawn from the tribes selected by Dr Howitt and Messrs
+Spencer and Gillen, viz. the Dieri and the Urabunna.
+
+It may however be pointed out that neither of these writers has dealt
+with the passage from promiscuity to "group marriage," nor shown how
+under the former system terms of relationship could come into existence
+at all. With the difficulties we have dealt above.
+
+We must now revert to the question of the origin of the so-called "terms
+of relationship." Are they expressive of kinship or only of status and
+duties? Neither Lewis Morgan nor the authorities on Australian marriage
+customs--Dr Howitt and Messrs Spencer and Gillen--discuss the question
+at length, but seem to regard it as an axiom (although they warn us that
+all European ideas of relationship must be dismissed when we deal with
+the classificatory system) that all these terms may be interpreted on
+the hypothesis that the European relationships to which they most nearly
+correspond actually existed in former times, not, as in Europe, between
+individuals, but between groups. The case on which Spencer and Gillen
+rely is that of the _unawa_ relationship. They argue that a man is
+_unawa_ to a whole group of women, one of whom is his individual wife;
+for this individual wife no special name exists, she is just _unawa_
+(=_noa_) like all the other women he might have married. Consequently
+the marital relation must have existed formerly between the man in
+question and the whole group of _unawa_ women. The reasoning does not
+seem absolutely conclusive, and our doubts as to the validity of the
+argument are strengthened when we apply it to another case and find the
+results inconsistent with facts which are known to the lowest savage.
+Not only has a man only one name for the women he might have married,
+and for the woman he actually did marry, but a mother has only one name
+for the son she actually bore, and for the sons of the women who, if
+they had become her husband's wives, would have borne him sons in her
+stead. From this fact by parity of reasoning we must draw the obvious
+conclusion that during the period when group marriage was the rule,
+individual mothers were unknown. If we are entitled to conclude from the
+fact that a man's wife bears the same name for him as all the other
+women whom he might have married, that he at one time was the husband of
+them all, then we are obviously equally entitled to conclude, from the
+fact that a woman's son is known to her by the same name as the sons of
+other women, either that during the period of group marriage she
+actually bore the sons of the other women or that the whole group of
+women produced their sons by their joint efforts. Finding that the term
+which is translated "son" is equally applied by the remainder of the
+group of women to the son of the individual woman, whose case we have
+been considering, we may discard the former hypothesis and come to the
+conclusion that if there was a period of group marriage there was also
+one of group motherhood. This interesting fact may be commended to the
+attention of zoologists.
+
+It is perhaps unnecessary to pursue the argument any further. The single
+point on which Spencer and Gillen rely is sufficiently refuted by a
+single _reductio ad absurdum_. If more proof is needed it may be found
+in Dr Howitt's work[151]. We learn from him that a man is the younger
+brother of his maternal grandmother, and consequently the maternal
+grandfather of his second cousin. Surely it is not possible in this case
+to contend that the "terms of relationship" are expressive of anything
+but duties and status. It seems unreasonable to maintain in the
+interests of an hypothesis that a man can be his own great uncle and
+the son of more than one mother.
+
+From the foregoing discussion it will be clear that there are very
+grave, if not insurmountable, difficulties in the way of regarding the
+"terms of relationship" as being in reality such. In reply to those who
+regard them as status terms it is urged that if they are not terms of
+relationship, then the savages have no terms of any sort to express
+relationships which we regard as obvious, the implication being that
+this is unthinkable.
+
+Now in the first place it may be pointed out that the converse is
+certainly true. Civilised man has a large number of terms of
+relationship, but he has none for such ideas as _noa_; a boy has no term
+for all men who might have been his father; a woman has no name for the
+children of all women who might have married her husband, if she had not
+anticipated them. To the savage this is just as unthinkable as the
+converse seems to be to some civilised men.
+
+In the second place it is perfectly obvious that the savage has, as a
+matter of fact, no names for the quite unmistakeable relationship of
+mother and child. The name which an Australian mother applies to her
+son, she applies equally to the sons of all other women of her own
+status; the name which a son applies to his mother, he applies equally
+to all the women of her status, whether married or unmarried, in old
+age, middle life, youth, or infancy. If there is no term for this
+relation we can hardly argue that the absence of terms for other
+relations is unthinkable.
+
+Morgan attempted to meet this objection by urging that in a state of
+promiscuity a woman would apply the same name to the children of other
+women as to her own, because they were or might be by the same father.
+But in the first place this assumes that the relationship to the father
+was considered rather than the relationship to the mother, and this is
+against all analogy. In the second place, even granting Morgan's
+postulate, the relation of a mother to her son is not that of a wife to
+the children of other wives of a polygynous husband. Poverty of language
+is therefore established in this case, and may be taken for granted
+where the obvious relationships are concerned.
+
+It has been pointed out more than once that there are grave difficulties
+in the way of any hypothesis which assumes that terms of relationship,
+properly so called, were evolved in a state of pure promiscuity. It has
+now been shown that no intelligible account of the meaning of such terms
+can be given, even if we dismiss the difficulties just mentioned and
+assume that terms were somehow or other evolved, and a transition
+effected to a state of regulated promiscuity. If on the other hand we
+regard the "terms of relationship" as originally indicative of tribal
+status and suppose they have been transformed in the course of ages into
+"descriptive" terms such as we use in everyday life, the difficulties
+vanish.
+
+For one proof of this hypothesis we need look no further than the terms
+of relationship applied by a mother to her own (and other) children, an
+illustration which has already done duty more than once. It is
+abundantly clear that what this term expresses is not relationship but
+status, the relation of one generation to the next in the Malayan
+system, of the half of a generation to the next generation in the same
+moiety of the tribe among the Dieri, and so on.
+
+It is admitted even by believers in group marriage that the terms of
+relationship do not correspond to anything actually existing; beyond the
+"survivals" which we shall consider below, they can produce no shadow of
+proof that the terms ever did correspond to actual relationships, as
+they understand them. They can give no proof whatever that they did not
+express status.
+
+It is therefore a fair hypothesis that _unawa_ (_noa_) and similar terms
+express status and not relationship. From the example of mother and son
+we see that the Australian does not select for distinction by a special
+term that bond which is most obvious both to him and us. It is therefore
+by no means surprising that by _unawa_ he should mean, not the existence
+of marital relations, but their possibility, from a 'legal' point of
+view. Just as he is struck, not by the genetic relation between mother
+and son, but by the fact that they belong to different generations, so
+in the case of husband and wife the _existence_ of marital relations
+between them is neglected, and the point selected for emphasis is the
+_legality_ of such marital relations, whether existent or not.
+
+It is singular that anyone should regard this savage view of life as
+anything but natural. For the Australian the due observance of the
+marriage regulations is a tribal matter; their breach, whether the
+connection be by marriage or free love, is a matter of more than private
+concern. The relations of a man with his legal wife however concern
+other members of the tribe but little. Public opinion among the Dieri,
+it is true, condemns the unfaithful wife, but her punishment is left to
+the husband; among the Kamilaroi the tribe indeed takes the matter up
+but only on the complaint of the husband; and generally speaking it is
+the husband who, possibly with his totemic brethren, pursues the
+abductor. We have therefore in this insistence on the legal status of
+the couple and the comparative indifference to the husband's rights a
+sufficiently exact parallel to the insistence on status and not marital
+relations in the use of the term _unawa_.
+
+The course of evolution has been, not, as group-marriagers contend, from
+group to individual terms of relationship but from terms descriptive of
+status to terms descriptive of relationship.
+
+It is, in fact, on any hypothesis, impossible to deny this. Whatever
+terms of relationship may have meant in the past, no believer in group
+marriage contends that they represent anything actually existing. But
+this is equivalent to admitting that they express status and not
+relationship, and no proof has ever been given that they were ever
+anything else.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[151] p. 163.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+PIRRAURU.
+
+Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
+ marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
+ _pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
+ Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
+ _Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
+ scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_:
+ obscure points.
+
+
+We now come to the marriage customs of the Australian natives of the
+present day and the supposed survivals of group marriage. In dealing
+with the question of group marriage we are met with a preliminary
+difficulty. No one has formulated a definition of this state, and the
+interpretations of the term are very diverse.
+
+Fison, for example, says[152] group marriage does not necessarily imply
+actual giving in marriage or cohabitation; all it means is a marital
+right or rather qualification which comes by birth. He argues however on
+a later page[153] that Nair polyandry, which is more properly termed
+promiscuity, is group marriage. Much the same view is taken by A.H.
+Post[154], who regards the theory of pure promiscuity and the undivided
+commune as untenable.
+
+Kohler, on the other hand[155], speaks of group marriage as existing
+among the Omahas, a patrilineal tribe, be it remarked; but means by that
+no more than adelphic polygyny.
+
+Spencer and Gillen criticise Westermarck's use of the term "pretended
+group marriage" and assert it to be a fact among the Urabunna. On the
+very next page group marriage is spoken of as having preceded the
+present state of things. Both statements cannot be true.
+
+For the purposes of the present work I understand group marriage to mean
+promiscuity limited by regulations based on organisations such as
+age-grades, phratries, totem-kins, or local groups.
+
+The fact is that Spencer and Gillen and other writers on Australia use
+the term group merely as a noun of multitude. They do not mean by group,
+in one sense, anything more than a number of persons. In this sense they
+speak of group marriage (=polygamy) at the present day--a fact which is
+not peculiar to Australia and which no one is concerned to deny. By a
+quite illegitimate transformation of meaning they also apply the term
+group to a portion of a tribe distinguished by a class name and (or or)
+term of relationship and mean by group marriage class promiscuity. They
+do not even perceive that they make this transition, for otherwise
+Messrs Spencer and Gillen could hardly assail Dr Westermarck for using
+the term "pretended group marriage" which is quite accurate as a
+description of group (=class) marriage or promiscuity. Even if there
+were justification for assuming that group marriage (=polygamy) is a
+lineal descendant of group marriage (=class promiscuity), nothing would
+be gained by using the term group marriage of both. In the subsequent
+discussion it will be made clear that whatever their causal connection,
+there is hardly a single point of similarity between them beyond the
+fact that the sexual relations are in neither case monogamous. It is
+therefore to be hoped that the supporters of the hypothesis of group
+marriage will in the future encourage clear thinking by not using the
+same term for different forms of sexual union.
+
+I now proceed to discuss the alleged survival of group marriage and
+other Australian marriage customs.
+
+Taking the Dieri tribe as our example the following state of things is
+found to prevail. The tribe is divided into exogamous moieties, Matteri
+and Kararu; subject to restrictions dependent on kinship, with which we
+are not immediately concerned, any Matteri may marry any Kararu. A
+reciprocal term, _noa_[156], is in use to denote the status of those who
+may marry each other. This _noa_ relationship is sometimes cited as a
+proof of the existence of group marriage. As a matter of fact it is no
+more evidence of group marriage than the fact that a man is _noa_ to all
+the unmarried women of England except a few, is proof of the existence
+of group marriage in England; or the fact that _femme_ in French means
+both wife and woman is an argument for the existence of promiscuity in
+France in Roman or post-Roman times.
+
+A ceremony, usually performed in infancy or childhood, changes the
+relationship of a _noa_ male and female from _noa-mara_ to
+_tippa-malku_. The step is taken by the mothers with the concurrence of
+the girl's maternal uncles, and is in fact betrothal. Apparently no
+further ceremony is necessary to constitute a marriage. At any rate
+nothing is said as to that.
+
+In connection with this form of marriage there are two points of
+importance to be noted. The first is that whereas a man may have as many
+_tippa-malku_ wives as he can get, a woman cannot have more than one
+_tippa-malku_ husband, at any rate not at the same time. After the
+husband's death she may again enter into the _tippa-malku_ relation. The
+second point is that the _tippa-malku_ relation must precede the
+_pirrauru_ relation, of which I shall speak in a moment, and cannot
+succeed it[157].
+
+There are unfortunately many points in Dr Howitt's narrative which
+demand elucidation. He says, for example, that _noa_ individuals become
+"_tippa-malku_ for the time being[158]." This suggests, probably
+erroneously, that the _tippa-malku_ relation is merely temporary; but I
+am unable to say whether it in reality means that the _tippa-malku_
+relation is terminated by the capture of the woman, or that divorce is
+practised and may terminate the relationship at the will of the man only
+or of both parties.
+
+Another point on which we have no information is the position of the
+unmarried girls and widows. Free love is permitted, the only
+limitation[159] given by Dr Howitt being that the man (who must of
+course have passed through the Mindari ceremony) must not be
+_tippa-malku_ to the girl, but must be _noa-mara_. It would be
+interesting to know whether girls in the _tippa-malku_ relation before
+actual marriage are at liberty to have sexual relations with any men of
+the right status or only with unmarried men, or whether the privilege is
+restricted to those who are not yet _tippa-malku_ to any one, and how
+far the same restriction applies to the men.
+
+Any man who has been duly initiated, whether he is married to a
+_tippa-malku_ wife or not, and any woman who has a _tippa-malku_
+husband[160], can enter or be put into a relation termed _pirrauru_ with
+one or more persons of the opposite sex. The effect of the
+ceremony--termed _kandri_--is to give to the _pirrauru_ spouses the
+position of subsidiary husbands and wives, whose rights take precedence
+of the _tippa-malku_ rights at tribal gatherings, but at other times can
+only be exercised in the absence of the _tippa-malku_ spouse, or, when
+the male is unmarried, with the permission of the _tippa-malku_ husband
+of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
+
+The _pirrauru_ relation is, for the woman, a modification of a
+previously existing _tippa-malku_ marriage; that being so, it cannot be
+quoted as evidence of a more pristine state of things in which she was
+by birth the legal and actual spouse of all men of a certain tribal
+status.
+
+The _pirrauru_ relation falls under two heads of the classification I
+have given above, according as the man has or has not a _tippa-malku_
+wife. In the first case, it is, taken in combination with the
+_tippa-malku_ marriage, a case of bi-lateral adelphic dissimilar (M. and
+F.) polygamy. In the latter it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal)
+polyandry, adelphic being taken here, be it noted, in the sense of
+tribal, and possibly, but not necessarily, own brother.
+
+Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes
+contradictory. We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a _pirrauru_
+is always a brother's wife or a wife's sister (they are usually the
+same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their
+wives[161]. But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can
+also become _pirraurus_. It appears further that a woman may ask for a
+_pirrauru_, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear. It
+is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the
+arrangement. Further we find that important men have many _pirrauru_
+wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention.
+Then again we are told that when two new _pirrauru_ pairs are allotted
+to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted. Are we to understand
+from this that the allocation of new _pirraurus_ is a rare event or that
+the _pirrauru_ relationship is a very temporary affair? Or does
+re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over? If the latter,
+the terminology is very unfortunate. Gason's statement is perfectly
+clear: once a _pirrauru_, always a _pirrauru_[162]. Again does it imply
+that the wishes[163] of the already existing _pirraurus_ are consulted
+in the matter or not? If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy
+between _pirraurus_, especially when one of them (the male) is
+unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one
+another. Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother's wife
+as his _pirrauru_, giving presents to his brother. Does this imply that
+the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse
+it, or that it is purchased? Again we read "a man is privileged to
+obtain a number of wives from his _noas_ in common with the other men of
+his group, while a woman's wish can only be carried out with the consent
+of her _tippa-malku_ husband." This latter statement clearly implies
+that a man can obtain a _pirrauru_ without the consent of the
+_tippa-malku_ husband, but this contradicts what has already been told
+us about the exchange by brothers of their wives. Exchange is clearly
+not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the
+matter, it is rather a transfer. These are by no means all the unsettled
+questions on which light is needed. What, for example, is the position
+of a _pirrauru_ wife whose _tippa-malku_ husband dies? Does she pass to
+a new _tippa-malku_ husband? If so, must he be an ex-_pirrauru_? Does
+she continue in the _pirrauru_ relation to her former _pirraurus_,
+regardless of her new husband's wishes? Can the _pirrauru_ relationship
+be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?
+
+With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves
+fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special
+ceremony is necessary to make the _pirrauru_ relation legal; this is
+performed by the head or heads of the men's totems, and need not be
+described here.
+
+With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the
+_tippa-malku_ spouse always takes precedence of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
+Where two men are _pirrauru_ to the same woman, the _tippa-malku_
+husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share
+his rights and duties with the younger. It is the duty of the _pirrauru_
+husband to protect a woman during the absence of her _tippa-malku_
+husband.
+
+A woman cannot refuse to take a _pirrauru_ who has been regularly
+allotted to her. In her _tippa-malku_ husband's absence the _pirrauru_
+husband takes his place as a matter of right. He cannot however take her
+away from the _tippa-malku_ husband without his consent except at
+certain ceremonial times[164]. One other fact may be noted. An
+influential man hires out his _pirraurus_ to those who have none.
+
+Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well
+to mention the analogous customs of the only two tribes outside the
+Dieri nation where the same relation is asserted to exist, and certain
+cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all probability, as on the same
+level as the _pirrauru_ custom. In the Kurnandaburi, according to an
+informant of Dr Howitt's, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers
+and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united,
+apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe
+assembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other times[165].
+
+Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with
+his sister-in-law (wife's sister or brother's wife), although they are
+in the relation of _Kodi-molli_ and practise a modified avoidance. This
+he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage. It is not however clear
+that it is more than what we have called a liaison. Our authority does
+not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet
+that any ceremony initiates the relations[166]. In the absence of these
+details we cannot regard his view as probable. It may however be noted
+that the widow in this tribe passes to the brother.
+
+The only other case of "group marriage" which Dr Howitt gives[167] is in
+the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland. Here however, so far from being
+group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic
+polyandry. A man's unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties,
+the child is said to term them its father. It may however be pointed out
+that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would
+do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any
+other man besides the primary husband.
+
+It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we
+have is neither precise nor free from contradiction. A most essential
+point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the
+_pirrauru_ relationship. Among the Dieri the men may be of different
+totems. Is this the case among the Wakelbura? Was it always the case
+among the Dieri?
+
+Before we leave Dr Howitt's work it is necessary to refer again to the
+Kurnai. The most important point in connection with the Kurnai, so far
+as the present work is concerned, is that, contradictory to Bulmer's
+statement[168] that unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives,
+and sometimes even married men, Dr Howitt mentions[169] as a singular
+fact that he recalls one instance of a wife being lent in that tribe.
+
+Dr Howitt however holds that there are traces of group marriage in the
+tribe, and refers to the fact that the term _maian_[170] is applied to a
+wife by her husband and by his brother, whose "official wife[171]" she
+is thus declared to be, and that a brother takes his deceased brother's
+widow. He regards this rather unfortunately named custom of the levirate
+as having its root in group marriage. Now _maian_ is applied, not only
+by a husband to a wife, but by a wife to her husband's sister, and by a
+sister to her brother's wife. If therefore the use of the term proves
+anything, it proves, not group marriage, as Dr Howitt understands it,
+but promiscuity, the prior existence of the undivided commune, and this,
+as we have seen, Dr Howitt declines to accept on the strength of the
+philological argument.
+
+We are therefore reduced to the levirate as a proof of the former
+existence of group marriage. But there is nothing whatever to show that
+it is not a case of inheritance of property. For the Australians, as for
+many other savage peoples, the married state is the only thinkable one
+for the adult, and that being so it is natural for the widow to remarry.
+She has however been purchased by the exchange of a woman in the
+relation of sister to the deceased, and if the widow were allowed to
+pass to another group, the property thus acquired would be alienated.
+Moreover the marriage regulations require the woman to marry only a
+tribal brother of the deceased. It is therefore in every way natural for
+a brother to succeed to a brother. No arguments for the prior existence
+of group marriage can be founded on the levirate, any more than an
+argument for primitive communism can be founded on other laws of
+inheritance. At most the _maian_ relationship is evidence of adelphic
+polygyny[172].
+
+For the Urabunna we depend on the information gained by Spencer and
+Gillen on their first expedition. Here the circle from which a man takes
+his wife is much more restricted than among the Dieri. Not only is he
+bound to choose a woman of the other moiety of the tribe, but he is
+restricted to a certain totem[173] in that moiety, and to the daughters
+of his mother's elder brothers (tribal) in that totem. Hence although
+the _kami_ relationship of the Dieri is unknown among the Urabunna, the
+choice among the latter is more limited.
+
+The marriageable group is termed _nupa_ by both men and women; in
+addition to the _nupa_ relationship and the unnamed individual marriage,
+into which a man enters with one or more of his _nupa_, there is the
+_piraungaru_ relationship, corresponding to the _pirrauru_ of the Dieri.
+In each case the elder brothers of the woman decide who are to have the
+primary and who the secondary right to the female. In the case of the
+_piraungaru_ however the matter requires confirmation by the old men of
+the tribe. The circumstances under which the _piraungaru_ claims take
+the first rank are not stated by Messrs Spencer and Gillen; the
+statement that a man lends his _piraungaru_ need not, of course, refer
+to times at which he himself cannot claim the right of access[174].
+
+We may now turn to a discussion of the bearing of the facts just cited
+on the question of "group marriage." The first point is naturally that
+of nomenclature, and we at once recognise that among the Dieri the
+relations of the _pirrauru_ are not marriage, either on the definition
+suggested by Dr Westermarck or on that given in Chapter XI of the
+present work. If two _tippa-malku_ pairs are reciprocally in _pirrauru_,
+the only relations between them, unless the _tippa-malku_ husbands
+absent themselves or are complaisant, are, strictly speaking, those of
+temporary regulated polygamy or promiscuity, and rather a restriction
+than an extension of similar customs in other tribes, as I shall show
+below.
+
+A second point of a similar nature is that the parties to a _pirrauru_
+union are in no sense a group[175]. They are not united by any bond,
+local, totemistic, tribal, or otherwise. The theoretical "group
+marriage"--the union of all the _noa_--does, in a sense, refer to a
+group, though this term properly refers rather to a body of people
+distinguished by residence or some other _local_ differentia from other
+persons or groups. But no distinction of this kind can in any sense be
+affirmed of the _pirrauru_ spouses; it cannot be said of them that they
+are in any way distinguished from the remainder of their tribe, phratry,
+class or totem-kin. From this it follows that the term class-marriage
+cannot be applied to the relation between the _pirrauru_, nor yet class
+promiscuity; the _pirrauru_, though members of a certain class, do not
+include all members of that class.
+
+Turning now to the custom itself, let us examine how far it presents any
+marks of being a survival of a previous state of class promiscuity.
+_Pirrauru_ relations are regarded by Dr Howitt and others as survivals
+from a previous stage of "group," by which we must, presumably,
+understand class or status marriage, or promiscuity. So far as they are
+evidence of this, the _pirrauru_ customs are certainly important. If
+however it cannot be shown that they probably point to some form of
+promiscuity, they have but little importance except as a freak or
+exceptional development of polyandry and polygyny.
+
+Let us recall the distinguishing features of the _pirrauru_ union. They
+are (1) consent of the husband (?); (2) recognition by the totem-kin
+through its head-man; (3) temporary character[176]; (4) priority of the
+_tippa-malku_ union in the case of the woman; (5) purchase of _pirrauru_
+rights by (_a_) the brother who becomes a widower, and (_b_) visitors or
+others without _pirraurus_ of their own, the rights being in the latter
+case for a very short period and not dependent on recognition by the
+totem-kin, so far as Dr Howitt's narrative is a guide. Now unless "group
+marriage" was very different from what it is commonly represented to be,
+the essence of it was that all the men of one class had sexual rights
+over the women of another class. How far does this picture coincide with
+the features of the _pirrauru_, which is regarded as a survival of it?
+In the first place _pirrauru_ is created by a ceremony, which is
+performed, not by the head, nor even in the Wakelbura tribe, by a member
+of the supposed intermarried classes of the earlier period; but by the
+heads of the totem-kins of the individual men concerned. Now it is quite
+unthinkable that the right of class promiscuity, to use the correct
+term, should ever have been exercised subject to any such restriction;
+even were it otherwise the performance of the ceremony would more
+naturally fall into the hands of tribal, phratriac, or class authorities
+than of the heads of totem-kins. Then too if _pirrauru_ is a survival of
+group marriage we should expect the ceremony to be performed for the
+_tippa-malku_ union and not for the _pirrauru_.
+
+Again if _tippa-malku_ is later and _pirrauru_ earlier, what is the
+meaning of the regulation that the woman must first be united in
+_tippa-malku_ marriage before she can enter into the _pirrauru_
+relationship? On the "group marriage" theory this fact demands to be
+explained, no less than the different position of men and women in this
+respect. We have seen that freedom in sexual matters is accorded to both
+bachelors and spinsters. It is therefore from no sense of the value of
+chastity, from no jealousy of the future _tippa-malku_ husband's rights,
+that the female is excluded from the _pirrauru_ relation until she has a
+husband.
+
+Again, if _pirrauru_ is a relic of former rights, now restricted to a
+few of the group which formerly exercised them, why is the husband's
+consent needed before the _pirrauru_ relation is set up, and why is the
+_pirrauru_ relation, once established, not permanent (assuming that my
+reading of Dr Howitt is right)?
+
+Once more, if _pirrauru_ is a right, how comes it that a brother has to
+purchase the right, when he becomes a widower[177]? What too is the
+meaning of the transference of _pirrauru_ women to strangers in return
+for gifts?
+
+All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival
+theory, and we may add to them the fact that the _tippa-malku_ husband,
+so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains
+his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother's
+brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are
+not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the
+introduction of individual marriage. When we consider that the _jus
+primae noctis_ is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the
+position of the _tippa-malku_ husband and the method in which he obtains
+his wife are exceedingly instructive.
+
+Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what
+other way the facts can be explained. The unfortunate lack of detail to
+which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any
+counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from
+the facts already at our disposal. We have seen that in the Wakelbura
+tribe, so far from the condition being one of "group marriage," it is
+one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry. Now it is by no means easy to see
+how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which,
+according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity. On the
+other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found
+in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other
+regions, the result of a scarcity of women[178], or, what is the same
+thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the
+independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28
+or 30.
+
+With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is
+required to purchase his _pirrauru_ rights, that the young man without
+_pirrauru_ wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one
+of his _pirrauru_ spouses, and that the _tippa-malku_ marriage always
+precedes the _pirrauru_ relation in the female. It may indeed be urged
+against the view that the purchase of a temporary _pirrauru_ is in fact
+not a case of _pirrauru_ at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of
+hospitality among savage nations. This is no doubt the case and we might
+merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of sexual
+rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia. Looked at from another
+point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive. So
+far as Dr Howitt's statements go, the husband of the _pirrauru_ who is
+thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter. The _pirrauru_
+husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she
+were a slave. On the theory of group marriage the _tippa-malku_ husband
+has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the _pirrauru_
+husband. In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the
+transaction. It is true that in the case we are considering the
+_pirrauru_ husband seems to have exceptional privileges, for we have
+seen that under ordinary circumstances the _tippa-malku_ husband has
+exclusive rights at ordinary times. But we must probably understand the
+passage to mean that the lending of _pirraurus_ takes place at tribal
+meetings[179] or on other occasions when the right of the husband is in
+abeyance. In either case, the facts tell far more strongly in favour of
+the view suggested here than in favour of group marriage.
+
+There is another factor to be considered. Abductions and elopements are
+merely ordinary amenities of married life among the aborigines of
+Australia. We have seen that it is the duty of the _pirrauru_ husband to
+protect the wife during the absence of the _tippa-malku_ husband.
+Clearly this is a sort of insurance against the too bold suitor or the
+too fickle wife, unless indeed the _pirrauru_ himself is the offender, a
+point on which Dr Howitt has nothing to say, though Mr Siebert's
+evidence may be fairly interpreted to mean that such occurrences are
+not known.
+
+We shall see below in connection with the question of the _jus primae
+noctis_ that special privileges are sometimes accorded to men of the
+husband's totem or class in return for assistance in capturing the wife.
+Now assuming that a wife is abducted or elopes, it is, I think, on the
+same persons that the duty of aiding the injured husband would fall.
+Whether this is so or not, the men of his own totem are those with whom
+a man's relations are, in most tribes, the closest. We have seen that
+the heads of the totem-kins play an important part in assigning
+_pirraurus_. Now although it is actually the practice for men of
+different totems to exchange wives, it by no means follows that it was
+always the case. The element of adelphic polyandry, for example, may
+well have upset the original relations and brought about a practice of
+exchange between men of different totems. At any rate the theory here
+suggested affords an explanation of the part played by the totem
+headmen, and on the theory of group marriage their share in the
+transaction remains absolutely mysterious.
+
+In connection with these possible explanations of the _pirrauru_ custom,
+it is important to observe that there are duties in regard to food owed
+by the _pirrauru_ wife to her spouse, when her husband is absent. Now it
+is hardly conceivable that in a state of "group marriage" any such
+practice should have obtained. A woman would doubtless have collected
+food for the man with whom she was actually cohabiting; but in the case
+of the _pirrauru_ relation, the absence of the _tippa-malku_ wife of her
+_pirrauru_ spouse must coincide with the absence of her own
+_tippa-malku_ husband before this position is reached. So long as only
+one _tippa-malku_ partner is absent, the _pirrauru_ spouse is under the
+obligation of lightening the labours of the woman whose place she
+sometimes occupies, and this is very far from what we should expect in
+the "group marriage" stage.
+
+On the whole therefore I conclude that the _pirrauru_ relation affords
+absolutely no evidence of a prior stage of group marriage. So far from
+the quantity of evidence for group marriage having been increased by Dr
+Howitt's recent book, it has undergone a diminution. Gason had
+stated[180] that tribal brothers had the right of access in the absence
+of the husband without first being made _pirrauru_. This, if correct,
+would have been much nearer group marriage than the actual facts; the
+statement however appears to be incorrect, if we may judge by the fact
+that Dr Howitt has silently dropped it.
+
+Of the _piraungaru_ relation but little can be said, mainly for the
+reason that our information is so scanty. We do not learn, for example,
+if it is temporary or permanent, if the consent of the woman is needed,
+if she ever asks her husband for a certain _piraungaru_, or if she
+applies rather to her elder brothers. We do not know what becomes of the
+_piraungaru_ when the primary spouse dies, whether the brother can claim
+a right to his brother's wife as _piraungaru_ on giving presents,
+whether married and unmarried alike enter into the relationship, whether
+a woman can become _piraungaru_ before she has a special husband,
+whether relations of free love are barred between a man and his
+prospective wife and permitted with other _nupa_ women, and a host of
+other questions. We do not even learn when access is permitted to a
+_piraungaru_ spouse. We have, it is clear, far too few data to be able
+to estimate the value of the dictum of Messrs Spencer and Gillen that
+"individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice in the
+Urabunna tribe." If their views are based only on the facts they have
+given us, they have clearly overlooked a number of essential points; if,
+on the other hand, they took other facts into consideration, we may
+reasonably ask to be put in possession of the whole case.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[152] _Aust. Ass._ IV, 689.
+
+[153] _Ib._ p. 717.
+
+[154] _Ausland_, 1891, p. 843.
+
+[155] _Zts. Vgl. Rechtsw._ XII, 268.
+
+[156] The statement, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 55, that a man and woman
+become _noa_ by betrothal is clearly erroneous.
+
+[157] _Nat. Tribes_, p. 181. This was not brought out by Dr Howitt's
+paper of 1890 in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, and is denied in _Folklore_
+XVII, 174 sq. by Dr Howitt himself; see my criticism, _ib._ 294 sq.
+
+[158] p. 179.
+
+[159] p. 187. Subject to the girl having passed the _wilpadrina_
+ceremony. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.
+
+[160] But see p. 129, n. 2.
+
+[161] This is in contradiction with the statement (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._
+XX, 56) that the various couples are not consulted. We also learn (_loc.
+cit._ p. 62) that the exercise of marital rights by own tribal brothers
+is independent of their _pirrauru_ relation. The order of precedence is
+(1) _tippa-malku_, (2) _pirrauru_, (3) brothers.
+
+[162] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 57.
+
+[163] Howitt says (p. 182) that each of a pair of _pirrauru_ watch each
+other carefully to prevent more _pirrauru_ relations arising.
+
+[164] In the Urabunna tribe a woman is lent irrespective of _piraungaru_
+to all _nupa_, _Nor. Tr._ p. 63. It is therefore a matter of no moment
+even if the consent of the primary husband is never refused at
+non-ceremonial times.
+
+[165] It appears, however (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62), to be only on
+ceremonial (Muni) occasions that anything like general intercourse
+occurs, termed Wira-jinka, then it is promiscuous. The Dippa-malli
+relation is not permanent (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61), and the
+_mebaia_ husband receives a present. If the Dippa-malli "group" is not
+permanent, it does not appear why Dr Howitt speaks of a "group" at all.
+
+[166] In the absence of these there is nothing to distinguish the
+practice from the adultery which prevails among the Dieri (p. 187), in
+which Dr Howitt does _not_ see a survival of group marriage or
+promiscuity.
+
+[167] He mentions the _pira_ marriage of the Yandairunga in _Journ.
+Anthr. Inst._ XX, 60, but drops it in _Native Tribes_. It is unfortunate
+that we never learn why Dr Howitt omits to mention facts which he has
+previously published. Are we to infer that the previous statements are
+erroneous in every case? If so, _pirrauru_ must be a temporary
+relationship.
+
+[168] Curr, III.
+
+[169] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61, n. 2.
+
+[170] Dr Howitt's argument from the use of _maian_ raises a difficulty.
+Twenty-five years ago he stated (Brough Smyth, II, 323) that among the
+Brabrolung a wife was termed _wr[=u]k[)u]t_, and this seems to be the
+ordinary term.
+
+[171] Titular _maian_ is Dr Howitt's phrase.
+
+[172] Dr Howitt's statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably passes
+to the brother is contradicted by passages on pp. 227 and 248.
+
+[173] Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but cf. his
+attitude on p. 188.
+
+[174] But cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 58 n.; this may, however, have
+been regarded as a ceremonial occasion, though there is no other
+evidence of such being the case.
+
+[175] Properly speaking group marriage should mean that all persons in a
+local group live in polygamy, a state not far removed indeed from
+promiscuity, the boundary between which and polygamy I cannot undertake
+to discuss here, or else that the whole of one group is united in
+marriage to those of the opposite sex in another group.
+
+[176] This is uncertain, as I have already intimated.
+
+[177] This tells strongly in favour of my theory. The unmarried youth
+gets his _pirrauru_ free, for he will reciprocate the attention later.
+The man who has lost his wife and can make no return purchases the
+right.
+
+[178] Cf. Curr, III, 546.
+
+[179] Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 73.
+
+[180] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIV.
+
+TEMPORARY UNIONS.
+
+Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for
+ adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven.
+
+
+It has been mentioned above that the _pirrauru_ custom, so far from
+being an extension of the recognised practice of Australian tribes, is
+in some respects a limitation of it. We may now proceed to illustrate
+this. Even among the Dieri the tribal festival on the occasion of an
+inter-tribal marriage is marked by free intercourse between the sexes
+without regard to existing sexual unions[181] (? either _tippa-malku_ or
+_pirrauru_). In the same way the Wiimbaio tribal gatherings were
+accompanied by regulated promiscuity, the class rules being the only
+limitation. At others wives could be lent or temporarily exchanged by
+the husbands[182]. The Geawe-gal held festivals at which wives were lent
+to young men, subject to class laws[183]. In other cases the exchange
+was limited to brothers or men of the same totem[184]. Among the
+Kamilaroi a wife was lent to friendly visitors but only with her
+consent. In all these cases we see a state of things similar to or not
+unlike the relations of the Dieri _pirrauru_ spouses, and it should be
+noted that it is at tribal gatherings that the latter can claim to
+exercise their rights. From this it appears that the Dieri custom
+amounts to an ear-marking of certain women for the use of certain men,
+and is consequently a limitation of the common custom; in consideration
+of the fact that the _pirrauru_ men protect them in the absence of their
+husbands, they are permitted at the same time to exercise marital
+rights, provided their own primary spouses are absent.
+
+Among the Wiimbaio, when sickness was believed to be coming down the
+Murray[185], and among the Kurnai, when the _Aurora australis_ was
+seen[186], an exchange of wives was ordered by the old men to avert the
+threatened evil[187]. This is explained by Dr Howitt as a reversion to
+the ancient custom of group marriage. It is however not quite clear on
+what grounds it is necessary to treat it as a survival at all. If a day
+of prayer and fasting is ordered in order to avert national calamities,
+it does not follow that the nation in question was in the habit of
+perpetual prayer and fasting at some previous stage of its existence.
+Moreover, if the magical rite was formerly the universal practice we may
+well ask what induced the tribes which believe in its efficacy to adopt
+a new form of marriage. _Ex hypothesi_, it is pleasing to Mungan, or
+good against disease; knowing this, they have not hesitated to abolish
+group marriage, but apparently without incurring Mungan's wrath, or
+bringing any epidemic upon them.
+
+Among the Narrinyeri[188], the old men have a right of access to the
+newly initiated girls, but apparently Dr Howitt does not regard this as
+a survival. On the other hand the _narumbe_ (initiated youths), who may
+not at this period take wives, had unrestricted rights over the younger
+women, those "of his own class and totem not excepted," and this Dr
+Howitt regards as a survival from the days of the undivided commune,
+though if it is so it is hard to see why they should have rights only
+over the younger women. The practice does not appear to differ from the
+free love found among the Dieri except in the absence of class
+restrictions and its limitation to the period after initiation which is
+among many other peoples a period of sexual licence.
+
+Another group of customs, also interpreted by Dr Howitt as a survival of
+group marriage and an "expiation for individual marriage," calls for
+some discussion. It is unnecessary to refer here to the explanation of
+the _jus primae noctis_ suggested by Mr Crawley. It may be that the
+matter can also to some extent be explained as payment for services, in
+the same way as the _pirrauru_ relation shows some signs of being a
+_quid pro quo_.
+
+In certain tribes access to the bride is permitted to men of the group
+of the husband. Among the Kuinmurbura they are the men who have aided
+the husband to carry off the woman[189]; and the same is the case with
+the Kurnandaburi and Kamilaroi tribes[190]. It is very significant that
+among the Narrinyeri the right of access only accrues in case of
+elopement and precisely to those men who actually give assistance in the
+abduction, a fact hard to explain on the theory of expiation[191]. Among
+the Mukjarawaint the right seems to belong to those of the same totem,
+but apparently the young men only[192]; but here too their position as
+accessories is quite clear, as indeed it must be in any tribe where the
+right accrues to men of the same totem. By all the rules of savage
+justice a punishment may be inflicted in these cases either on the
+offender himself or on the men of his totem. It is therefore not strange
+that they require from the abductor some return for the danger to which
+he exposes them, especially if they actually take part in the abduction.
+An aberrant form of the custom is found among the Kurnai, among whom the
+_jus primae noctis_ falls to men initiated at the same _jeraeil_ as the
+bridegroom.
+
+Among the Kurnandaburi there was a period of unrestricted licence after
+the exercise of the _jus primae noctis_, even the father of the bride
+being allowed access to her. This did not of course violate totem or
+phratry regulations. Dr Howitt does not comment on the case, but it
+would have been interesting to hear whether both these customs are to be
+regarded as survivals and if so what caused the duplication[193].
+
+In estimating the value of the custom of _jus primae noctis_ as evidence
+of a prior state of group marriage, a custom of the Yuin should not be
+overlooked. If a man elopes with another man's betrothed he is punished
+by having to fight the girl's father, brothers, and mother's brother;
+the girl was sometimes punished by being beaten; all the men who pursued
+her had a right of access provided they were of the right totem and
+locality. If however the eloping couple were not caught they were not
+liable to punishment after a child was born. There is no mention of any
+_jus primae noctis_ where the marriage was the result of betrothal. In
+this case therefore the right of access is a punishment, so far as the
+girl is concerned; it is earned by taking part in the pursuit, a fact
+which confirms the suggested explanation of the right of access at
+marriage.
+
+It should not be overlooked that this form of punishment is found among
+some tribes as the penalty for adultery[194], when it certainly cannot
+be interpreted as an expiation for individual marriage. This was the
+case among the Wotjoballuk, the Kamilaroi, and the Euahlayi.
+
+We may now turn to the customs of the central and northern tribes
+visited by Messrs Spencer and Gillen. Except in the case of three of the
+north-eastern tribes the right of access accrues in connection with the
+_ariltha_ ceremony. It may be said at once that there is among these
+tribes no trace of access as payment for services; for on the rare
+occasions when a wife is captured she is allotted to an individual and
+becomes his property at once, according to a statement in the first work
+of Spencer and Gillen[195]. In the same work, it is true, this statement
+is contradicted by the assertion that on such occasions only the men of
+the right class are allowed to have access[196]. But this statement does
+not seem to be based on any facts within the knowledge of the writers,
+for they make a definite statement to the contrary with regard to the
+Arunta customs, and it was with the Arunta that they were specially
+concerned, and in the later volume no further details are given, as they
+should have been, if the custom was found among any of the tribes
+visited on the second expedition.
+
+The association of the right of access with the initiation ceremony is
+paralleled, as we have already seen, among other tribes. It hardly seems
+necessary to argue a state of primitive promiscuity from a custom of
+licence at the period of puberty, which does not in fact differ, except
+in degree, from the licence normally enjoyed by the unmarried, and is
+readily explicable on other grounds than those suggested by Spencer and
+Gillen. If we are not prepared to regard this licence at puberty, which
+may equally well have subsisted side by side with marriage or group
+promiscuity, as a mere expression of the newly attained sexual rights,
+we have as an alternative the magical theory of Mr Crawley. I do not
+propose to dwell on this but will pass at once to discuss some points
+which seem to have escaped the notice of Spencer and Gillen when they
+proposed their hypothesis of promiscuity.
+
+The essential point in connection with these ceremonies is the fact that
+access is not limited, as in the case of the Dieri, to men who might
+lawfully marry the woman. The right is restricted to men of six classes
+out of the eight, including all four of the other moiety and the two of
+her own half of her own moiety. Now whatever else may be deduced from
+this, one thing is clear, and that is that the custom in its present
+form, at any rate, took its rise before the eight classes were
+introduced but after the four classes were already in existence and _a
+fortiori_ after the phratries were known. Consequently no argument for
+promiscuity can be founded on the right of access at initiation. It
+cannot be a survival from a time when no marriage regulations were
+known, for the simple reason that the custom itself bears unmistakeable
+traces of regulations of a comparatively advanced type. It may of course
+be argued that these limitations are of late origin. How far this is so
+and why such limitations should have been introduced it is impossible to
+say; but it is impossible to base an argument for primitive promiscuity
+on a state of things which is admittedly not primitive unless we have
+good _prima facie_ grounds for regarding the custom as a survival. There
+is nothing in the present case to show that it is not a magical rite.
+
+At other times access is permitted in accordance with class regulations,
+the husband's consent being necessary, if indeed he does not actually
+take the preliminary steps himself. We have seen that a similar state of
+things exists in other tribes. It does not seem necessary to look for
+the explanation further than the ordinary customs of savage hospitality,
+the desire to do a favour to men who may be useful. It is difficult to
+see why Spencer and Gillen regard the fact that women are lent in this
+way only to their _unawa_ as a proof of the former existence of group
+marriage. Clearly if intercourse is permitted only between certain
+persons before marriage and only certain persons are allowed to marry,
+we can hardly be surprised to find that these latter are restricted in
+the choice of men to whom they may lend their wives after marriage. The
+surprising thing would be if it were otherwise.
+
+In addition, as in the tribes we have already considered, irregular
+access is practised for magical purposes in connection with the
+performance of ceremonies and the sending out of messengers. It has
+already been pointed out that we have no grounds for regarding such
+practices as survivals; for if we put on sackcloth and ashes as a
+penance for our misdeeds, it does not follow that this was ever the
+prevailing costume. It is even less possible to interpret the ritual
+lending of wives to messengers as a survival, for, _ex hypothesi_, the
+messengers were not of the group which "group-married," and messengers
+of any sort point to a stage when inter-tribal relations had made
+considerable advance and the tribes in question are hardly likely to
+have been still in the stage of the "undivided commune."
+
+The survey of Australian customs and terms of relationship leads us to
+the conclusion that the former, so far from proving the present or even
+former existence of group marriage in that continent, do not even render
+it probable; on the latter no argument of any sort can be founded which
+assumes them to refer to consanguinity, kinship or affinity. It is
+therefore not rash to say that the case for group marriage, so far as
+Australia is concerned, falls to the ground. Even were it otherwise,
+even were group marriage proved for Australia or for any other part of
+the world, we should still be far from having established promiscuity
+and group marriage as a stage in the general history of mankind. For
+that at least a scheme of development is needed. Even were the arguments
+in favour of the group marriage hypothesis much stronger, its supporters
+might reasonably be asked to give us something more than assertion and
+reassertion without any attempt to show in detail the process of
+evolution. To take an example from another sphere, it may safely be said
+that the general theory of evolution would find few supporters if it
+were not possible to trace some existing species and genera back to some
+generalised type in the past. At present the position of a supporter of
+the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage is analogous to
+that of an evolutionist who can only point to a few more or less useless
+peculiarities in the anatomy of man without being able to show
+resemblances between them and the corresponding portions of fossil or
+actually existing anthropoids. He calls them "vestiges[197]" and insists
+that _homo_ is descended from a generalised anthropoid. The mere
+assertion of the vestigial character of such bones or organs would
+hardly carry conviction unless they could be shown to exist in some
+anthropoid in a more fully developed state. Similarly the arguments for
+promiscuity and group marriage suffer from incurable weakness, and would
+so suffer, even were the basis far more reliable than I have shown to be
+the case, unless and until it has been shown by what process and for
+what reasons man took each upward step. So far only one writer has
+attempted, and that nearly thirty years ago, to trace the course of
+human development on the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity, and his
+scheme is a house of cards.
+
+The student of sociology is at a disadvantage compared with the
+zoologist in not being able to unearth his fossils for comparison with
+living forms. He must therefore trace the relationship between living
+forms, and, in seeking to discover the earlier stages of human progress,
+rely in part on the sociology of the higher mammals, in part on the
+possibility of showing a logical scheme of human development. When he
+examines the living forms he is of course unable to say whether actually
+existing savage institutions are in the main line of human progress or
+merely bye-paths embryological or teratological. It may be possible to
+show that group marriage exists somewhere on the earth at the present
+time. Even if this is so, the theory of primitive promiscuity and group
+marriage as stages in the general history of mankind remain mere
+baseless guesses until we have a systematic account both of the causes
+which led to the various steps, and of the processes by which the
+various stages were reached.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[181] Howitt, p. 205.
+
+[182] p. 214.
+
+[183] p. 217.
+
+[184] pp. 224, 260.
+
+[185] p. 195.
+
+[186] pp. 170, 277.
+
+[187] Also among the Kurnandaburi, the Wonkamira, etc. _Journ. Anthr.
+Inst._ XX, 62. General circumcision was a remedy in Fiji when the chief
+was ill.
+
+[188] And among the Dieri, according to Gason, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX,
+87.
+
+[189] p. 219.
+
+[190] pp. 205, 193. _J.A.I._ XII, 36.
+
+[191] p. 245.
+
+[192] p. 269.
+
+[193] He also omits to mention the _Muni_ ceremony, described in _Journ.
+Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62. If general licence is of magical efficacy in cases
+of sickness, it can hardly be argued that general licence at marriage
+has not, as Mr Crawley argues, a magical significance.
+
+[194] p. 245.
+
+[195] _C.T._ 556.
+
+[196] _C.T._ 104.
+
+[197] Commonly but erroneously termed "rudimentary organs." It is a
+natural and justifiable assumption for a zoologist that all vestigial
+organs have previously been more largely developed. It is also an
+assumption that a given custom is vestigial, but it is not a justifiable
+one.
+
+
+
+
+APPENDIX.
+
+ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
+
+Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
+ and "Castes."
+
+
+A certain number of Australian tribes have ceased to adhere strictly to
+the regulations of their class systems. Thus, in the Kamilaroi tribe a
+correspondent of Dr Howitt's found intra-class marriage, the totem only
+being different; in determining the class and totem of the children the
+ordinary rule held good[198]. The Wiradjeri on the Lachlan permit Ipai
+to marry Muri as well as Kumbo, the two classes both belonging to
+Kupathin; in each case certain totems only, viz. emu, opossum, snake and
+bandicoot, have the privilege[199]. The same anomaly is found in the
+Wonghibon tribe[200].
+
+Among the Warramunga and other northern tribes Spencer and Gillen find
+that the division of the classes, explained in the last chapter, does
+not prevent marriages from taking place which this division ought to
+prevent, if the Arunta rule were followed[201]. A curious feature of
+these marriages is that the children of the anomalous union pass into
+the class which would have been theirs if their mother had wedded her
+normal spouse. It is not easy to say whether this should be regarded as
+a survival of matrilineal descent; it is, however, clear that only the
+existence of phratriac names enables us to say definitely that the
+descent in this tribe is in the male line.
+
+According to the information printed by Mr R.H. Mathews this
+irregularity is by no means the sum total of anomalies. His information
+is far from being commonly accepted as accurate; but, as will be shown
+later, there are correspondences between his statements and those of
+other observers, which make it probable that his statements have some
+basis in fact. At any rate they deserve notice, if only that they may be
+contradicted by competent witnesses, if they are incorrect.
+
+In the Inchalachee tribe, according to Mr Mathews, descent of the
+classes is reckoned through females. In the place of the arrangement
+shown in Table I a, he gives the order 3, 4, 8, 7; 6, 5, 1, 2[202]. Any
+man of the first moiety may marry any woman of the second, though
+certain marriages are normal and one of the remainder more usual than
+the others. The effect of these rules is to make it possible for a man
+to marry any woman of his own generation, even if she be of his own
+class. This is precisely the same as the case reported from the
+Kamilaroi by Dr Howitt, if we may take it that in the latter case the
+normal marriages are found side by side with the anomalous ones.
+
+In the Inchalachee marriages the children, as in the Warramunga cases of
+Spencer and Gillen, take the class which they would have had if the
+woman had taken her normal spouse. On this Mr Mathews relies for the
+statement that descent is reckoned in the female line in this tribe.
+But, as we have seen, such a view is erroneous as regards the
+Warramunga, among whom anomalous marriages also occur; it is therefore
+by no means clear that the Inchalachee are matrilineal. We have even
+more reason to doubt his view as to the Binbinga, for whom we have the
+evidence of Spencer and Gillen.
+
+Mr Mathews also reports among the Wiradjeri marriages resembling in many
+respects those mentioned above from the Wailwun tribe[203]. The table
+does not seem to be complete; it is therefore useless to enquire on what
+principle these marriages are arranged. There seems, however, no reason
+to doubt the substantial accuracy of the information.
+
+More revolutionary is the statement that these cross-class marriages are
+based on an actual kinship organisation, to which Mr Mathews gives the
+name of "blood" (Table III, p. 50)[204].
+
+Running across the phratries and classes are divisions known as
+Gwaigullean and Gwaimudthen, Muggulu and Bumbirra, etc., which have the
+meaning of "sluggish" and "swift" blood respectively. The bloods again
+are sometimes subdivided. In the Ngeumba tribe Gwaimudthen is divided
+into nhurai (butt) and wangue (middle), while Gwaigulir is equivalent to
+winggo (top). These names refer to different portions of the shadow of a
+tree and refer to the positions taken up in camping by the persons
+belonging to the different "bloods" and "castes." In this, it may be
+noted, these organisations follow the parallel of the phratries and
+classes.
+
+With the correspondences in names shown in Table III. before our eyes,
+it is difficult to suppose that the statements of Mr Mathews have no
+basis in fact. In the absence of further information, however, it is
+clearly impossible to discuss the origin of these divisions. It seems
+most probable that they are the systematisation of the anomalous
+marriages already cited. But much more information is needed before
+anything like certainty can be attained in the matter. Both actual
+genealogies and tables of terms of relationship must be in our hands
+before we can come to a decision.
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[198] Howitt, p. 204.
+
+[199] _ib._ p. 211.
+
+[200] _ib._ p. 214, cf. _J.A.I._
+
+[201] _Nor. Tr._ pp. 107, 114.
+
+[202] _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 71.
+
+[203] _J.R.S.N.S.W._ XXXI, 173.
+
+[204] _ib._ XXXVIII, 207-17, XXXIX, 117, _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 53, etc.
+
+
+
+
+INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES.
+
+Phratry and Blood names are in caps., Class names in roman. In the
+ references Map II is equivalent to Table I (pp. 42-48), Map III to
+ Table II (pp. 48-51). The numbers refer to pages, save in the case
+ of Table I a.
+
+
+Ahjereena, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Akamaroo, Table I a, 9
+
+Anbeir, 44, Map II, v
+
+Appitchana, Table I a, 12
+
+Appungerta, Table I a, 12
+
+Arara, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Ararey, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Arawongo, 45, 76, Map II, viii
+
+Arenia, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Arrakan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Arrenynung, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Awukaria, 47, Map II, xi
+
+Awunga, 45, Map II, viii
+
+
+Badingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Balgoin, 43, 83, Map II, iii
+
+Ballaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Ballieri, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Banaka, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Banjoor, 43, 44, 76, Map II, iii, iv
+
+Banniar, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Barah, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Baran, 43, 74
+
+Barry, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Belthara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Belyeringie, Table I a, 9
+
+Beneringie, Table I a, 9
+
+BIINGARU, 47, 50, Map III, 41
+
+Biliarinthu, Table I a, 7
+
+Blaingunju, Table I a, 7
+
+Bolangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Bondan, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Bondurr, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Bongaringie, Table I a, 8
+
+Boogarloo, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Boonongoona, Table I a, 9
+
+BUDTHURUNG, 42, 50, Map III, 21
+
+Bullaranjee, Table I a, 4
+
+Bulleringie, Table I a, 8
+
+Bulthara, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+Bunbai, 44, Map II, v
+
+Bunburi, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+Bunda, 43, 83, Map II, iii
+
+Bungaranjee, Table I a, 4
+
+Bungumbura, 74
+
+BUNJIL, 48, Map III, 1
+
+Bunjur, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Bunya, 44, Map II, iv
+
+BURGUTTA, see also Pakoota
+
+Burong, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Burralangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Butcharrie, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Butha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Bya, 42, Map II, i
+
+
+Carburungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Carribo, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Carrigan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+CHEPA, 45, 50, 53, Map III, 32
+
+Chagarra, Table I a, 14
+
+Chambeen, Table I a, 14
+
+Chambijana, Table I a, 15
+
+Changally, Table I a, 14
+
+Changary, Table I a, 15
+
+Chapota, Table I a, 15
+
+Chavalya, Table I a 14, 15, 16
+
+Cheekungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Chikun, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Chinuma, Table I a, 15
+
+Chooara, Table I a, 14
+
+Choolima, Table I a, 15
+
+Choongoora, Table I a, 14, 15
+
+Chowan, Table I a, 14
+
+Chowarding, Table I a, 14
+
+Chungalla, Table I a, 15
+
+
+DARBOO, 50, Map III, 12
+
+DEEAJEE, 43, 50, Map III, 26
+
+Deringara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Derwen=Theirwain, 43, 82, Map II, iii
+
+Dhalyeree, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+Dhongaree, Table I a, 1
+
+Dhungaree, Table I a, 16
+
+Didaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+DILBI, 42, 43, 50, 53, Map III, 20
+
+
+Eemitch, Table I a, 10
+
+
+GAMANUTTA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
+
+GAMUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+GIRANA, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
+
+Gnangball, 47
+
+Gooroona, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Goothamungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Gubilla, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+GWAIGULLEAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
+
+GWAIGULLIMBA, 51
+
+GWAIMUDHAN, 51
+
+Gwaimudthen, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
+
+
+Heyanbo, 74
+
+
+Ikamaru, Table I a, 7
+
+ILLITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
+
+Imballaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbannee, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbawalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Imbongaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Imboong, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Immadena, Table I a, 10
+
+Inganmarra, Table I a, 10
+
+Inkagalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Ipai, 42, Map II, i
+
+Ipatha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Irrakadena, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Irroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Irpoong, 43, 73, Map II, ii
+
+Irpoong-Marroong classes, 73
+
+
+Jamada, Table I a, 16
+
+JAMAGUNDA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
+
+Jambijana, Table I a, 1
+
+Jameragoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jameram, Table I a, 16
+
+Janna, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+Jarbain, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Jeemara, Table I a, 1
+
+Jimidya, Table I a, 1
+
+Jimmilingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Jinagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Joolam, Table I a, 16
+
+Joolama, Table I a, 1
+
+Joolanjegoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jooralagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jorro, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Jumeyungie, Table I a, 8
+
+Jummiunga, Table I a, 16
+
+Jungalagoo, Table I a, 4
+
+Jungalla, Table I a, 1, 16
+
+JUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 32
+
+Jury, 46, 75, Map II, viii
+
+
+Kabidgi, Table I a, 12
+
+Kapoodungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+KAPPATCH, 49, Map III, 6
+
+KAPUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kaiamba, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Kairawa, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KARARAWA, 49, Map III, 7
+
+KARARU, 49, Map III, 7
+
+Karavangi, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Kari, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Karilbura, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KARPEUN, 43, 50, Map III, 26
+
+Karpungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+KARTPOERAPPA, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kearra, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+Kellungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
+
+KILPARA, 49, Map III, 4
+
+Kingelunju, Table I a, 7
+
+KINGILLI, 47, 50, Map III, 42
+
+KIRARU, 49, Map III, 7
+
+KIRTUUK, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kommerangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+KOOCHEEBINGA, 49, Map III, 10, 53
+
+Koodala, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+KOOKOOJEEBA, 49, Map III, 10
+
+KOOLPURU, 49, Map III, 8
+
+Koomara, 47, Map II, xiii a
+
+Koopungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
+
+KOORABUNNA, 49, Map III, 11
+
+KOORAGULA, 49, Map III, 11
+
+KOORAMEENYA, 49, n. 19
+
+Kooran, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Koorgilla, 44, 74, Map II, v
+
+Koorpal, 44, Map II, iv
+
+KROKAGE, 49, Map III, 5
+
+KROKI, 49, Map III, 5
+
+KROKITCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kubaru, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+Kubi, Kubbi, 42, 76, 83, Map II, i
+
+Kubitha, 42, Map II, i
+
+Kuial, 46, Map II, x
+
+Kuialla, 44, 76, Map II, iv
+
+KULITCH, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kumara, 47, 76, 79, Map II, xiii, Table I a, 12
+
+Kumbo, 42, 76, Map II, i
+
+KUMIT, 49, Map III, 5
+
+Kunggilungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Kungilla, Table I a, 9
+
+Kunullu, Table I a, 8
+
+KUPATHIN, 42, 43, 50, Map III, 20
+
+Kurbo, 43, 74, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Kurgan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Kurkilla, 45, 72, Map II, v
+
+Kurongon, 45, 75, Map II, vi
+
+Kurpal, 44, 72, 74, 76, Map II, iv
+
+Kutchal, 45, Map II, vii
+
+KUUNAMIT, 49, Map III, 6
+
+KUUROKEETCH, 49, Map III, 6
+
+Kymerra, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+
+Langenam, 48, 74, Map II, xv
+
+Lenai, 74
+
+LIARAKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
+
+LIARITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
+
+Loora, 45, Map II, viii
+
+
+Mahngal, 46, Map II, viii
+
+MALIAN, 49, 53, Map III, 3
+
+MALLERA, 45, 50, 52, Map III, 28
+
+MALLERA-WUTHERA phratries, 52 sq.
+
+Mambulgit, 36
+
+Manjarojally, 36
+
+Manjarwuli, 36
+
+Maringo, 46, 75, 76, Map II, ix
+
+Marinungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Marro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Marroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Maroongah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Matha, 42, Map II, i
+
+MATTERA, 49, 66, Map III, 7
+
+MATTERI, 49, 52, 53, 66, Map III, 7
+
+Matyang, 43, Map II, ii
+
+MERUGULLI, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
+
+MERUNG, 48, Map III, 2
+
+Moorob, 74
+
+Moroon, 43, Map II, iii
+
+MUKULA, 42, 50, 53, Map III, 21
+
+MUKUMURRA, 42, 50, 53, Map II, 23
+
+MULLARA, 46, 50, Map III, 28
+
+MULTA, 49, 53, Map III, 3
+
+Mumbali, 46, Map II, x
+
+Munal, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Mungilly, 46, Map II, viii
+
+MUNICHMAT, 48, 50, Map III, 34
+
+Munjungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+MUQUARA, 49, 52, Map III, 4
+
+Muri, 42, 73, 83, Map II, i
+
+Muri-Kubbi classes, 73
+
+MURLA, 45, 50, Map III, 31
+
+Murungun, 46, Map II, x
+
+
+Nabajerry, Table I a, 15
+
+Nabungati, Table I a, 14
+
+Naganok, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Nagarra, Table I a, 14
+
+NAKA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
+
+Nakomara, Table I a, 13
+
+Nala, Table I a, 2
+
+Nalangininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Nalirri, Table I a, 2
+
+Naltjeri, Table I a, 13
+
+Namaja, Table I a, 1
+
+Namaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namaringinta, Table I a, 11
+
+Nambean, Table I a, 1
+
+Nambeen, Table I a, 14
+
+Nambin, Table I a, 13
+
+Nambjana, Table I a, 15
+
+Nambitjin, Table I a, 2
+
+Nambitjinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namegor, 48, Map II, xv
+
+Namigili, Table I a, 13
+
+Namininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Namita, Table I a, 2
+
+Namyungo, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Nana, Table I a, 2
+
+Nanagoo, Table I a, 15
+
+Nanakoo, Table I a, 16
+
+Nanajerry, Table I a, 14
+
+Nangally, Table I a, 14
+
+Nangili, Table I a, 14, 15
+
+Naola, Table I a, 15
+
+Napanunga, Table I a, 13
+
+Napungerta, Table I a, 13
+
+Naralu, Table I a, 13
+
+Narbeeta, Table I a, 15
+
+Narechie, Table I a, 9
+
+Narrabalangie, Table I a, 8, 9
+
+Nemira, Table I a, 15
+
+Nemurammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Neonammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Ngarrangungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+NGIELBUMURRA, 42, 50, Map III, 23
+
+NGIELPURU, 50
+
+NGIPURU, 50
+
+NGUMBUN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
+
+NGURRAWAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
+
+Nhermana, Table I a, 15
+
+Niamaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Niameragun, Table I a, 3
+
+Niamerum, Table I a, 5
+
+Ninum, Table I a, 3
+
+Niriuma, Table I a, 5
+
+Nolangmer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nongarimmer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nooara, Table I a, 14
+
+Nowala, Table I a, 1
+
+Nowana, Table I a, 14
+
+Nuanakuma, Table I a, 6
+
+Nullum, 74
+
+Nulum, Table I a, 3
+
+Nulyarammer, Table I a, 18
+
+NUMBUN, 42, Map III, 24
+
+Nunalla, Table I a, 2
+
+Nungalermer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nungalla, Table I a, 2, 13, 15
+
+Nungallakurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Nungari, Table I a, 2
+
+Nuralakurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nurlanjukurna, Table I a, 6
+
+Nurlum, Table I a, 5
+
+Nurralammer, Table I a, 8
+
+Nurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Nurumball, 47
+
+
+Obu, 44, 83, Map II, v
+
+Odall, 47
+
+OOTAROO, 45, 46, 50, Map III, 29; see also Wuthera, etc.
+
+
+Packwicky, 48, Map II, xv
+
+PAKOOTA, 45, 46, 50, 53, Map III, 29
+
+Paliarina, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Paliarinji, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Palyang, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Pamarung, 48, Map II, xv
+
+Pandur, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Panunga, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+Parajerri, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Parang, 43, 72, Map II, iii; see also Baran
+
+Parungo, 47, Map II, xiii b
+
+Patingo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Perrynung, 46, Map II, viii
+
+Pungarinia, Table I a, 3, 6
+
+Pungarinji, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Pungarinju, Table I a, 7
+
+Purdal, 46, 75, Map II, x
+
+Purula, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
+
+
+Ranya, 45, 75, Map II, viii
+
+Rara, 45, Map II, viii
+
+Roanga, 74, 76
+
+Roumburia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+
+Tabachin, Table I a, 10
+
+Tabadena, Table I a, 10
+
+Taran, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Tarbain, 44, Map II, iv
+
+Tchana, Table I a, 2
+
+Teilling, 74
+
+Thakomara, Table I a, 13
+
+Thalaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thalirri, Table I a, 2
+
+Thama, Table I a, 2
+
+Thamaringinja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thamininja, Table I a, 10
+
+Thapanunga, Table I a, 13
+
+Thapungarti, Table I a, 13
+
+Theirwain, 43, Map II, iii
+
+Thimmermill, Table I a, 9
+
+Thungalla, Table I a, 2, 13
+
+Thungallaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Thungallinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Thungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Thungarie, Table I a, 2
+
+Thungaringinta, Table I a, 11
+
+TINEWA, 49, Map III, 8
+
+Tjambin, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjambitjina, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjameraku, Table I a, 6
+
+Tjameramu, Table I a, 7
+
+Tjamerum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Tjapatjinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjapetjeri, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjimara, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjimininja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjimita, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjinguri, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjinum, Table I a, 3
+
+Tjuanaku, Table I a, 5
+
+Tjulantjuka, Table I a, 5, 6
+
+Tjulum, Table I a, 3
+
+Tjupila, Table I a, 13
+
+Tjurla, Table I a, 2
+
+Tjurulinginja, Table I a, 11
+
+Tjurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
+
+Tondarup, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+TOOAR, 50, Map III, 12
+
+Toonbeungo, 46, Map II, ix
+
+Trumininja, Table I a, 11
+
+TUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
+
+
+UA, 46, 50, Map III, 44
+
+Uanaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Ubur, 44, 83, Map II, v
+
+Uknaria, Table I a, 12
+
+ULUURU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 41, 42
+
+UMBE, 49, Map III, 3
+
+Umbitchana, Table I a, 12
+
+Unburri, 44, Map II, v
+
+Ungalla, Table I a, 12
+
+Unmarra, Table I a, 10
+
+Unwannee, Table I a, 10
+
+Uralaku, Table I a, 6
+
+Urgilla, 44, Map II, v
+
+URKU, 46, 50, Map III, 44
+
+Urtalia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+Urwalla, Table I a, 10
+
+Uwallaree, Table I a, 10
+
+Uwungaree, Table I a, 10
+
+
+WAA, 48, Map III, 1
+
+WAANG, 48, Map III, 1
+
+Wairgu, Table I a, 7
+
+WALAR, 45, 50, Map III, 31
+
+Walar, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Wandi, 45, Map II, vii
+
+Warganbah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Warkie, Table I a, 9
+
+Warrithu, Table I a, 7
+
+WARTUNGMAT, 48, 50, 53, Map III, 34
+
+Waui, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Weiro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Werrican, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wialia, 47, Map II, xi
+
+WILIUKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
+
+Wilthuthu, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Wiltu, 48, Map II, xvi
+
+Wirrikin, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wirro, 43, Map II, ii
+
+WITTERU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+Wombee, 42, 76, Map II, i
+
+Wombo, 43, 76, Map II, ii
+
+Womboongah, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wongan, 43, Map II, ii
+
+Wongo, 44, 76, Map II, v
+
+WOODAROO, 46, 50, Map III, 27, 28, 29
+
+WOOTAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27; see also Ootaroo
+
+WREPIL, 48, Map III, 1
+
+WUTHERA, 45, 50, 53, 54, 66, Map III, 28
+
+WUTHERA-MALLERA phratry, 66
+
+WUTTHURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+
+Yakomari, Table I a, 3, 5, 6, 8, 79
+
+Yakomarin(a), Table I a, 3, 5, 6
+
+Yangor, 48, Map II, xiv
+
+Yelet, 74
+
+Yoolgo, 74
+
+Youingo, 46, 72, 76, Map II, ix
+
+YUCKEMBRUK, 48, Map III, 2
+
+Yukamura, Table I a, 4
+
+Yungalla, Table I a, 10
+
+YUNGAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGARU, 44, 50, 53, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGNURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
+
+YUNGO, 45, 49, 50, 53, 66, Map III, 9, 27
+
+YUNGO phratry, 66
+
+
+
+
+SUBJECT INDEX.
+
+Names of Australian tribes are in Clarendon, native words and parts of
+ words in italics. Words in inverted commas are defined.
+
+
+Abduction, 103
+
+Adoption, 2, 5, 7
+
+Adultery, punishment for, 146
+
+Affinity, 6
+
+"Age grades," 2, 92, 112
+
+_Agoo_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Aku_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Akulbura= classes, 44
+
+America, tribe in, 7
+
+American organisations, 9, 33
+
+_An_ as feminine termination 43, 44
+
+_Ana_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Anaywan= classes, 43
+
+_Angie_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Anjegoo_ as suffix, 80
+
+Annan R., classes on, 45
+
+Anomalous areas, 51, 72
+
+Anomalous marriages, 151
+
+=Anula= classes, 47
+
+_Ara_ as suffix, 80
+
+Arab phratries, 10
+
+_Archaeologia Americana_, 33, 34
+
+_Aree_ as suffix, 60, 80
+
+_Ariltha_, 145
+
+=Arunta= classes, Table I a, 47
+ customs, 145
+ kinship terms, 96
+ meaning of, 82
+ primitiveness, 70
+ S., classes, 47
+ totemism, 12
+
+Associations, changes in, 1
+ natal, 2
+
+Atkinson, J.J., 63
+
+Aversion, sexual, 117
+
+
+=Badieri= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+Baiame, 57
+
+_Balcoin_, 83
+
+=Barkinji= betrothal, 22
+ phratries, 49
+
+=Bathalibura= classes, 44
+
+_Beena_ marriage, 108
+
+Belyando R., classes on, 44
+
+=Berriait= phratries, 49
+
+Betrothal and potestas, 22
+ rule of descent, 22 sq.
+
+=Binbinga= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Bingongina= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+Bird myth, 55
+ conflict myth, 55
+
+Blood and phratry organisations, 68
+ cousins, marriage forbidden to, 7
+ division, 31
+ feud, 26
+ organisations, 30, 153
+ relationship, 4
+
+Bloomfield R., phratries on, 38, 50
+
+Brother and sister marriage, 69
+ meaning of terms in Morgan's work, 111
+
+_Bu_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Bulcoin_, 83
+
+_Bulthara_, 83
+
+_Bundar_, 83
+
+=Buntamurra= classes, 44
+
+
+"Caste" subdivision, 153
+
+_Cha_ as prefix, 79
+
+Chieftainship, 25
+
+Child and parent, 23, 119
+
+Children and parents, 4
+
+_Choo_ as prefix, 80
+
+"Classes, intermarrying," 30
+ and phratries, 51, 72, 87
+ and totems, 89
+ later than phratries, 71
+ list of, 42 sq.
+ names, borrowing of, 75 sq.
+ meaning of, 82
+
+Class organisations, 37 sq.; Map II, 40
+ effect of, 86
+ origin of, 100
+
+Classificatory terms of relationship, 93
+
+Conception, theories of, 12, 23
+
+"Consanguinity," 3 sq.
+
+Consent of husband, 131, 138, 146
+
+Contrasts in phratry names, 54, 56, 68
+
+"Couple," 30
+
+Cousin marriage, 70
+
+Crow phratry, 53
+
+Cunow, H., 86, 91
+
+
+=Dalebura= classes, 44
+
+=Darkinung= classes, 42 n.
+
+_Deeroyn_, 82
+
+Degeneration and incest, 113
+
+Descent, rule of, 11, 12 sq.; Map I, 40
+ change of, 15, 16
+
+Descriptive terms of relationship, 93
+
+"Determinant spouse," 30
+
+=Dieri= betrothal, 22
+ marriage rules, 97
+ phratries, 49
+ wife lending, 143
+
+_Dippa-malli_, 133
+
+=Dippil= classes, 43, 51
+ phratries, 43, III b, 51
+
+"Direct descent," 30
+
+_Dirrawong_, 82
+
+Durkheim, E., 69, 87, 90
+
+_Durween_, 82
+
+
+Eaglehawk, 54
+ and crow, 53, 59
+ phratries, 67
+
+_Eanda_, 10
+
+Earl, G.W., 36
+
+Economic conditions and rule of descent, 27
+
+_Egor_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+Eight-class names, centre of origin, 78
+ percentages of resemblance and difference, 77, 78
+ system, 76
+ tribe in Queensland, 97
+
+Elder and younger, meaning of, 98
+ brother, authority, 100
+
+Elopement, 20, 144
+
+_Eranta_, 82
+
+=Euahlayi= classes 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 e, 50, 51, 54
+
+Exchange of wives, 143
+
+Exogamy, 6, 30
+ origin of, 63
+
+
+Family, 1
+ types of, 8
+
+Father and son, conflict of, 17
+
+Father and daughter marriage, 114
+
+Father right, see Patriliny
+
+Female descent, see Matriliny
+
+Females, property vested in, 26
+
+Feminine class names, 80
+
+Fison, L., on group marriage, 127
+
+Folktales, stock of, 57
+
+Four-class area, 73
+ and eight-class systems, results compared, 97
+
+Frazer, J.G., 69
+ on totemism, 12
+
+Free love, 106, 129
+
+Free union, 106
+
+
+Gason, S., 13
+
+_Game_, 106
+
+_Gan_ as feminine termination, 43
+
+=Geawegal classes=, 42
+ wife lending, 142
+
+=Geebera= phratries, 49
+
+Generation, marriage within, 99
+
+=Gnalluma= classes, 47, 48
+
+=Gnamo= classes, 47, 48
+
+=Gnanji= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Goa= classes, 44
+
+=Goonganji= phratries, 49
+
+=Goothanto= classes, 45
+
+Gregory, J.W., 27, 67
+
+Grey, Sir G., 34
+
+Groups, local, 29
+ meaning of, 136
+ primitive, 13, 64
+
+Group marriage and _pirrauru_, 136
+ meaning of term, 127
+ not proven, 148
+
+_Gurk_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+
+Haida phratries, 9
+
+Hausa rules of avoidance, 99
+
+Hereditary kinship groups, 12
+
+Hodgson, C.P., 35
+
+Homophones, 82
+
+Hottentots non-totemic, 8
+
+Howitt, A.W., 16, 23, 37, 121, 134
+
+
+_Iker_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Iliaura= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Ilpirra= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+In-and-in breeding, 115
+
+Incest and degeneration, 113
+
+=Inchalachee= classes, Table I a, 47
+ marriage, 151
+
+"Indirect descent," 30
+
+Individual property, 25
+
+_Inginja_ as suffix, 80
+
+Inheritance and descent, 18, 25
+ and patriliny, 22
+ of widow, 20
+ of wife by brother, 20, 21
+
+Initiation and free love, 144
+
+_Inja_ as suffix, 80
+
+"Intermarrying classes," 30
+
+Isaacs, F.N., 35
+
+_Itch_ as suffix, 63, 80
+
+_Itchana_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Itchumundi= "bloods," 50
+ phratries, 49, 50
+
+
+_J_ as prefix, 84
+
+_Ja_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+_Jarr_ as feminine suffix, 49
+
+Jealousy, 131
+
+_Joo_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Joongoongie= classes, 48
+ phratries, 48
+
+=Jouon= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+_Jus primae noctis_, 140, 144
+
+
+_K_ as prefix, 84
+
+=Kabi= classes, 43
+
+=Kaitish= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Kalkadoon= classes, 46, 51
+ phratries, 46, 51
+
+=Kamilaroi= classes, 42
+ customs, 143
+ marriage, 151
+ organisation, 31 sq.
+ phratries, 42 a
+ wife lending, 142
+
+_Kandri_, 130
+
+=Kangulu= classes, 44
+ phratries, 44, IV b, 51
+
+_Kanunka_, 83
+
+=Karandee= class names, 74
+
+Kempe, H., 84
+
+=Keramin= phratries, 49
+
+=Kiabara= classes, 43, 51
+
+Kimberley, classes at, 47, 48
+
+"Kin group," 8
+
+"Kinsman," 31
+
+"Kinship," 3 sq.
+ and consanguinity, 23
+ groups, 2, 7
+ origin of idea, 13, 14
+ tribal, 5
+
+_Kodi-molli_, 133
+
+=Kogai= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+Kohler, J., on group marriage, 127
+
+=Kombinegherry= classes, 43
+
+_Koo_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Koogobathy= classes, 46
+
+_Koolbirra_, 82
+
+=Koonjan= classes, 46
+
+=Koorangie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Korkoren_, 83
+
+_Korkoro_, 75, 83
+
+_Ku_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+_Kubbi_, 83
+
+=Kuinmurbura= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 44
+ customs, 144
+ phratries, 44, IV a, 51
+ rules of residence, 16
+
+_Kulbara_, 82
+
+=Kurnai= customs, 143, 144
+ phratries, 49, n. 8
+ polygamy, 134
+ relationships, 120
+ rule of residence, 17, 18
+
+=Kurnandaburi= phratries, 49
+ polygamy, 132
+
+Kutchin phratries, 9
+
+
+Landed property, 7, 8, 29
+
+Lang, Andrew, ii, 63
+
+Languages, differentiation of, 60, 81
+
+Leichardt, L., 35
+
+Lending of wives, 132 sq., 143
+ _pirrauru_ wives, 132, 135, 139
+
+Levirate, 20, 134
+
+Liaison, 107, 133
+
+=Limba Karadjee= classes, 36
+
+Local group, constitution of, 26
+ influence of, in causing change of rule of descent, 26
+ types of, 8
+
+
+Macarthur, Capt., 35
+
+_Maian_, 134
+
+_Mala_, 82
+
+_Male_, 82
+
+Male descent, _see_ Patriliny
+
+_Malu_, 82
+
+=Mara= classes, 46
+ phratries, 46
+
+Marriage, definition of, 103, 105 sq.
+ evolution of, Morgan's theory, 110
+ forms of, 108
+ origin of, 64
+ prohibitions, 3, 6
+ rules, 97 sq.
+ and kinship terms, 93
+
+Maryborough tribes, classes of, 43
+ phratries, 43, III a, 51
+ rules of residence, 17
+
+Mathews, R.H., 31, 150
+
+Matriliny in eight-class tribes, 151
+ origin of, 13, 19
+ primitive, 69
+ priority of, 12, 15
+
+"Matrilocal," 30
+ marriage, 16
+
+Matripotestal family, 8, 109
+
+=Mayoo= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Meening= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+Melanesian phratries, 10
+
+=Miappe= classes, 46, 51
+ phratries, 46, 51
+
+Migrations, 61
+
+=Milpulko= phratries, 49
+
+=Miorli= classes, 44
+
+=Mittakoodi= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+"Mixed group," 8
+
+Mohegan phratries, 9
+
+=Monobar= classes, 35
+
+Moore, G.F., 34
+
+=Moree= classes, 42
+
+Morgan, Lewis, on promiscuity, 110
+
+Mother right, see Matriliny
+
+Mother, term for, 123
+
+=Mukjarawaint= betrothal, 22
+ customs, 144
+
+=Murawari= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 f, 50, 51
+
+Murchison R., classes on, 47, 48
+
+_Muri_, 83
+
+=Mycoolon= classes, 72
+
+Myths, diffusion of, 56
+
+
+_N_ as prefix, 80
+
+Nagualism, 12
+
+Narran R., classes on, 42
+
+=Narrangga= classes, 48
+
+Narrinyeri customs, 143, 144
+
+"Natal associations," 2
+
+=Nauo= phratries, 49
+
+Near relatives, marriage of, 113
+
+New Hebrides club-house, 106
+
+=Ngarrego= phratries, 48
+
+=Ngerikudi= kinship terms, 95
+
+=Ngeumba= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 d, 51
+ organisation, 152
+
+Nicol Bay, classes at, 47, 48
+
+Nind, S., 34
+
+_Noa_, 122, 129
+
+_Noa-mara_, 129
+
+_Nu_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Nupa_, 98, 135
+
+
+_Obur_, 83
+
+=Oolawunga= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Oruyo_, 11
+
+Ovaherero organisations, 10
+
+
+_Palyara_, 83
+
+_Palyeri_, 83
+
+_Panunga_, 83
+
+=Parnkalla= phratries, 49
+
+Paternity, uncertain, 21
+
+Patria potestas, 15, 19
+
+Patrilineal inheritance, 18
+
+Patriliny, causes of, in Australia, 27
+ cause of rise, 22
+ possible primitive, 13
+
+"Patrilocal," 30
+
+Patripotestal family, 8, 109
+
+=Peechera= classes, 42
+
+Phratries and classes, 51, 72, 87
+ list of, 48 sq.
+ object of, 69
+ origin of, 65
+ systematic groups as, 9
+
+"Phratry," 30
+
+Phratry names, 32 sq.
+ meanings of, 53 sq.
+ organisations, distribution of, 9, 37 sq.; Map III, 40
+ segmentation, 61, 66
+
+=Pikumbul= classes, 42
+
+_Piraungaru_, 135, 141
+
+_Pirrauru_, 130
+ and group marriage, 136
+ distinguishing features, 137
+ origin of, 139, 140, 141
+ spouses, duties of, 139-141
+
+=Pitta-Pitta=, authority of husband among, 19
+ classes, 44
+ phratries, 45
+
+Polyandry, 104, 108
+
+Polygamy, 104, 108
+
+Polygyny, 104, 108
+
+Post, A.H., on group marriage, 127
+
+Potestas, 4
+ and betrothal, 22
+ and patriliny, 22
+ and residence, 14
+ and rule of descent, 14
+ relation of, to rule of descent, 19
+
+Poverty of language, 124
+
+Powell, J.W., 27
+
+Prefixes, 79, 80
+
+Primitive group, 111
+
+Promiscuity, 133 n., 144
+ forms of, 107
+
+Property, inheritance of, 25
+ in law, 2, 7, 18
+
+Protectorship of woman's kin, 19, 20
+
+_Pu_ as prefix, 80
+
+Puberty, licence at, 143 sq., 146
+
+Pueblo peoples, descent among, 27
+
+_Pultara_, 83
+
+Punishment, 19, 20
+
+Purchase of wife, 21
+
+=Purgoma= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+
+Queries as to Australian facts, 129 sq., 132, 141
+
+
+Racial conflict, 55
+
+Rank and intermarrying class, 35
+
+Relationship, systems of, 93
+
+Residence and potestas, 14
+ and rule of descent, 14
+ customs of, 8, 10
+
+Ridley, W., 36
+
+Right of betrothal, 22
+
+=Ringa-Ringa= classes, 44
+
+
+Scarcity of women, 139
+
+Schuermann, C.W., 34
+
+"Secret Societies," 3
+
+Sexual aversion, 117
+ unions, 102 sq.
+
+"Shade" division, 31, 152
+
+Sign language, 84
+
+Sisters, exchange of, 19, 20
+
+"Social organisation," 3
+
+Societies, secret, 3
+
+Solidarity of totem kin, 140
+
+Spencer, B., on group marriage, 128
+
+Status and kinship terms, 120, 125
+
+Stokes, J.L., 36
+
+"Sub-tribe," 30
+
+Suffixes, 53, 60, 80
+
+
+_Ta_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Tarderick= classes, 48
+
+=Taroombul= classes, 44
+
+=Tatathi= phratries, 49
+
+_Tchi_ as suffix, 53, 60, 80
+
+Terminology, 29 sq.
+
+_Tippa-malku_, 129
+ husband, rights of, 132, 139
+
+=Tjingillie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+_Tjuka_ as suffix, 80
+
+Toda phratries, 10
+
+Totem and phratry, 9
+
+Totems and classes, 89
+ and phratry names, 60, 69
+
+Totemism, distribution of, 8
+
+"Totem kin," 31
+ sacrosanctity of, 16
+
+Totem kins, 5
+ and phratries, 89
+ arrangement of, 89
+ and _pirrauru_, 134
+
+Tribal brothers, rights of, 131 n., 141
+ kinship, 5
+ names, meaning of, 82
+ property, 2, 7, 18, 61
+ solidarity, 7
+
+"Tribe," 2, 7, 29
+ subdivisions of, 8
+
+Tully R., classes on, 45
+
+=Turribul= classes, 42
+
+
+_U_ as prefix, 80
+
+_Uku_ as suffix, 53, 60
+
+_Ula_ as suffix, 80
+
+_Um_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Umbaia= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+_Unawa_, 122
+
+Unconscious reformation, 116
+
+=Undekerebina= phratries, 51
+
+Undivided commune, 121, 143
+
+_Unga_ as suffix, 80
+
+=Unghi= classes, 42
+
+_Ungilla_, 84
+
+=Ungorri= classes, 44
+
+_Upala_, 83
+
+=Urabunna= customs, 142
+ marriage rules, 98
+ phratries, 49
+ polygamy, 135
+
+_Uru_ as suffix, 53, 60
+
+
+Victoria, occupation of, 27, 67
+ S.W., phratries in, 49
+
+
+=Wailwun= classes, 42
+ organisation, 89
+
+=Wakelbura= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45 51
+ polyandry, 133
+ rules of residence, 16
+
+=Walpari= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+Wanika phratries, 10
+
+=Warkeman= classes, 45
+
+=Warramunga= classes, Table I a, 47
+ marriage, 150
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Wathi-Wathi= kinship terms, 94
+ phratries, 49
+
+=Weedokarry= classes, 47, 48
+
+_Welu_, 54
+
+West Australia, classes in, 48
+ phratries in, 48
+
+Westermarck, E., on group marriage, 128
+ on marriage, 105
+
+Wide Bay, classes at, 43
+
+Widow, position of, 20, 134
+ removal of, 19
+
+Widower, 131
+
+Wife lending, 142
+ authority over, 19
+
+=Wiimbaio= customs, 143
+ phratries, 49
+ wife lending, 142
+
+_Wilpadrina_, 129 n.
+
+Wilson, T.B., 36
+
+=Wilya= phratries, 49
+
+=Wiradjeri=, chiefs among, 25
+ classes, 42, 51
+ marriage, 150
+ phratries, 42 b, 50
+
+=Wolgal= phratries, 49
+
+=Wollaroi= betrothal, 22
+ classes, 42
+
+=Wollongurma= classes, 45
+
+=Wonnaruah= classes, 42
+
+=Wonghibon= "bloods," 51
+ classes, 42, 51
+ phratries, 42 c, 50, 51
+
+=Woonamurra= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+=Worgaia= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Workoboongo= classes, 46, 72
+
+=Wulmala= classes, Table I a, 47
+ phratries, 47
+
+=Wurunjerri= phratries, 48
+
+
+_Ya_ as prefix, 79, 80
+
+=Yambeena= classes, 51
+ phratries, 51
+
+=Yandairunga= phratries, 49
+
+=Yandrawontha= phratries, 49
+
+=Yangarella= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Yelyuyendi= phratries, 51
+
+=Yerunthully= classes, 44, 72
+
+=Yookala= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+=Yoolanlanya= classes, 47
+
+=Yowerawarika= phratries, 49
+
+=Yuin= custom, 145
+
+=Yuipera= classes, 44, 51
+ phratries, 45, 51
+
+=Yukkabura= classes, 45
+
+_Yun_ as prefix, 80
+
+=Yungmunnie= classes, Table I a, 47
+
+
+CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Note:
+
+The following inconsistencies have been maintained in the text:
+
+Misspellings and typographical errors
+
+Hawaian for Hawaiian
+Chapter IV, Table I, Section XV, the paragraph that begins with "Tribe"
+ is missing a ) at the end.
+
+Inconsistent hyphenation:
+
+bi-lateral / bilateral
+eight-fold / eightfold
+four-fold / fourfold
+Geawe-gal / Geawegal
+head-man / headman
+inter-tribal / intertribal
+matri-potestal / matripostestal
+Narrang-ga / Narrangga
+patri-potestal / patripotestal
+sacrosanctity / sacrosanctity
+sub-division / subdivision
+wide-spread / widespread
+
+Other inconsistencies:
+Archaeologia / Archaeologia
+Eaglehawk-Crow / eaglehawk-crow
+Pirraurru / Pirrauru
+vice versa / vice versa
+
+In list of abbreviations: Proc. R.G.S. Qn.
+ In text: Proc. R.G.S. Qu., Proc. R.S. Qu.
+In list of abbreviations: R.G.S. Qn.
+ In text: R.G.S. Qu.
+
+In Chapter IV, Table II, repeated column headings have been omitted.
+The numbering in this table jumps from 12 to 20 and then from 34 to 40.
+
+In Chapter IV, Table III, two symbols are used ([++] and Sec.) which are
+not defined. Repeated column headings have been omitted.
+
+In Chapter VII, the abbreviation ib. in the Footnotes is not italicized.
+
+In Chapter X, Section B. Marriage
+ The roman numerals are followed by a comma, rather than a period as in
+ the preceding section.
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Kinship Organisations and Group
+Marriage in Australia, by Northcote W. Thomas
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GROUP MARRIAGE IN AUSTRALIA ***
+
+***** This file should be named 17404.txt or 17404.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+ http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/4/0/17404/
+
+Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+ the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+ you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
+ owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+ has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+ Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
+ must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+ prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+ returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+ sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+ address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+ the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+ you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+ does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+ License. You must require such a user to return or
+ destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+ and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+ Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+ money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+ electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+ of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+ distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+ Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+ Chief Executive and Director
+ gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations. To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+ http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/17404.zip b/17404.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..287439f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/17404.zip
Binary files differ
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..40ecda9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #17404 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17404)
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-03-03 07:35:53 +0000