diff options
Diffstat (limited to '17404.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 17404.txt | 8828 |
1 files changed, 8828 insertions, 0 deletions
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. |