II
Having thus justified the scope of the present book and indicated the general lines on which its task should be carried out, a few words must be devoted to the method of dealing with the evidence. We start our investigations with (1) the Australian first-hand information, and (2) a general idea of the object of our research, that is a general idea of the individual family. This implies that during the process of research these two sets of data must be checked against each other. On the one hand we must continually extract from the evidence all that corresponds to our general idea of the individual family; on the other hand this idea must be specialized and determined according to the evidence.
It is clear enough what, broadly speaking, is meant by the Individual Family. But what exactly will be the features of this institution in Australia, that must be extracted from the evidence. This evidence is, on the other hand, given in the majority of cases in a very crude state, without reference to any theoretical points of view. The facts are often given in a purely casual and colloquial way. It is part of the task to sift out each one of them, and to ask if it can have any bearing on the present subject. Many facts that seemed not to bear immediately on it, yet furnished some very useful inferences. In short, the first duty of such a work as the present is to ask from the evidence right questions in the right way.
But even if a certain point has been settled upon as essentially important to be inquired into, and information referring to it has been gathered, the task is not yet finished. The statements collected on this point will as a rule present more or less radical discrepancies. After we have heard twenty opinions on the same subject which by no means agree with each other, to which shall we adhere? A method of dealing with evidence must be fixed upon. In the first place the statements are of the most heterogeneous character and value. They must be submitted to some criticism before use can be made of them.
After the degree of their reliability has been settled, and after, by a criticism of each statement, some of the contradictions have been removed, it must be considered how far the differences between the statements may be regarded as due to irreducible, local variations of the given institution; in other words, the problem must be discussed from the geographical standpoint.
Finally a certain system of weighing the evidence must be chosen, so as to draw from it the most correct conclusions, and never to prove too much or too little. So there are three different processes: criticism, localization of differences, and drawing of conclusions; all of which must be done according to a careful and conscientious method.
A few remarks about the latter must be given here without any attempt at completeness. That preliminary criticism is necessary seems hardly to need justification; to look at the irreducible inconsistencies and contradictions of a series of statements concerning any given point is enough. But such criticism must not be arbitrary; it must conform to strict rules.[27]
The first point to which attention must be paid, is to ascertain the exact meaning of a given statement. As many of our informants do not use exact terminology but write in a colloquial language, often spoilt by literary pretensions, we occasionally run the risk of being misled by a word or by a turn of expression.[28] In other words, it never seems advisable to cling blindly to the verbal meaning of a statement before having put it to the test. So, for instance, in the problem whether the natives live in families or tribes—the family and tribe having been exactly defined, a phrase like "the aborigines live in families" may not be accepted as argument, for by the word "family" the author may possibly have understood what we have designated by the word tribe.[29] I shall, as a rule, quote each statement in extenso, and give, if necessary, an interpretation or correction.[30] The sense in which a word is used may be, in the majority of cases, easily settled from the context, examples given by the author, and other instances where he uses the same word. When a phrase is hopelessly ambiguous, it is wrong to make any use of it.
After the sense of a statement has been settled more or less reliably, two cases must be discriminated. If the statement is purely a record of facts, and, still better, if it is exemplified by concrete instances, there is generally no reason to disbelieve it, especially if in the general character of the author there is a guarantee of his trustworthiness; and if he actually has had good opportunities of observing the natives. But if the statement involves a judgment, a generalization, or abstraction, we must be much more careful. Broadly speaking, statements of this latter kind are generally much more contradictory than mere statements of fact. It will be seen that the information concerning the treatment of women by their husbands, concerning sexual matters, and concerning the authority of husbands, will present many more discrepancies than the information concerning the modes of obtaining wives, economics, and other concrete questions. The first category implies much more abstraction and qualifying judgment than the second. It must be borne in mind that statements of the first category are the result of a long and complicated series of mental processes, and that their quality and value is dependent upon many conditions. All these conditions must be mentally analyzed and each of them must be taken into account in order to ascertain its bearing upon the final form in which we find the statement. The conditions in question may be shortly set forth as follows: Did the author possess all the qualities necessary for a good ethnographer? Had he good opportunities to observe the natives and a good method of doing so? Were the latter still in a primitive condition, or in an advanced state of decay? A few words may be said in the first place about this last point.
Only in exceptional cases is it possible to say anything definite on the state of the natives the author had under observation.[31] In general, it may be taken as a rule that all writers who were in any close contact with aborigines, had to do with fairly degenerated specimens. They were usually squatters or missionaries, and had to do with blacks hanging round farms or with remnants of tribes gathered in missions.[32] Their immediate observations, especially in sociological matters, which are at once affected, when conditions of life change, and when blacks become degenerate, could be of little value. But there was still the possibility of gathering information from the natives themselves, who could, properly questioned, give their recollections of the bygone times. This was the way in which probably A. W. Howitt got so much of the most valuable information on the Kurnai tribe, which he never saw in its primitive state. But only few writers had the mental training and the opportunities of the writer just mentioned. And the majority probably communicated to us simply what they saw—not even considering the problem how far the conditions then present tallied with the primitive normal state of things in the aboriginal society. Allowance must therefore be always made for the degeneration of the blacks as a possible factor affecting ethnographical evidence. In many cases there will be no room for doubt. For instance, in sexual matters it is obvious that contact with the white man invariably fosters a great deal of depravity. An improvement in sexual morality may, on the other hand, take place if the natives are gathered in a mission station.[33] But this cannot have any connection with aboriginal custom.
If, therefore, it is found, as is in fact the case, that all writers, who either inquired into the matter with really scientific precautions, or had to do with pure, primitive material, inform us that, speaking broadly, the sexual relations were strictly regulated; and on the other hand, all settlers, casual observers, and people who obviously had already corrupted blacks under observation, speak of unrestricted immorality and even of incest,[34] it may be safely said that the second type of statements refer to degenerate blacks. Here the general a priori suppositions quite harmonize with what is to be found in the evidence; the second type of statements may be therefore fittingly discarded. In the same way it may be assumed that with a general dissolution and corruption in the aboriginal society, and with all kinds of vices engrafted upon it the general level of conjugal affection and the standard of treatment of the wife by her husband went down. The contrary cannot possibly be assumed.
So it appears that, even from the quality of the material the observer had at his disposal, some useful hints may be obtained as to the direction in which our statements need correction. Furthermore it was said above that useful indications can be gathered from the way in which the observer was in contact with the natives; whether the observer was a long time in contact with the natives or only a short time; whether he made his observations with deliberate scientific aim, or whether they were made casually and recollected afterwards; whether he had good opportunities for observation, and under what conditions this was carried on, and so forth.
All these questions may throw much light upon the relation between the writer's statement in its final form and the actual state of things to which it refers. These questions are also in close connection with the point mentioned below, touching the profession of an observer. For it is usually the privilege of the missionaries to be in a long and intimate contact with the natives, to have their confidence, and sometimes to understand even their language, while it is the ethnographer's privilege to understand the aim of his inquiries. In some cases there are fairly detailed data about these points, and such information about the conditions and circumstances under which the writer got his evidence greatly increases its value. In all cases where the evidence is contained in memoirs, diaries, descriptions of travels, expeditions, etc., it is possible to form an idea as to what kind of relation existed between the respective author and the material of his observation. So it appears that Curr and Salvado had especially good opportunities; it is possible to picture the way in which authors like Collins, Taplin, Grey, Eyre, Lumholtz, Angas, Strehlow and others, came into contact with the natives. This is much more difficult to say in the case of writers who wrote only short articles (Oldfield, Stanbridge, Bonney, Palmer, Cameron and others), which merely give information without any details as to how it was gathered. In the case of ethnographers, observing themselves or collecting the observations of others—like Howitt, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, and some others—we might expect to be informed minutely about the way in which they obtained their information. Unfortunately this is only partly the case.
The questions how the condition of the natives, and how the method of observation can affect the final statements have been discussed at length. It was done in order to exemplify how from such considerations may be gathered useful hints, nay even positive indications, as to the direction along which the given statement may be corrected, if corrected at all. There are, besides these points, several other important points referring to the qualifications of the ethnographer that cannot be omitted when any correction of statement is made. There is no room to discuss them in detail; they would lead us too far into the domains of methodology, of ethnographic research. They must be enumerated briefly. So it is quite clear, that not only the personal character but also the profession or occupation of the writer influences very considerably the value and trustworthiness and the character of the information given. The personal character of the ethnographer is a rather delicate matter, but nobody could deny that some authors inspire us with the belief that everything they say is their real conviction, based on solid foundations of facts, while other authors fail to produce the same impression on the reader. It is also clear that a missionary, a police trooper, or an ethnologist, will each look with different eyes upon the same facts; each of them will group the essential features and generalize quite differently, and will express himself in terms which are by no means of the same degree of exactness and clearness. Ultimately each man will have his professional bias: the missionary will be influenced by his creeds and his moral ideas, the ethnologist by his theories, and the squatter or police trooper will sometimes, where there is room for it, allow play to his feelings, which usually are not ones of pure sympathy for the natives. As a matter of fact, it is allowable to speak without exaggeration of professional types of information. That the utmost caution is necessary, and that thus only are to be found indications of the directions in which it is possible to interpret some possible error, is an almost superfluous statement. Of course a careful and complete study of the whole work of an author enables one to judge much better how far his profession or personality may have affected his statements. And this is also the reason why an ethnologist confining himself to a small ethnic area is in a better position than the general one. For he is able to know his sources better, having a much more restricted number to deal with.
Not less important as regards our attitude towards a given writer's statements is the purpose with which his book is written. The greatest confidence of course is inspired by books written with a purely scientific aim. Even the articles of observers who are not men of science are apparently much more carefully written if they are intended for purely scientific use in serious scientific journals (as some articles in the Journal of the Ethnological Society, Jour. Anthrop. Inst., etc.). Memoirs, descriptions of travel, and so on, give—ceteris paribus—less guarantee; often much more room is left to phantasy, to a tendency to amuse, perhaps puzzle or interest. Concrete instances of this could be easily adduced.
At the end of all his mental operations, each observer had to generalize his observations, to express their common features, and formulate these in abstract and exact language. Here the most important points are personal intelligence and some mental training. The first is to be found even among the casual writers; for only people of a somewhat higher level of mentality would care to observe and write down their observations. But mental training in a scientific direction is exclusively to be found among the ethnographers; some of them stand far above all our other informants in matters of rather theoretical aspect, especially if social phenomena are concerned. And we may usually, in case of contradiction, take this information as the firm basis from which to start the operation of criticism. But on the other hand, there are reasons to mistrust general opinions laid down by professional ethnologists, for they are very often not simple generalizations, but theoretical inferences. Cases will be often met with where a general remark, which could be taken as a statement of fact—and often is given in such a form—appears after a more careful analysis to be quite a conjectural deduction from purely hypothetical premisses, or from incorrect definition. In all cases—e. g. where actual existence of group marriage is alleged—it will appear that this statement is a deduction from certain phenomena, which allow of quite a different interpretation, and that the term "marriage" is defined somewhat loosely.[35]
To sum up briefly: criticism of statements has in the first place to ascertain the exact and correct verbal meaning of each of them. In the second place many general but sure hints are afforded by a detailed analysis of the conditions under which the evidence was obtained and set forth by the author. The important points here are: quality of the material under observation; modes in which evidence was obtained (by inquiries from natives, by immediate observation, etc.); character, profession, and training of the informant, including possible bias, theoretical, moral, and personal. All these points appear at first sight rather impalpable, but as shown above they may afford good hints, especially if taken into account simultaneously.
Now we pass to the second point indicated above on [page 18], namely, the discussion of the local differences which may introduce some apparent contradictions into the statements. Assuming the possession of a series of statements, the correctness of which we accept within certain limits, there may still be some contradictions between them, due to the differences between the tribes, to which these statements refer. The task will be consequently to indicate these differences and to give certain reasons why some of the contradictions may be dealt with in this way and why others cannot be reduced to local differences. In the first place, in order to facilitate the application of the geographical point of view, the survey of the statements will always be made in the same geographical order. I begin with the south-east end of the continent and proceed then westwards and northwards, enumerating first the tribes of Victoria, then the tribes of the South territory of South Australia. I proceed over New South Wales to the Central and Northern tribes; then to Queensland, ending with West Australia. The order is kept only roughly without pedantic accuracy, which cannot be achieved, as many writers do not even trouble to localize their statements with anything approaching exactitude.
It may now be laid down in which cases it is possible to point with certainty to local differences between the different tribes and reduce to these factors the contradictions which are found. If the same author, who is known to be well-informed concerning the whole area (either personally or through reliable informants), points expressly to such differences, there is no reason to disbelieve him. Many such local differences are indicated in the extensive works of Spencer and Gillen, and Howitt. As an example may be quoted the differences in sexual matters, pointed out by Howitt in Reports of the Smithsonian Institution (compare below, [pp. 100] and [101]). But even in the case of such reliable authors as the ones just mentioned it should always be carefully considered whether they knew with the same degree of exactness all the tribes they compare. Further, when there is independent information about geographically-separated tribes from reliable authors of the same degree of exactness, to whose information we have reason to ascribe the same weight, we may also safely point, if there are any contradictions, to local differences. But if quite contradictory statements about some tribe or tribes living in close neighbourhood are given, we hardly feel inclined to attribute these contradictions to local differences. A very important indication of the advisability of introducing the element of geographical differences is further the question whether the tribes in question are in general different from each other, and whether they belong to different types of culture. Although very little can be said on that point, still on quite broad lines we must, e. g. acknowledge that the Kurnai were a tribe with many singularities, that the Arunta and other Central tribes clearly differ from the S.E. tribes, etc. As we shall make very little use of the geographical factor, what is said above may be considered sufficient on that point.[36]
Passing now to the third and perhaps most important methodological point, we may say a few words as to what method should be adopted for the drawing of conclusions from evidence considered as reliable. This is neither a logical proceeding, nor is it a kind of induction. Properly speaking, a witness's statement may be either accepted or rejected. But in this book importance has been laid on presenting the evidence in a quite definite way. Evidence is not used in order to exemplify or to prove a given assertion on a special point. Such a proceeding appears to be rather dogmatic, for usually in such cases the author gives preference to an a priori opinion, and looks afterwards for its confirmation in the ethnographic first-hand literature. Owing to the contradictory character of the latter, practically anything can be proved from it. In the present book the author merely sets forth the problem; for instance, such quite general questions are asked, as: How are wives obtained in Australia? What is the treatment of the wife by her husband? What are the sexual relations in general? and so forth. On each of those general topics evidence is afterwards collected, without prejudice or preference given to any type of opinion. There is, therefore, much less risk of bias or one-sidedness; the whole care is to make the best of the evidence thus collected; and a series of statements upon a given subject is presented. Each of them gives information on several points at once; at any rate each of them may usually be analyzed into a series of simpler statements. And this analytical operation will be our first task. There is always one or more assertion sufficiently general, or simple, which will be contained in all or in the majority of our statements and will be contradicted by none. These may be considered as established by our evidence. On other points there will be contradictions. Often these contradictions will be only apparent, due to a confusion in terminology, or to the defective way in which the writers have expressed themselves. Here recourse must be had to our first form of criticism, to the ascertainment of the exact meaning of each statement (verbal criticism). If that fails, the contradictions must be recognized as real ones. In case they cannot be attributed to any local differences, we must try to eliminate them. And on this point recourse must be had to the criticism of the statements from the point of view laid down above ([p. 25]). Some of the statements may be discarded as untrustworthy; the correct interpretation of others may be determined; and thus the contradictions will vanish. Sometimes this is impossible; the contradictions remain irreducible. Then they must be simply pointed out, and there is nothing further to be done. Undoubtedly much greater service is rendered to science by pointing out really irresolvable contradictions and obscurities than by establishing fallacious certitude.
Especially if on the part of the field ethnographers there could be expected some interest in the results of theoretical research, such indications of contradictions on points, the theoretical importance of which should be proved, would be of real value.[37] Only such a co-operation between theoretical writers and observers can give us satisfactory results. To make indifferent observation is easy. To note essential things and give useful observations is impossible without theoretical knowledge and an insight into the laws of sociology. It would be better if field ethnographers would consider the questions of theoretical writers, and take into account in their scheme of investigations the utilization subsequently to be made of their work.
Returning, after this digression, to our theme, it may be observed that the method of dealing with evidence is very simple: there is the analytical operation, of finding the essential points contained in a series of statements; in other words, the operation of analyzing these statements into simple factors and stating which are common to all the statements and may be accepted as well established. A further task consists in pointing out the irreducible contradictions. This operation obviously contains all the others—criticism of the text and contents of the statement, and reduction of contradictions to local differences. It is evident also that, although theoretically the criticism of statements was dealt with first, then the question of geographical differences, and in the third place the problem of handling a series of statements, as a matter of fact, the first step is to make a survey of all our evidence, resolving it into a set of problems, and then to take each problem separately; in this way we shall find contradictions and endeavour to eliminate them, and we shall be compelled to exercise criticism on the statements.
I would like to add here that to help us in the decision between several contradictory opinions, there is still one criterion beside the hints enunciated above (which refer to the character of each individual statement). I mean the criterion whether the final opinion drawn from the evidence is compatible or not with the other well-established features of Australian sociology. When deciding to adhere to some view, which is not established by a unanimous and categoric opinion of all our informers, it is always necessary to put this view to the test of other well-established facts. There are some views which are quite incompatible with the general conditions of life in the Australian aboriginal society and with the resulting mode of living. As a good example of such deductive demonstrations we may quote the passage in Curr, where he arithmetically proves that the statement of Dawson about the Australian chiefs and their court cannot be true.[38] Another example is afforded by the interesting passage of Howitt quoted below in extenso ([pp. 113] and [114]), which relates how the author thinks that our ideas on group marriage should be modified by what we know about the aboriginal mode of living and about the natural character of men. As a rule it is well always to try to ascertain whether our conclusion does not stand in contradiction with some part of our well-founded knowledge. Thus in practice it is always necessary to start with a crude series of facts, and in any attempt at criticism to be guided by the contradictions found in them. If then criticism and corrections, made according to our rules, remove the contradictions, we have another guarantee that our corrections were good. For if a series of statements, which at first sight seemed to present irreconcilable contradictions, do agree after we have applied to such of them as were either in a minority or appeared vague or came from uncertain sources, corrections or interpretations (the latter based on principles laid down quite independently), it may be concluded that our reason for applying the correction and the way in which we have done it, were sufficiently correct and justified.
To use a series of statements as they are given would be in the majority of cases quite impossible. All the contradictions imaginable would be present, and we should either helplessly drop any attempt at forming an opinion, or we should get out of the difficulty by a purely arbitrary act. We could by an act of faith believe in some of our writers and accept only what they say or what confirms their opinion, and completely ignore any contradictory information. That would even enable us to form a much more certain and detailed view on many points. Our way of proceeding compels us often to relinquish a very precise, definite opinion, which we could hold if we accepted one statement to be ultimately true, and neglected the others; but it gives us at least the conviction that any more precise conclusion would be unfounded. That all the corrections must be carried out on grounds of ample justification and in the most discreet way is quite clear. It will be seen that in the subsequent pages only rarely have statements been amended, and then the reasons are always given. But it is important that even these few corrections should be done systematically. The above indications will, I trust, help to a certain degree to justify the method adopted in dealing with evidence.
Our methodological considerations were necessarily taken on broad lines. To give a detailed and precise description of the method of treating the Australian material would require a whole volume, for there are in all individual cases so many influences and possibilities that may be considered as sources of error, and so many elements to take into consideration, that it would be nearly impossible to trace all the mental processes that have to be followed here. I found it also impossible to give explicitly all my reasons in each place where I ventured to correct a statement. Nevertheless, I have not thought it superfluous to give in outline the chief points adopted in this criticism. In the first place even these general hints will be quite sufficient to indicate the writer's motives to every one who has had to deal in an analogous way with ethnographical materials. And then they will serve as a proof that these questions, doubts, and precautions, were present to his mind while weighing the evidence. In the last place, as science is essentially based on mutual help and mutual agreement, if we had a whole series of workers on a given ethnographic material, a certain general assent, if such could be obtained, would undoubtedly be the best criterion of reliability of sources. But matters should be openly and explicitly discussed.
To sum up, the chief methodological principle which we have striven to keep always before us, is a thorough clearness about every step of our reasoning. In the first place, therefore, care has been taken to give an explicit and a perfectly clear survey of the statements; and to draw conclusions in such a way that all our reasons for drawing them shall be as clear as possible to the reader, so as to enable every one to apply his own criticism as easily as possible at any stage of our reasoning. Necessarily in a study such as the present one, some allowance must be made for a subjective element in the final judgments on the value of the evidence. But just as the writer must ask for a certain amount of trust in his scientific judgment, so he is bound to give every means to the reader to enable him always fully to judge and exercise his criticism on the use the author is making of this liberty.
In order to achieve this as far as in us lies, the methodological principles set forth above have been adopted. They are in short, as follows: We accept as facts those points in which all statements agree. On controversial points we try to eliminate the contradictions by applying textual criticism to the statements, or by pointing out the possible sources of error, or by showing that these contradictions must be set down to local differences between the tribes. In drawing conclusions, we shall point out those facts which are well established, and also point out those which are more or less uncertain or contradictory. The sources used are not very numerous, but it is hoped that they will be found sufficient. They have been impartially chosen and include each of the various types of Australian evidence.
CHAPTER II
MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES
Keeping to these general methodological principles, the aim of this study will be merely an objective, unprejudiced description of the different forms of the Australian family organization.
In accordance with what has been said above, let us accept at the outset a general definition, along the lines of which our investigations will be carried out. My choice for this purpose is the well-known definition of Dr. Westermarck: "Marriage is a more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." In another place (Moral Ideas, ii. p. 364) Dr. Westermarck completes this definition: "As a social institution, on the other hand, it has a somewhat different meaning: it is a union regulated by custom and law. Society lays down the rules relating to the selection of partners, to the mode of contracting marriage, to its form, and to its duration." We may also remember that Dr. Westermarck first pointed out that "marriage is rooted in family, rather than family in marriage"[39]; and that he insists on the importance of economic elements in family life, and especially on the facts of the rearing of children and the mode of living.
These remarks of Dr. Westermarck, corroborating what has been said in the introduction, direct our analysis to the relationship between parents and children as well as between the conjugal parties; resolving thus the marriage problem into the more general family problem. On the other hand, Dr. Westermarck, in these short passages quoted, as well as throughout his work, insists on the general and sociological aspect of family life. We shall try to apply his points of view systematically to our Australian material, keeping in mind the addition of the legal side of the question.
As each relationship is intended to be separately treated, let us begin with that of man and wife, and especially with its "legal" aspect. The first point for discussion will be the modes of obtaining wives. In this the search will be for elements, that enforce ipso facto the validity of marriage; there will probably be found in them the expression of some collective ideas, referring to the validity, moral or customary sanction, that marital union enjoys in the eyes of the native. It is also highly important for the whole question of marriage and family to ascertain whether the modes of obtaining wives are subject to any norm, compliance with which was enforced by an active intervention of society in some form. Such norms, according to the definition given above, would be legal ones, and they, necessarily, involve and presuppose a series of collective ideas, the knowledge of which would afford a deep insight into the primitive social mechanism.
Betrothal or marriage ceremonies that would express a sanction of purely social or even mystic or moral character are few, although not quite absent. Nevertheless the widespread practice of allotting young girls even in infancy, or before birth sometimes, shows ipso facto how deeply rooted the idea of the individual right of a man to a woman is in the native mind. Also in the case when wives are obtained by elopement or capture, there are certain ordeals, formalities or duties, that give to such a marriage its social sanction.
The following statements it will be seen present but little field for correction. What we are asking for in this place are merely facts which are evident and palpable enough not to escape the attention of even ordinary observers. Only the betrothal ceremonies and acts seem to have been more esoteric, and therefore they are reported in only a few cases, where the authors were more intimately acquainted with native customs and ideas.
Statements.—Amongst the Kurnai marriage was brought about generally by elopement; sometimes by capture; and less frequently by exchange or by gift.[40] In cases of elopement "the male relatives searched for her (the fugitive), sometimes with success, sometimes without success. If the couple could remain away till the girl was with child ... she would be forgiven."[41] Otherwise, if found, she was badly chastised, and the man had to fight her relatives. If they should persevere in their plans and elope two or three times ... they would be forgiven.[42] The Kurnai are the only people among whom elopement was the general rule. The punishment was there accordingly not very severe, and the marriage legalized in case of perseverance, or if the couple were skilful enough not to allow themselves to be soon caught.
J. Bulmer, Lake Tyers, Gippsland, says that among the Gournditch-Mara the majority of wives were obtained by exchanging a sister or a near relative. Elopement was always followed by bloodshed.[43] "Marriage was by betrothal of children by their respective parents, therefore by exchange of sisters," says Howitt[44] of the same tribe.
Exchange of sisters (own or tribal) was practised by the Youin; the marriage being arranged by the fathers; there was a mutual public agreement between them. "The two being thus promised to each other, the girl is looked upon as the future wife of the boy." In cases of elopement, if there was a baby the marriage was legalized, especially if a sister (tribal or own) could be given in exchange.[45] Here we may note that the arrangement was made publicly, during one of the tribal gatherings. The future brothers-in-law exchange gifts, and on the day of the arrangement keep ostentatiously the whole time together. Thus the whole affair was known to everybody and had a sort of tribal approval.
Among the Woeworung girls were promised in infancy. The arrangement was entered into by the respective fathers, then made public. The old men of the tribe had to decide when the girl was to be handed over to her husband. There was a kind of betrothal ceremony consisting in a public giving up of the bride to the bridegroom.[46]
In the Bangerang tribe "wives were obtained by the exchange of females with any other tribe; so that a man who had a daughter, exchanged her for a wife, for himself or his son, as he thought proper." The custom of exchange of females was a check on abusive cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband. A Black said once to Curr, "If he beats my sister, I'll beat my wife."[47]
In the Victorian tribes described by Beveridge, girls were usually exchanged. It was the father who had to dispose of his girl; there was no betrothal ceremony. Only the woman was bound by the marriage; the man could always send her away.[48]
Amongst the South-west Victorian tribes "parents betroth their children when just able to walk."[49] The arrangement was carried out by the respective fathers. As a sign the boy's father gives the girl an opossum rug, shows her attention, and gives her "nice things to eat." The girl's father visits sometimes her intended husband. "No marriage or betrothal is permitted without the approval of the chief of each party."[50] The girl's mother and aunts must not look at her intended husband from the moment of betrothal.[51] In cases of elopement against the wishes of parents fights take place. A second elopement makes the marriage lawful.[52] Exchange of sisters exists also, with consent of chiefs. The ceremony of betrothal is described at length by the same author.[53] The bride and the bridegroom are painted and specially dressed. Food is stored for the purpose, as feasting and amusement accompany the ceremony. The chief is present and gives his consent. Two months after the betrothal the two do not sleep alone, but with the bridemaid and brideman. The alleged approval of the chief in this statement would be interesting, but here we may mistrust our author, for the general information about the chiefs, their power, etc., seems to be not quite correct (see Curr, A.R., i. p. 53). Besides, the whole style of the book is not strictly scientific, and shows signs of literary embellishments. We must also attach some caution to the detailed description of the betrothal ceremony. It is the only account of a detailed and elaborate ceremony of this kind, with feasting, chief, abstinency, etc. Interesting and important as it is, we may attribute it to local exception, but we cannot consider it as established beyond doubt.
Amongst the Wotjobaluk (S. Victoria) girls were exchanged in infancy by the elder brother. The father's consent was essential: he could also dispose otherwise of his daughter. The marriage arrangements and agreements were publicly made at large tribal gatherings.[54]
Stanbridge says that "females are generally betrothed in early infancy," either to friends, or to those whose friendship is solicited. Although the father decides when she has to be given away, "the bridegroom is sure of obtaining his bride, as the honour of the family and of the tribe is considered to be involved in the fulfilment of the betrothal." In case of subsequent elopement it is the duty of the family to chastise the guilty pair.[55] This statement is not quite clear, inasmuch as we scarcely understand how the mediæval idea of honour is to be applied to Australian Blacks. Probably it means that the family and local group of the girl have some reason to keep the promise; whether this reason be of magical, legal, or customary character is an open question. But inferring by analogy we may say that all these factors are coercive here, as in the other tribes. The family must also support the husband in case of elopement.
"Whenever a female child was promised in marriage to any man, from that very hour neither he nor the child's mother were permitted to look upon or hear each other speak, nor hear their names mentioned by others; for, if they did, they would immediately grow prematurely old and die." This statement refers to the Jajaurung tribe of Victoria.[56]
"Female children are betrothed usually from early infancy, and such arrangements are usually adhered to," with rare exceptions. Exchange of sisters is commonly practised, but the parents' consent is essential. "If a wife be stolen, war is always continued until she is given up, or another female exchanged." These statements refer to the Lower Murray and Adelaide tribes.[57]
There is a very plain and primitive form of betrothal, performed by the "principal old man in the camp" amongst the Lower Darling natives. They usually exchange sisters, and girls are promised in infancy.[58]
Among the Parkengee tribe of the Darling River, "A brother had the right of giving away his sister, which he usually did with a view to his own matrimonial interests. They were in this way promised when quite children, and in the event of the death of the claimant, his nearest of kin became possessed of his rights."[59] This means that levirate was valid in case of betrothal.
Exchange was the chief feature of the Narrinyeri marriage. Sometimes the father, usually the brother, disposed of the girl. There is a simple ceremony, consisting in a formal handing over of the bride, who seems usually to be rather unwilling.[60] It is a social disgrace for a girl not to be given away; if she goes by herself and lives by her own choice with a man, she is "regarded as very little better than a prostitute."[61] A woman is supposed to signify her consent to the marriage by carrying fire to her husband's wurley and making his fire for him.[62]
Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula, "Betrothal took place in infancy, and the marriage ceremony after circumcision and other rites performed on the male."[63]
"In the Geawe Gal tribe marriage was ordinarily by the gift[64] of the woman and by consent of both fathers ... and would be arranged years before the time of marriage." In cases of elopement the offender had to fight the female's relatives; he retained her only if victor. In cases of capture, only a woman of the right class could be retained.[65]
In New South Wales marriage was arranged by the parents. If two people fell in love, they eloped, but if the family applied to the camp council, the latter would interfere and punish the culprit.[66]
Henderson says that among the Blacks of New South Wales abduction always arouses fights.[67] Using legal terms, this means that abduction of a woman, whether married or not, was considered a crime.
Of the courtship in some of the New South Wales tribes we have an account by J. Turnbull: "When a young man sees a female to his fancy, he informs her she must accompany him home; the lady refuses; he not only enforces compliance with threats, but blows: thus the gallant, according to the custom, never fails to gain the victory, and bears off the willing though struggling pugilist."[68] In the following context the author asserts that violence is here a mere formality. It is difficult to say anything definite about this statement. If it refers merely to the final marriage "ceremony" it might be accepted. But if it is to be accepted as describing all that refers to marriage, it is obviously false. The author was a "circumnavigator," and in his voyage round the world, about the year 1800, had probably little opportunities for observing the Australian aborigines. Such statements as this, uncritically accepted (as this is, e. g. in Waitz-Gerland), are usual sources of error in ethnology and hence in sociology.
In some other New South Wales tribes "the ceremony of marriage is peculiar. In most cases the parties are betrothed at an early age, and as soon as they arrive at the proper age, the young man claims his 'gin' or wife."[69] "The women are considered as an article of property, and are sold or given away by the parents or relatives without the least regard to their own wishes."[70] The well-known elements of infant betrothal, and a kind of purchase of a female from her family, are contained in this statement.
According to another author, who has written about the New South Wales tribes, the girls are given away at a corroboree. Sometimes they are "stolen," but then fights always ensue.[71] This statement contains the feature of publicity of marriage. It does not say anything about the conditions preceding such a public allotment.
According to Tench, capture was the prevalent form in which marriage was brought about in the Port Jackson tribes.[72] Tench was in very early times at the settlement, but being a military man and making only a short stay, he hardly had very good opportunities of observing the natives. His statement cannot outweigh all the contrary ones.
The statement of Barrington, who says that among the Port Jackson natives blows are the usual mode of courtship and that they are well accepted as a token of tenderness,[73] can only be understood if we accept these facts as a kind of pretended marriage by capture. But much importance cannot be attached to it.
Amongst some tribes in the neighbourhood of Sydney[74] small children are betrothed, and as a sign of that the girl wears a necklace. In another place[75] the same author says that marriage by capture occurs.
Among the tribes of the South-east coast of New South Wales (Hawkesbury River to Cape Howe) the "marriages are regulated by a system of betrothal." "The old men assemble in council," and establish the relation of Nanarree between a boy and a girl or woman. The boy then marries eventually the woman's daughter. The Nanarree couple "theoretically occupy the position of son-in-law and mother-in-law." They are tabooed to each other. A man and woman may be Nanarree to several individuals.[76]
We read of an instance of a formal betrothal (called Bahumul), although meagre in its ceremonial, among the Euahlayi tribe. A baby girl is destined by her parents to be "given to a man." She is brought to him, some feathers are taken off the baby's head and put on the man's. Her grandmother says, "Look at him and remember him, because you are promised to him." "That makes it a formal betrothal, binding to both sides." "I have heard great camp rows, because girls made a struggle for independence, having found out they had only been promised, not formally betrothed, to some old chap whom they did not wish to marry." Here we meet with an instance of a formality, which has in itself much more than a simple promise, that is "binding for both sides."[77]
Amongst the Wiradjuri the girl was promised in infancy and sisters were exchanged.[78]
Amongst the Dieri the individual or Tippa Malku marriage was established when girls were quite young, and upon the basis of exchange, the decision lying in the hands of the mother's brother. In another place we read that the Tippa Malku marriage was brought about sometimes also by the council of old men.[79] Pirrauru "wives" were allotted by the council of old men.[80] In cases of elopement the offender was pursued by the kindred.[81]
The German missionary, L. Schultze, informs us about the Central tribes that "the betrothal is solely and absolutely arranged by the father of the girl. He promises and contracts his daughter, within the limits of the class, to whomsoever he pleases." "A youth cannot select a bride for himself, or a girl a bridegroom." "The betrothal is often made by the father, soon after the girl is born, from mercenary motives," for the future son-in-law is obliged to hunt and provide his father-in-law with food.[82]
We are informed about the Central tribes that "girl-stealing is not a trifling matter." Fights always ensue as the result of it.[83]
By the detailed data given by Spencer and Gillen[84] we get a good insight into the legal and customary side of the modes of obtaining wives amongst the Central tribes of the Arunta nation. Methods of securing a woman are (a) charming by means of magic, (b) capture, (c) elopement, (d) the custom of Tualcha-Mura, by means of which a man secures a wife for his son by making an arrangement with some other man, with regard to the latter's daughter. The legal side of the first method is shown by the fact that a man's right to a woman, secured by means "of magic, is supported by the men of his own local group."[85] Capture is the "very rarest way in which a Central Australian secures a wife." If captured by an avenging party, the woman must be lawfully allotted to one of the men (who has exclusive right to her afterwards).[86] There is an accompanying ceremony, and the decision lies in the hand of an old man, the leader of the party.[87] In cases of elopement there was always a fight, sometimes between the two parties only, sometimes their local groups taking part. There were some (tribal) relatives having a special duty of supporting the eloper. Sometimes the aggrieved husband will consent to hand over the wife; the offender has then an ordeal to undergo.[88] "The fourth and most usual method of obtaining a wife is that which is connected with the well-established custom" of Tualcha-Mura.[89] This is a relation between a man and his mother-in-law[90] established by a simple ceremony,[91] and it signifies that the man has the right to take as wife the daughter of the woman. In this way "practically every man in the tribe is provided with at least one woman to whom he is lawfully entitled."[92] He has a definite right over her; he may waive it or exchange it for another right over his mother-in-law's son.[93] He stands in a definite relation to his Tualcha-Mura (mother-in-law); receives her hair to make his hair girdle,[94] and may not speak to her. He has the duty of providing his father-in-law with food, which is a condition for the obligations to be kept.[95] It is seldom that these obligations are broken; and if the parents give the girl to someone else, the latter is sure to have to undergo a struggle with the former fiancé.[96] All this holds good also in respect to the Northern Central tribes.[97] There, too, "as a general rule women are obtained quite peacefully by the system of betrothal."[98]
Among all the tribes, described by Spencer and Gillen, there seem to be some marriage ceremonies.[99] In their first work (Nat. Tr.) these authors describe such ceremonies among nine tribes.[100] In the main these ceremonies consisted of a ritual defloration of the girl by men standing to her in a definite relationship. In each case the girl had to submit to sexual intercourse with a series of men standing to her also in a definite relationship. Men of forbidden degrees have on these occasions access to women. The girl was afterwards painted and decorated and handed over to her husband, to whom she was allotted.[101] In the Northern Tribes there is also a detailed description of this ceremony among the Warramunga,[102] where the husband keeps abstinence for three days after marriage. Among the Binbinga, Anula and Mara tribes the ritual defloration seems not to be a marriage ceremony, i. e. seems not to be connected with the handing over of the girl to her allotted husband.[103] Messrs. Spencer and Gillen state the existence of this ceremony among sixteen tribes. It is to be noted that these ceremonies do not seem to express any special sanction of the marriage to which they lead, unless they are viewed as "expiation for marriage."[104] Then they might be interpreted as the renouncement of all men's rights and claims to a woman for the benefit of her future owner. The ceremonial handing over of a woman may be also regarded as expressing the public sanction of marriage. We must still notice an interesting ceremony amongst the Warramunga, Tjinjilli, Gnanji, Binbinga, Mara, which consists of some hair being given by the maternal uncle of the girl to her future husband. This hair is worn by him under his arm-band; "it is a simple plan of publicly announcing the fact" of the betrothal.[105] Amongst the Binbinga there is a form of betrothal. The future husband must present his father-in-law with boomerangs, etc., and must avoid him, but goes on giving him presents.[106]
Among some tribes of South Queensland (Bunya-Bunya country) marriage was arranged without any consent of the contracting parties. Sometimes it was arranged when the girl was an infant, and she was then promised to some man of importance or influence. Sometimes exchange of females took place at large tribal gatherings. Elopement was known in these tribes, and a fight decided whether it was legalized or not.[107]
We find a ceremony of betrothal among the Kuinmurbura. "The parents having painted the girl and dressed her hair with feathers, her male cousin takes her to where her future husband is sitting cross-legged in silence, and seats her at his back and close to him. He who has brought the girl after a time removes the feathers from her hair and places them in the hair of her future husband, and then leads the girl back to her parents." The future son-in-law must give presents of game to the father of his promised wife.[108]
We read about the natives of Moreton Bay, that marriage is generally contracted with the consent of the relatives of both parties and the approval of the tribe. As a form of betrothal they join their hands. The stealing of women from neighbouring tribes ends usually in war.[109]
Among the Herbert River natives, exchange of sisters or daughters is the commonest way of obtaining wives.[110] Girls are promised to their respective husbands[111] in infancy and delivered at the age of nine or ten years.
We find in Brough Smyth an account of a betrothal ceremony, as practised by the natives on Fraser Island (Queensland). This description is given by a correspondent of the Rev. L. Fison: "The bride makes a fire, and the other natives come and place white feathers on her head; then the bride places feathers on the head of the bridegroom; the bridegroom makes a fire, and every one of the blacks present on the occasion brings a firestick and throws it down at the bridegroom's fire."[112]
Girls were betrothed in infancy by their mothers amongst the Wakelbura. It was supposed that a girl would be given in exchange for her.[113] In case of elopement, there was a severe fight, and only after a victory over many adversaries could the man keep his wife.
Among the North-West Central Queensland tribes[114] "each male can have an official wife" supplied him by the camp in general council assembled,[115] and an unofficial one of his own choice. "Both share equal rights and responsibilities." The consent of the girl's family is in both cases essential.[116] The ceremony of betrothal consisted in exchange of firesticks, and "is binding on both sides."[117] Exchange of sisters is practised, too.[118] If eloping, "both have to run the gauntlet of the outraged community," which gives them a rather harsh reception. After which "the couple is now recognized as husband and wife."[119] In cases of elopement of a married woman there is a fight, or compensation is granted to the injured husband. In another place Roth says that taking a girl against the wishes of parents was punished by death.[120]
According to Macgillivray's information, infant betrothal even before birth was prevalent in the Port Essington tribes.[121]
The following account is reported by a Lascar who spent several years among the tribes of the North-East coast (Raffles Bay): "Their marriage ceremony is performed in the following way: The father and mother of a female child lead in one hand between them the intended bride (whilst in the other they each carry a piece of burning wood) towards the intended husband, he standing with his back towards them. When they arrive at the appointed place, the parents lay down the burning pieces of wood, beside which the child sits down, and the parents retire, on which the husband turns round to his wife and takes her home."[122]
We are informed about the natives of the Cape of York Peninsula and Prince of Wales Islands: "In most cases females are betrothed in infancy, according to the will of the father, and without regard to disparity of age. Thus the future husband may be, and often is, an old man with several wives."[123]
J. Forrest, speaking of the natives of Central and Western Australia, says: "Betrothal is very general. A child a year old will sometimes be betrothed to an old man, and it will be his duty to feed and protect her, and (unless she is stolen by someone else) when she is old enough she becomes his wife."[124]
"The girls are not the exclusive property of the father until he thinks fit to give them in marriage to some of his friends; by the law of these people the females, from the time of their birth, are appropriated to certain males of the tribe, and not even the parents have the right to set aside these obligations." If this man dies, the mother may dispose of her daughter.—This refers to the Watchandee tribe of West Australia.[125] The same author writes that elopement is punished in these tribes by the death of the female, and a severe ordeal is imposed on the male; an instance is adduced to illustrate this.[126] The statement is quite unique in this, that it asserts no right of the family to betroth their daughter. On the other hand, we are by no other author informed of such a thing as a man having an a priori right to a girl. We are led to the supposition that these male individuals are simply men belonging to the right marriage class. For undoubtedly in an exogamous tribe, having four or eight classes and being not too numerous, the number of marriageable individuals must have been very limited, and one of them might have had some special prerogatives. This supposition would also account for the severe punishment inflicted in case of elopement with a man to whom "she did not lawfully belong," viz. with an individual of the improper class. Otherwise this statement would be contradictory with all the others, and we could hardly harmonize it with the general view we form of the aboriginal marriage rules.
Among the tribes observed by Salvado "Le sauvage demande la personne qu'il veut épouser au père de celle-ci, et si celui-ci ne l'a promise à aucun autre, et n'y voit pas d'empêchement, il la lui accorde. Dès ce moment, la jeune personne appartient au sauvage qui l'a demandée, quoiqu'elle reste en compagnie de sa famille, jusqu'à l'age de la puberté. Cet engagement est inviolable, et si jamais un père y manquait, ce serait la cause de beaucoup de sang répandu. Le sauvage pourtant quand il demande une jeune personne en mariage, s'il ne se fie pas à la parole du père, l'emmène avec lui et lui tient lieu de frère, jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait atteint l'âge convenable. Dans aucun cas on ne demande à la jeune personne son consentement. Neanmoins j'ai entendu dire à des fiancés: 'Je l'aime et elle m'aime aussi.'"[127] "L'autre manière de prendre femme est de la ravir à son père, ou à son mari, soit à cause de sa rare beauté, soit parce que son mari la maltraite. Mais ensuite si celui-ci la trouve, il la tue sans pitié, aussi le ravisseur l'emmène-t-il au loin, et tâche de se soustraire à tout jamais à la présence de l'offensé."[128]
In West Australia "female children are always betrothed within a few days after their birth; and from the moment they are betrothed the parents cease to have any control over the future settlement of their child." The woman is kept by her husband as his exclusive property. "Stealing a wife is generally punished with death." It means that elopement was punished by death, but we are not told if of both parties or only one, and which one. This statement agrees with our last one. It might be, therefore, that in West Australia the rules were in this regard more stringent. But it seems more probable that death was the extreme punishment only, and that usually an ordeal was sufficient.[129]
We are informed in G. F. Moore's vocabulary of West Australian languages that the word meaning "firm," "fixed" is "applied to a man and wife as firmly united together."[130] It shows that this idea must have been strongly inculcated in the aboriginal society, if the expression for firmness and marriage were associated in their language. By itself, such a linguistic argument might be justly designated as futile; but it is a valuable addition to the other evidence in our possession. The same author mentions three modes of obtaining wives: infant betrothal, inheritance from a brother or relative (levirate), and elopement.[131]
We read in Scott Nind's description of the aborigines of King George's Sound: "The girls appear to be at the disposal of their father and are generally bespoke in their infancy; even before they are born we have been told to whom they were betrothed, if they prove to be females." Sometimes exchange of relatives is practised. In some cases boys are adopted as sons-in-law—a custom called cotertie.[132] This seems to be analogous to the customs reported from Central Australia and New South Wales. "Attentions and presents are paid more to her (the bride's) father than to herself, and indeed the trifles she receives are generally transferred to him. These chiefly consist of game or other articles of food; the father, perhaps, receives a cloak, spears or other implements."[133] The author says: "I do not think they have any nuptial ceremony."[134] Another mode of procuring a wife is to carry her off; sometimes against her will, generally by mutual agreement. In both cases the couple must beware of the husband's revenge. If the female become pregnant and presents are given to the husband, she is released from her first engagement.[135] A woman may be also betrothed during her husband's lifetime to a man, to whom she passes when widowed.[136]
Browne relates that girls were often promised in infancy; elopement also often took place.[137]
We have also six statements in the answers given to Professor Frazer's Questions (J.A.I., xxiv., pp. 157 sq.). I have not ranged them with the foregoing, for they seem not to be of equal accuracy[138] except perhaps that of Police Inspector Foelsche, Port Darwin, North Territory, South Australia. And this agrees with the majority of our data: girls are promised in infancy to men of different ages, and go to live with them when arrived at puberty. It is noteworthy that all these six statements deny the existence of any betrothal ceremony. Five of them inform us that wives were obtained by "purchase" from their parents. The word purchase covers, probably, the fact that the girl's parents obtained, at the marriage contract, and probably ever after, gifts from their future son-in-law. We have such statements already in our collection, and it seems that wherever there was no exchange of females the girl's family received some compensation for her in another form.
According to our already described methodological plan, the area or range of the facts covered by all this evidence must be divided into smaller fields. Or, in other words, it is needful to bring our information under several headings, show the points upon which there is complete agreement, and discuss the other points in greater detail.
There are forty-nine statements (including one of the six just summarily mentioned). Not all of them give us full information concerning the whole of our subject; some mention only one or other of the methods of obtaining wives, without asserting or denying the existence of the other forms. But roughly speaking, we may say that in all tribes there are on the one hand some normal, pacific modes of obtaining wives (exchange of relatives, promise in infancy, betrothal), and on the other hand some more or less violent forms (elopement, capture). About twenty-three of the forty-nine statements, all which are explicit and reliable, assert the existence of both these forms amongst the tribes they deal with. The violent forms, elopement and capture, seem to have been rather the exception than the rule, but there seems to have been not a single tribe in which elopement was completely absent.[139] Among the Kurnai elopement was a prevalent form of marriage. In all other tribes the methods, called here normal or pacific, were prevalent. The main features of these forms are: betrothal in infancy, exchange of sisters or relatives, and a series of obligations and mutual duties which both contracting parties undertake. All these features may be briefly discussed.
The custom of betrothing females in infancy seems to be very widespread. That this custom was known in all tribes appears in all the statements explicitly or implicitly (with the exception of those statements only which were discarded as unreliable, e. g. those which assert marriage by capture as the most usual form). So in the tribes described by Howitt and his correspondents (chiefly referring to Victoria, New South Wales, and South territory of South Australia) girls were as a rule promised in infancy, and these engagements were kept. This appears the most usual way of obtaining wives amongst the Central tribes, in Queensland, and in West Australia (J. Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Howitt, Eyre, F. Bonney, R. H. Mathews, Spencer and Gillen, T. Petrie, Grey, Browne); whereas according to Oldfield, girls belonged by birth to a certain man. In Roth's statement we are not informed whether women were allotted by camp council in infancy or when grown up.
This widespread custom of infant betrothal had its important consequences, some apparent at first sight. So it is evident, that not only had the woman no voice as to her husband, but even the latter had scarcely a choice in the proper sense of the word. For when he entered into the engagement, although he was often of a mature age, he could not have any idea how his bride would look when grown up. The legal importance of this form of marriage and all the mutual obligations connected therewith will be discussed below.
Another point of importance is that this form of marriage contract was in many tribes combined with the exchange of sisters or relatives. Fifteen statements mention this explicitly as the most usual condition under which a female could be obtained. It must have been prevalent in the South-Eastern tribes.[140] In the case of exchange it was usually the sister who was given in exchange for a wife,[141] but sometimes also a father secured a wife in exchange for his daughter (Curr, Taplin, Beveridge), which is in perfect accord with the fact that disparity of age was very frequent in Australian marriages. At any rate the father's consent was always essential (Stanbridge, Beveridge, Schultze, Taplin on the Narrinyeri, Rusden on the Geawe Gal, Howitt on the Wotjobaluk). In general when a girl was promised in infancy it was always done by her family; or at least with the consent of her family. As, for instance, in N. Central Queensland, where, according to Roth, girls were disposed of sometimes by the camp council, but by agreement with the family. By the word family must be here understood in the first place the girl's father, whose consent, as just said, was essential, then her brothers and nearest relatives, who would eventually have profit from exchanging her. But also other members of the female's family are interested in the transaction and possibly benefit by it.
The important part played by the family appears in all our statements; the only contradictory one is that of Oldfield, who says that the parents had no right over their daughter from her birth (but see above our critical remark). From the moment of the "betrothal" the man or boy enters into a certain relation to his future wife's nearest relatives; he has certain duties to perform, certain obligations to fulfil, and certain restrictions to observe. In the case where it is the male's family which makes the contract for him, the two families have certain duties towards each other and stand in a certain mutual relationship. They exchange gifts (Yuin, Woljabaluk, S.W. Victoria and others); the boy's father has to give presents to the girl, and the boy is visited from time to time by his future father-in-law (W. Victoria); the future mother-in-law is tabooed (Jajaurung, New South Wales, according to R. H. Mathews; Central tribes); in the Central tribes there is the relation of Tualcha Mara and the duty of hunting for the future father-in-law. In the Binbinga there is a present at the betrothal and sometimes duties afterwards.
It seems that in all cases, even when exchange does not take place, it is the father who disposes of his daughter (compare just above). This privilege is important: in this way, as we saw above, an old man may procure a young wife for himself. In other cases by these means the friendship of an influential man may be gained. It is therefore probable that the father, who wields all the authority in the family, enjoys this privilege of disposing of his daughter.
We may view the facts of exchange of females on the one hand, and the various duties of the husband towards his (future or actual) wife's family on the other, also in another light; they show distinctly the features of marriage by purchase. In the first place let us remark that the two forms—exchange of females and exchange of gifts or duties for a female—seem to be localized in different areas. We saw that Howitt affirms that exchange is the prominent feature in the South-eastern tribes with the exception of the Kurnai. In those of our statements which refer to this area we found with very few exceptions (J. Dawson, Stanbridge, G. S. Lang, Mrs. Parker) confirmation of his views. The above exceptions do not deny this fact. They are not very explicit, so that we can hardly insist on them as negative evidence. On the other hand, in the Central and Northern area, exchange of females seems not to take place. Here we have some detailed statements, such as those about the Dieri by Gason and Howitt, about the Arunta by Spencer and Gillen, about the other Northern tribes by the same authors, about the N.W. Queensland tribes by W. E. Roth. In all these explicit statements there is not a single remark about exchange. Nor is the latter mentioned in any statement referring to the Central and Northern area, nor in the four statements which refer to West Australia. We may therefore conclude with a high degree of probability that we have here to do with a real geographical difference between the tribes indicated. As to Queensland, exchange was probably known in the Central and Southern tribes (Tom Petrie and Lumholtz mention it), whereas, as we saw, it was absent in the Western part of that colony. But in nearly all these tribes, where exchange of females is apparently not in use, there is evidence of the existence of duties and obligations on the part of the future husband towards his parents-in-law. We may remember the five statements in which the word purchase was used, and the statement of Wilkes. Schultze says explicitly that the father often gave his daughter away from mercenary motives. The same is confirmed by the more exact and detailed statement of Spencer and Gillen, where the duties of providing the father-in-law with game are reported to be a necessary condition for the obligations to be kept. Among some of the Northern tribes (Binbinga, Anula, Mara) the man has to present his father-in-law with boomerangs and weapons at the contract, and then to supply him with game. There is no information about purchase-marriage either from Queensland or from West Australia. But such a negative evidence is not convincing. Again among the Kurnai, where exchange of females happened very seldom, there were duties of supplying the parents-in-law with game (compare below, [pp. 283] sqq.). So that if we leave on one side the Western part of Australia and Queensland, and take into consideration only the Northern, Central and South-Eastern tribes, we may say that exchange of females and obligations, of gifts and hunting duties were geographically exclusive. Now it appears to me that exchange of females was a kind of marriage by purchase. If we regard as the chief feature of the latter the fact that the bridegroom has to contribute for his wife something of more or less equal value, we must agree that exchange of females was such a kind of contribution, and even a very fair one.[142] Besides, it appears that the exchange of females was often accompanied by exchange of gifts (compare [p. 50], Yuin, Wotjobaluk). That the facts reported from the Central and Northern area show a form of marriage by purchase appears quite clear.
As a further characteristic feature we are told in several instances that such mutual agreements are made publicly, during great tribal gatherings, so that all the tribe knows about it (Yuin, Woeworung, New South Wales according to Mathews, New South Wales according to Hodgkinson). Or else the bride is publicly handed to the bridegroom (Narrinyeri, Lower Darling, Kuinmurbura, Fraser Island). In the Central and North Central tribes there are outward signs: the maternal uncle's hair worn under the arm-band; or hair is procured from the future mother-in-law. In some New South Wales tribes a necklace is worn as a sign of engagement (Hodgson).
In some statements we are directly told that there is no betrothal or marriage ceremony (in the six notes in J.A.I., xxiv.). But this negative evidence seems on one side to result from the slight and superficial acquaintance these observers had with the aborigines; on the other side from the fact that even in cases where we have such ceremonies described by very reliable informants and their binding power asserted, they are described as being so simple and insignificant, that it is easy to conceive they might readily escape the notice of even a good observer, or at least their nature and importance might be misunderstood. We possess nine statements about betrothal or marriage ceremonies. We have Dawson's detailed statement, which seems, nevertheless, not to be absolutely trustworthy. But we are also informed of the existence of some simple and apparently insignificant ceremonies by J. Bonney, Taplin, R. H. Mathew, Mrs. Langloh Parker, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, Fison's anonymous correspondent, Howitt on the Kuinmurburu, Wilson.[143] Some of these are our best sources.
Turning now to the other, the violent form of obtaining wives, we may distinguish the elopement, when both sides are consenting, and capture where the woman is secured by a mere act of brutal force. These latter forms occur, but they are by no means frequent. They are mentioned by several writers (Hodgson, Rusden, Turnbull, Tench, Barrington and Collins); and by the two latter as the only form of marriage. That this is obviously incorrect was mentioned above in connection with their statements. It is characteristic that all statements reporting the prevalence of marriage by capture refer to New South Wales, and more especially to the neighbourhood of Sydney. But I think that it would be inadvisable to attribute this to a local peculiarity of those tribes. It appears more probable that as all those reports date from the early days of the settlement, and were written nearly at the same time, their opinions cannot be considered as independent, and they are probably repetitions of the same erroneous view which may be assumed to have been held by the general public in the settlement.
This is confirmed by the following comparison of two statements. The first, that of Collins, stating the existence of a crude form of marriage by capture runs thus: "These unfortunate victims [the wives] of lust and cruelty ... are, it is believed, always selected from the women of a different tribe from that of the males (for they ought not to be dignified with the title of men), and with whom they are at enmity.... The poor wretch is stolen upon in the absence of her protectors. Being first stupefied with blows, inflicted with clubs or wooden swords, on the head, back and shoulders, every one of which is followed by a stream of blood, she is then dragged away through the woods by one arm, with a perseverance and violence that it might be supposed would displace it from its sockets." In this manner the woman is said to be dragged to the man's camp, where "a scene ensues too shocking to relate."[144] The second statement made by one of Howitt's reliable correspondents, depicts the state of things with quite different colours: "When a young man has passed a certain number of Boras (initiations) he has a right to choose a wife from among the unmarried and otherwise unappropriated women of the tribe who are of the class permitted to him by the native laws. He claims the girl in the presence of her parents by saying 'I will come and take you by and by,' and they cannot refuse her to him unless he be specially disqualified—as, for instance, if his 'hands are stained with the blood of any of her kin.' And even in that case he may carry her off by force if he can in spite of their refusal. For this purpose he generally comes by stealth and alone. But if he be a very bold warrior, he sometimes goes openly to the girl's camp and carries her off, defying the bravest of her friends to meet him in single combat if they dare to stay him."[145] In this second statement it may be noted that only the unappropriated girls of the tribe and those who are lawfully marriageable may be obtained in this way. Besides, this proceeding appears much more in the light of elopement than capture.
Important it is to note that in utter contradiction with those few statements, made by some early observers in New South Wales, capture is usually reported to be merely an exceptional form of contracting marriage. That it was in existence in nearly all tribes seems beyond doubt. Spencer and Gillen, Howitt,[146] Curr[147] mention that marriage by capture occurred. But all these authors add emphatically that this was the most exceptional mode of acquiring a wife.[148] And it appears from Spencer and Gillen's account that capture is effected rather by an avenging party than by an individual enterprise. And even in the case of capture, possession does not mean right. The woman must belong in the first place to the right class (Rusden, Spencer and Gillen), and in the case related by Spencer and Gillen she had to be especially allotted to one of the men by the leader of the party.
Elopement on the other hand is, as we mentioned above, to be found in nearly all tribes. In all cases it is considered as an encroachment on the rights of the family or of the husband over the girl, and it is punished. But the severity of punishment seems to vary according to the tribe; in the Kurnai elopement was probably the most usual way of getting married; it was therefore not so severely punished. The latter seems to apply to all Victorian and New South Wales tribes. In the Central tribes charming by magic and subsequent elopement led to a fight or ordeal, but the matter was apparently not very serious. Whereas, we read in Roth, Grey, Salvado and Oldfield that the punishment was death.[149] Nevertheless, as we have come to the conclusion that these three statements are not quite clear on this point, we may not take this for granted as a geographical distinction between the South-Eastern and North-Western (including W. Queensland) regions. It may be also that abduction of a woman was punished by death or at any rate more severely in case she belonged to a forbidden class.
In general it may be said that elopement was always punished, and in the majority of cases afterwards, under certain conditions, legalized and acknowledged. These conditions are: in the first place that bride and bridegroom belong to the right class; and then, pregnancy of the woman or the birth of a child (Kurnai, Yuin); or a victory in the fight which ensues after the offender has been caught (Kurnai, Yuin, Davis, Central tribes); or subsequent exchange of a relative (Yuin, L. Murray, Wakelbura); or a second or third elopement (Kurnai, W. Victoria). Victory in a combat did not mean that it was by pure force that the offender kept the woman. For these combats were regulated and often assumed the form of an ordeal to be undergone (Central and Northern tribes). It is well to notice that the majority of our informants when speaking of elopements never observe the point whether the woman was already married or not.
A few theoretical conclusions from all the facts just enumerated may now be drawn. We have asked at the outset for all the actual circumstances, as well as legal factors connected with the modes of obtaining wives, which express and enforce the validity of marriage. We asked also how does the mental attitude of the native express itself in these facts, as far as individual marriage is concerned. Must we admit that the aborigines have an idea of individual conjugal rights?
In the first place it is quite obvious that according to our definitions of the word legal, the ideas of legal and illegal may be applied quite legitimately to the Australian marriage. For there exist different norms, the compliance with which assures to a match its recognition by society, and actual protection at its hands. Whereas, if a marriage was brought about outside these legal norms it had either to be legalized afterwards, whereupon it enjoyed the same privileges, or it was considered illegal and was interfered with. It appears, moreover, from all the facts reviewed that it was always a difficult matter to secure a wife outside the usual forms. The legal norms for marriage consisted in the bringing about the marriage in one of the forms discussed above, and consequently in the fulfilment of the series of conditions, obligations and duties connected therewith. In all these forms there is involved some kind of control of the social group concerned, which enforces the mutual obligations, and which in case of breach of contract had the privilege or the duty of amending the wrong. In the most frequent form, i. e. when a female child is promised in infancy, her family is under an obligation to keep the arrangement. Her relatives have not the right to dispose of her otherwise after they have once promised her (Curr, i. 107), and they must also watch over her and prevent any attempt at capture or elopement, as they would have the duty of rescuing her (Curr, Stanbridge). In this case we are also told that the respective local group would interfere. The fact that the engagement was made publicly, and so was known and acknowledged by all the members of the local group and perhaps even of the whole tribe, emphasized its legal aspect. The cases where the tribal authority disposed of the girls or had to give consent itself shows this in a still stronger degree. We see therefore that two social factors were involved in the legal side of the marriage: the family, which was responsible for the carrying out of marriage and often for its maintenance,[150] and the community,[151] which gives its consent and often controls the right performance of expiatory ordeals. It may also be remarked that the mere moral sanction, which stamps one act as right and another as wrong, gives a strong support to the offended party and paralysed the help that the friends would perhaps like to give to the offender. Although it is difficult to adduce sufficient evidence in order to show in detail what were the obligations of the family and where the tribal supervision began—and it seems that these matters were possibly settled only roughly and on broad lines in the Australian society—one thing appears quite clearly from the whole evidence, viz. that in all tribes only those couples were secure from any interference who had married according to the legal form or whose marriage was subsequently legalized. We are informed by Spencer and Gillen that in some cases (when elopement was brought about by magic) there were some relatives who were lawfully entitled to help the eloper. This shows also clearly how little the settlement of these affairs was arbitrary. Elopement was in this case, and in all others, considered as a trespass; when it was a girl it was an encroachment on the rights of the family; when it was a married woman it was an offence against her husband and also perhaps against her family. According to circumstances and varying with the tribe, it was considered as a more or less serious trespass and punished accordingly. In order that an elopement might result in an acknowledged union, it had to be followed always and invariably by certain expiatory acts. Even in the case of capture, we saw in the example given by Spencer and Gillen that the woman was lawfully allotted to one of the party. Individual capture seems to occur very seldom; in its legal aspect it would not differ essentially from the elopement, but it would have had probably less chances of being made valid.
After the legal aspect of marriage has thus been established, it may be pointed out that several of the features of Australian marriage and betrothal set up, besides these legal bonds, other ties which in themselves lead to the carrying out of marriage, and afterwards keep husband and wife together.
In the first place, exchange of women. When a man was to receive a wife in exchange for his relative, it is clear that he felt himself strongly bound to keep his promise; for he lost as much as his partner in case he broke the agreement. We saw also that betrothal established a certain status between the families of the male and the female respectively. This status, the main feature of which was exchange of gifts, with a preponderance of the male's gifts and duties, such as providing food, created certain obligations which further enforced the validity of the contract.
As pointed out above, we can even find, at least in the Central and Northern tribes, clear features of marriage by purchase. Equally important in this light is the fact of exchange of females. This has its theoretical consequences. The two main facts of collective psychology, expressed by marriage by purchase, are (1) that there is a certain value attached to the woman and expressed by the conventional price; (2) that there is the idea of right of property or at least of the individual personal right of the husband over his wife, acquired by him through the fact of purchase. These two facts are very important. For both these sets of ideas can only have been evolved in a society where individual marriage was a well-known, well-recognized and fundamental institution. There would have been no reason to pay for a wife if the possession of her would confer no positive rights on the owner.
The following point may also be adduced here, viz. that generally the old men and other men of influence and power secured the young females of the tribes. It was easier for influential and important men to maintain their right over their wives before as well as after actual possession. Besides, we are informed by all (with the exception of R. H. Mathews) that the rules of exogamy were very strong, excluding in the majority of tribes a good number of females from all attempts by the males of forbidden classes. This undoubtedly contributed also to increase the security and validity of the marital union, by reducing to very few the number of the men who were in a position to interfere with the rights of the husband.
If we now look behind the facts of all these customs, rules and practices to the underlying social psychology, we see that the idea of the individual rights of a man to a woman must have been deeply impressed upon the aboriginal mind. The female, when promised in infancy, belonged to a certain man, who afterwards took possession of her. Neither he nor she had a choice; she belonged to him by the title of obligation; he had no choice, for all the other females were already distributed. Thus, as infant betrothal was prevalent in the majority of the tribes, there was a status in which everybody belonged to somebody or other. At least there were no free females. That such a state of things is indicative of a deeply-rooted idea of personal, individual rights over a woman seems clear. If the value of such rights were not known, nobody would care to secure them so eagerly and so early, especially as the acquirement of these rights was apparently never gratuitous. On the other hand, this complete allotment of all the females of the tribe must have in turn impressed upon the native mind the idea that marriage is a question of regulated rule, of a well-established order, and not a question of private initiation and enterprise. If a man chooses the other way, i. e. tries to conquer a wife, he must be prepared to undergo the consequences of it and thus expiate for having broken the custom and rule. It must also be borne in mind that legal norms presuppose the existence, in the society in which they are in force, of quite clear and definite ideas of the rights which they involve. It is impossible that in a given society there would be norms concerning the legality of individual marital rights without the idea of such individual right being known to the social mind. In Australia there are such legal norms, as has been shown above. And a fortiori there must be not only a clear idea of the individual rights of a man to his wife, but these rights must be highly valued.
Marriage contract in nearly all societies is accompanied by some ceremonies, which possess in themselves some binding force, generally of a magical and religious character. This seems to be the case in Australia too. We are in no place told what in a given ceremony would have magical power, and how the natives imagine the working of this power. Nevertheless, we read that in North Central West Queensland the exchange of fire-sticks is binding, and that among the Euahlayi the simple promise of a girl does not create any obligation unless it is strengthened by the act of formal betrothal. It can mean only that to such acts was attributed some magical power, and that this was coercive.[152] From whatever form of superstition it may be derived, it seems beyond doubt that the rudimentary ceremonies described above, such as exchange of fire-sticks, placing of feathers, joining of hands publicly, etc., had some inherent force and an importance as sanctions. They were a form of sacrament. Now I would like to point out that whenever it happens that a certain legal or social fact is transformed into a sacrament, i. e. is supposed to be accomplished by the performance of some formality endowed with a supernatural sanction, we have every reason to suppose that this legal or social fact is very deeply rooted in the collective mind, that it corresponds to very inveterate ideas.[153] This seems to be, therefore, also the case in Australia, where individual marriage has also its kind of sacrament. This is another fact, another social institution, in which the collective ideas of the community find their expression. And everywhere we find not only that the idea of individual marriage exists, but that it by no means bears the features of anything like recent innovation, or a subordinate form subservient to the idea of group marriage. As well in the betrothal ceremonies as in infant engagements, in the ideas of legality of marriage, exchange of females and purchase of the wife—in all these facts we find that the aborigines have a deeply-rooted idea and high appreciation of the individual rights of the husband to his wife.[154] It is also to be noted that, as Spencer and Gillen inform us, when a man wished to persuade a woman to elope with him, he resorted to magic; in this presence of a magical element lay a certain degree of justification that ensured him the help of some of his relatives.
In short the modes of obtaining wives enforced and expressed of themselves a good deal of the validity of marriage. We have still to ask if the marriage was binding for both sides or only for the female. This is an important question and closely connected with the legal aspect of marriage. For marriage being a kind of obligation, the question presents itself, whether only one party was bound by it or both. There is but little direct evidence upon this point in the statements. Beveridge asserts stoutly the latter; from Dawson's statement we conclude that the former was the case, as he says that a man could only under certain conditions repudiate his wife and had to ask the permission of the Chief. But it must be borne in mind that marriage had by no means the features of a contract into which both consorts would enter with mutual agreement. Marriage in Australia must be much more viewed in the light of a privilege acquired by the man, and for which, as we saw, he usually has to pay in one way or the other. It was always a great advantage to a man, both for sexual and economic reasons, as will be clearly evident in the respective chapters. The economic advantages persisted even when she grew old (compare Lumholtz, p. 207). It was therefore scarcely necessary to compel an individual to fulfil an obligation that was advantageous to him. It may be therefore said that marriage, being an advantage for a man—usually acquired by exchange, gifts, or an act of bravery, sometimes inherited (Levirate)—was an obligation binding on the woman in the first place. There are practically no reasons to suppose that a man would ever repudiate a wife. As long as the woman was young, her husband tried obviously by all means to keep her, and would display all his personal force and social influence to frustrate any attempt at abduction. When his wife grew old he would, perhaps, secure a new one if possible; in two of the few authentic anecdotes told of the natives a man is represented as possessing one old wife and another quite young (see Grey, loc. cit., ii. pp. 350-361, and Curr, Recollections, pp. 141-145); there was no reason to repudiate the old one, as she would go on working and providing food for her husband.
In the statements referring to treatment of women, there will be some which show that husbands sometimes displayed a great affection towards their old wives. Moreover, Mr. Mathew's statement (on p. 73) mentions explicitly that marriage bonds lasted usually for life; Roth and Lumholtz inform us that great respect was often paid to old women, consequently it can hardly be supposed that they were cast off by their husbands as useless. We must also remember that usually there was a great disparity of age between the husband and wife. As infant children were often betrothed to mature men, when they reached puberty their husbands were quite old already. Such a woman was kept until the death of her husband, when she fell to the lot of his younger brother or the nearest relative (tribal brother) who wished to keep her.
The practice of the Levirate seems to be very widespread.[155] To us it seems to be in the first place the expression of the idea of complete right of a man over his wife. With his death this right was not extinguished, but only passed to his nearest relative. If she were elderly she would probably become the property of a young boy, as these were usually deprived of wives. Such couples—of which one was quite young and the other more than mature—seem to be very frequent. In these cases marriage lasted till the death of the older party. From this it may be concluded that it was the husband's interest to keep his wife. As to the latter, the only way in which she could have dissolved the marriage bonds appears to be by finding a protector with whom to elope. This undoubtedly occurred from time to time. But then it was not a simple pacific dissolution of marriage, only an act of violence, always pursued with varying vehemence, as shown above.
From all this we may conclude that marriage was not as a rule an ephemeric occurrence among the Australian natives. In the majority of cases it lasted for life; anyhow, for a long period. To supply here the experimentum crucis, let us quote some contradictory instances. Lumholtz says that the women usually change their husbands so often that the children do not generally know their fathers and never grow very attached to them (loc. cit., p. 193; comp. below, [p. 245]). Salvado, speaking of the unhappy lot of an aboriginal beauty, mentions that she has very often to pass from hand to hand, being continually coveted and captured by some new lover who is stronger than her actual possessor. The same is related by Grey. Lumholtz's cursory statement is not explicit enough to enable us to judge whether it were not formed from observations of "civilized blacks." He was only a short time in personal contact with the natives, and what he gathered from the settlers applied probably in the main to blacks corrupted by contact with civilization. Salvado's and Grey's information applies only to exceptional cases when the belle excited special passions by her personal charms. Besides, from all we know, elopement, and still more capture, were not every-day occurrences which would follow each other in the case of the same woman. On the contrary, if an exceptionally desirable woman were taken away by some strong and influential aggressor from her lawful husband, the former would have power enough, personal and social, to retain her, if he had enough to secure her. That elopements occurred and that they were more frequent in the case of a beautiful and useful woman is beyond doubt. Still the picture that we would form from these three statements does not seem to fit the framework of the other facts.
The question as to the length of the normal duration of the Australian marriage is a very important one. And, unhappily, the scanty evidence does not allow of a sufficiently clear and detailed answer. Nevertheless, the few statements that say anything about this matter point to a lifelong duration, or at least to a long period of marriage. At any rate the view often expressed that the primitive pairing family is a highly unstable unit, formed and dissolved very frequently, according to the whim of the moment, without any serious obligation for a longer duration of the common life—this view appears absolutely denied by the Australian evidences. It is impossible to find a direct answer in the evidence to the question whether the general rule was duration for life, or whether, after the wife became useless both sexually and economically, she was repudiated. But our short discussion pointed rather to the first view. Moreover, if marriage were not a serious matter and if it were possible to form and dissolve it without further ado, all its features set forth in this chapter (legality, actual obligations, purchase, etc.) would be absolutely unnecessary; in fact they would be quite unintelligible. In such a low society as the Australian especially, when an institution (here individual marriage) shows so many aspects, even in a rudimentary state, it proves that this institution has a very firm basis. As the act that brought about marriage was usually one of importance and subject to many conditions, so also an attempt to dissolve it was grave in itself and in its consequences.
Now let us summarize our results in a few words. Marriage was brought about as a rule in the form of infant betrothal, which was binding on both parties; it was accompanied by the exchange of relatives; always there were certain mutual obligations. In cases when a man secured a wife without her family's approval (but usually with her own consent), this act was considered a trespass, both in the cases of a girl and of a married woman. The couple was pursued, and unless the elopement was in some way expiated and legalized, both were punished. The idea of legality may be safely applied to Australian marriage in all its forms. For in all there was the necessity of a previous or subsequent sanction of society, and if this were absent society used actually to interfere with the union. The idea of the individuality of marriage was also quite clear to the aboriginal mind and expressed itself in many of the facts connected with the marriage contract. It may be added that it was only in marriage by elopement that the man and woman had a free choice. In all the normal cases neither of them had any voice in the matter at the time of actual marriage.
CHAPTER III
HUSBAND AND WIFE
It may be said that marriage in either of its forms makes the woman the property of her husband. We must, of course, carefully define the word "property." This we shall do by analyzing the economic duties of the woman, the sexual rights of the husband, and in general, the limits of marital authority, and the features of the treatment applied by a native to his wife. As the economic aspect will be better described below, in connection with the family life in general (including relations of parents to children), I shall here pass briefly over this point, remarking that the economic function of a wife is most important in the aboriginal life. She has to provide the regular food supply, to undertake the drudgery of camp life, the care of the children and all household implements, especially on marches. There remains the sexual aspect of marital life and the authority of the husband, including the treatment of the wife.
Let us turn to the latter question and pass in review some statements illustrating the general character of the marital relations; the limits of the husband's authority and power; the actual use he makes of his authority, i. e. the treatment of the family; and last, but not least, what idea may be deduced from our evidence as to the feelings of the two consorts towards each other. On this subject few reliable statements will be found, and even these will be rather contradictory. And it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. We are asking here not for a report of plain facts, but for a judgment on more or less complicated and hidden phenomena; this refers especially to the psychical side of the question, i. e. to the problem of conjugal affection. But even the other aspects of the problem—authority and treatment—although they are but a sum of facts, are always given in the form of vague general assertions and in that of qualified judgments.
Very few writers trouble at all about the deeper, underlying phenomena. What they see is the way in which a woman is treated by her husband; they often judge this way according to their own moral principles and sensitiveness. They forget that, using the words of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, "what would cause very serious pain to a civilized woman only results in trifling discomfort to a savage." For all these reasons there will be more scope for corrections in these statements than in the series given above.
Statements.—Amongst the Kurnai there were certain limits to the husband's authority: "Although a man might kill his wife under certain circumstances, and his act would be then approved by custom and by public opinion, yet, under other circumstances, he might not do so without incurring blood feud."[156] All the duties of the family were "shared equally" by man and woman.[157] This statement, as to the limits of authority, is in agreement with all we shall find afterwards: nobody and nothing could interfere with the husband if he ill-treated his wife, unless her life was threatened. Then her relatives intervened. What the expression of "sharing the duties" means, is not quite clear. If it refers to economic functions, we shall have a better picture later; but it stands as a contrast to such expressions as "slave" or "drudge," used in connection with the wife's rôle by so many writers. In another place Howitt says: "I have known many instances ... including several cases among the Kurnai, of men carrying their wives about the country when too old or too sick to walk."[158] This would point to a great affection, not only resulting from erotic motives, but from real attachment, such as unites human beings who have lived and suffered much together.
Among the Bangerang "community of interests between man and wife is much less than amongst civilized people. The husband gorges himself before he gives the rest of his food to his wife. He is a constant check on her free will and inclinations. She regards him more as her master and enemy than as her mate. But as she is not very sensitive, and educated to her lot, she bears it patiently, and after a year or two she is happy on the whole."[159]
Speaking of the Australian aborigines in general, Curr says:[160] "The husband is almost an autocrat. His wife he may ill-treat as he chooses. In rare instances he will exchange her for another, repudiate, or give her away." He may not kill her; her relatives would kill the first of his blood. "Otherwise the husband may treat his wife as he likes." "The husband is the absolute owner of his wife. He may do as he pleases with her, treat her well or brutally, ill-use her at his pleasure; keep her to himself, prostitute her, exchange her for another, or give her away." But he adds, "Yet ... they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented."
Amongst some West Victorian tribes, "notwithstanding this drudgery and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there is no want of affection amongst the members of a family."[161] The author speaks even of "persistent disrespect and unkindness" of a wife towards her husband;[162] he speaks also of women being "legally separated"[163] from their husbands; and of magic charms worked by husbands for punishment of their wives;[164] all this would point rather to a regulated and less brutal treatment. Here we have the usual concurrence of "hard usage" and affection. Characteristic is the addition of "apparent" to "hard usage." It is, perhaps, the whole style of treatment which appears to be hard to a European observer: the scale is shifted, but undoubtedly the nervous system of the natives is less responsive, too. What Dawson says about separation and husbands recurring to magic to influence their wives, seems to speak still more in favour of the good position of women. But we must remember, that in his whole book, Dawson uses rather bright colours to picture the native character, and tries never to say anything that could shock a European reader.
Bonney asserts that "quarrels between husband and wife are rare, and they show much affection for each other in their own way." Apparent coolness in their relations is required by custom. He gives an example of a couple who "loved each other," and did not even greet after a long absence.[165] According to the statement the treatment of women was fairly good, and there was also no want of mutual affection.
Angas writes that among the aborigines, whom he had under observation (Lower Murray tribes), the man walks proudly in front, the woman following him; she is treated like a slave, and during meals receives bones and fragments like a dog.[166]
About some of the Lower Murray natives we are told by Eyre, "But little real affection exists between husbands and wives." "Women are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands," "beaten about the head with waddies," "speared in the limbs," etc. Here we have bad treatment based on absolute authority and complete want of affection. Besides, we are told, "each father of a family rules absolutely over his own circle."[167]
A statement of Mitchell (quoted by B. Smyth, i. p. 85), suggests that there could not be much affection between husband and wife. "... After a battle they (the women) do not always follow the fugitives from the field, but not infrequently go over, as a matter of course, to the victors, even with young children on their backs."[168] This statement sounds not very trustworthy. We never hear of open battles, in which fugitives would leave the camp unprotected. Besides, even if affection would not bind them to the "fugitives," would fear of the stranger and enemy not act in this direction? Little weight must be, therefore, attached to this evidence.
Taplin, about the Narrinyeri, says that sometimes the treatment of women by their husbands is very bad; but this is not always the case. "I have known as well-matched and loving couples amongst the aborigines as I have amongst Europeans."[169] This last comparison shows that the ill-treatment was not a clearly distinctive feature of the aboriginal married life.
The Encounter Bay tribe (Narrinyeri) regarded the wives "more as slaves than in any other light."[170] This statement implies lack of affection, absolute authority, and probably bad treatment. Nevertheless, we cannot be content with such a metaphorical and peremptory phrase on such an important subject. It is, therefore, useless, and adduced only as an example of how different and contradictory the statement of even good informants may be.
We are told of a case, where a black woman of the Murrumbidgee River tribe, who lived in marital relations with a white bushranger, evinced for him the greatest affection and attachment, and even several times helped him to escape justice with great self-sacrifice. Although she was ill-treated by him in the most brutal and revolting way, nothing could alter her feelings.[171] This example may serve as an illustration of how attached a black woman may be to her husband, even if he ill-treats her.
An account of the brutality of a woman's treatment is given by Tench (referring to the Port Jackson blacks). "But, indeed, the women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks, and every other mark of brutality."[172] But Tench's statements do not appear to go very deeply below the surface of superficial observations.
The same author in another place adduces the wounds and scars of women as examples of "ill-treatment."[173] How much weight is to be attached to such an inference is well known, after the explanation given by Spencer and Gillen.[174] I adduce this statement as one which is obviously unreliable, at the same time being typical of a whole class of statements based upon insufficient and superficial observations.
Interesting is what Turnbull says in his old account: "The women appear to attach themselves faithfully to their husbands thus chosen: they are exceedingly jealous of them."[175]
C. P. Hodgson,[176] speaking of some New South Wales tribes, says that gins were slaves of their men and had all the drudgery of camp. The misleading term "slave" is of little use to us.
According to Collins, in the Port Jackson tribes the father enjoyed absolute authority over his family.[177]
Dr. John Fraser[178] speaks of the bad treatment of the woman by her husband amongst the natives of New South Wales. Further he says: "In spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married couples often live happily and affectionately together...."[179]
G. W. Rusden writes:[180] "... a man had power of life and death over his wife." This asserts absolute authority; we know, that as a rule, the man had not the power of death over his wife unless she proved especially guilty.
Rob. Dawson relates of the Port Stephens blacks, that they treated their wives very badly—with club and spear.[181]
Hodgkinson remarks that the women are better treated in the River MacLeay tribes than among the other tribes he had under observation.[182] This may point to a real difference in the treatment of women among different tribes, or to the fact that the other tribes which Hodgkinson might have observed were nearer the settlements, and therefore more degenerate.
As to the Euahlayi, Mrs. Parker remarks only: "In books about blacks, you always read of the subjection of the women, but I have seen henpecked black husbands."[183] This statement, which implies that bad treatment was not universal, is inexact and therefore of little use.
We read about the Central Australian tribes of Finke River: "Some married couples agree very well, live frequently quite alone in solitude, and together provide for their wants."[184] The wives are only ill-treated in case they elope.
"The women are certainly not treated usually with anything which could be called excessive harshness" among the Aruntas.[185] Only in cases of infidelity "the treatment of the woman is marked by brutal and often revolting severity."[186] The same is repeated of the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[187] We are also told that the scars that the majority of women possess are due, not to the barbarity of their husbands, but to the mourning ceremonies, during which the women beat and wound themselves severely. And the authors conclude: "Taking everything into account, however, the life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of her requirements ... is far from being the miserable one that it is so often pictured."[188] For what would be a severe pain to a white woman is for them merely a trifling discomfort.
We read in Barron Field, on the authority of two shipwrecked men, who spent some time among the natives of Moreton Bay, that the women are there usually well treated by their husbands.[189]
Another analogous statement is given on the Moreton Bay tribes: "The wife is rather the drudge or slave, than the companion of her husband." This (although badly formulated) means bad treatment and lack of affection as well. But we read further on that cruelty is perpetrated usually under the effect of rum; this corroborates our supposition made in connection with Lumholtz's statement. And we learn yet: "but instances also of warm and deep affection are not infrequent."[190] And the author confirms it by an example.
Among the Kabi and Wakka: "Husbands were usually affectionate to their wives, but when angered they were often brutal, thrashing them unmercifully with waddies, sometimes breaking their limbs and cracking their skulls. Still the conjugal bond generally held out for a lifetime."[191]
Lumholtz says: "The women are the humble servants or rather slaves of the native."[192] The women are ill-treated in the most cruel manner; he gives an example of a wife being awfully maltreated for a trifle.[193] But this happened among "civilized blacks." If she elopes she may be even killed. But sometimes they are examples of loving couples.[194] In another place we read of love and jealousy and of the great affection they are capable of;[195] and an example thereof is given. This statement suggests to us that much of the ill-treatment was due perhaps to the "civilization" of the blacks.
An analogous statement in this regard is given by Palmer, concerning the tribes of Upper Flinders and Cloncurry River. The lot of the women is hard and they are often treated with club and spear. There are, nevertheless, happy and mutually regardful couples.[196]
Roth says[197] that among the North-West Queensland tribes the man has absolute authority over his wife. In another place we are informed, that "in the case of a man killing his own gin, he has to deliver one of his own sisters" to be put to death. And "... a wife has always her 'brothers' to look after her interests." Thus, in some extreme cases, the husband's authority seems to be limited by his wife's kindred, who protect her.
The women among the Cape York natives are reported to have a very hard life, but occasionally there exists a strong attachment between a married couple.[198]
In West Australia the man is said to possess a full and inheritable right over his wife.[199] Grey says that they have very much to suffer, especially from the jealousy of their masters.[200] The authority of the husband appears also in the story, told in Chapter XVII, where the husband inflicts a severe beating on his two wives; nevertheless, he seems to display also a certain affection for them and great care, protecting them as far as possible.[201]
We learn from Bishop Salvado that: "La méthode qu'il [the husband] emploie pour la [his wife] corriger est si barbare, qu'il arrive bien souvent que ... il lui traverse une jambe de son Ghici, il lui casse la tête de son Danac et lui prodigue mainte autre tendresse de ce genre,"[202] in cases of jealousy. In general "L'état d'esclavage dans lequel toutes sont retenues est vraiment déplorable. La seule présence de leurs maris les fait trembler, et la mauvais humeur de ceux-ci se décharge souvent sur elles par des coups et des blessures."[203] The barbarous modes of treatment are well known to us; what is more important is the great fear they are said to have of their husbands. But, in another place, the same author speaks of tender and affectionate couples: "I love her and she loves me"[204] as a native said to him. So this statement seems not so contradictory after all with all the others, although it contradicts itself.
Among the natives of King George's Sound the women are generally very ill-treated by their husbands. But in spite of that they do not lack affection and often quarrel among themselves, taking the part of their respective husbands.[205]
Here we have a great diversity of statements and much contradiction. We read of barbarous ill-treatment and of deep affection; of drudgery and slavery imposed on wives, and of henpecked husbands; of fugitive men having recourse to magic, and of women mercilessly chastised, prostituted, and so on. Some statements contradict themselves. All this shows, in the first place, that our authors were lost in the diversity of facts and could not give an adequate generalization, which should picture for us the characteristic features of this relation (between husband and wife) as they distinguish it from the same relation in other societies. In fact, a good characterization of a given phenomena can be obtained only by comparing it with other phenomena of the same kind found under different conditions. Otherwise the observer will invariably note that aspect of the phenomenon which struck him most strongly, and not the one that is objectively the most characteristic, as is found in the present case. This is the more evident in that we do find a few statements (Howitt on Kurnai, Spencer and Gillen's remark on the Central tribes, J. Mathew), which contain all the apparently contradictory elements found in the other statements, but harmonized with one another. From these few consistent statements it appears that, although the husband had a nearly unlimited authority, and in some cases, when he had special reasons (and undoubtedly deemed himself to be within his rights), he might use his authority for a very brutal and severe chastisement, nevertheless, there was usually a mutual fondness and kindness. Taking this picture as a standard, it is possible to understand and make consistent all the other statements if we assume that they exaggerate some of the traits of the general picture.[206]
But we can make still better use of our evidence by asking some definite questions and seeing how far we get a clear answer to them. And we shall see that if, in this way, the whole picture be analytically divided into sections, the evidence will yield a quite unambiguous answer on some important points concerning the relation between man and wife in the Australian aboriginal society.
The first inquiry is into the legal aspect of the husband's authority. In accordance with our definition of "legal," we shall try to ascertain to what extent the relationship of man and wife was left to follow its natural course; at what point society interfered; and what form this intervention assumed.
After the question of authority has been answered, that of treatment will be dealt with. The legal authority gives us only a knowledge of the limits which society set to the husband's ill-treatment. But even if his freedom went very far, and if he was not compelled from outside to a certain standard of good treatment, he might feel compelled to it by his own affection.
Therefore we are led, in the third place, to ask the psychological question concerning mutual feelings between husband and wife. Affection is, of course, the most important, fundamental characteristic of any intimate personal relationship between two people. But it is, at the same time, rather difficult to give any more detailed answer on that point, when it is a question of savages whom no one has intimately studied from this point of view, and of whose psychology we have only a very slight idea. More cannot be expected than to get an answer to the quite general question: Is there anything like affection between the consorts, or is their relation based only on the fear of the woman of her husband? I would also remark that these three points—affection, treatment, and authority—although closely related, may be separately analysed, as each of them is of a different character: affection is a psychological, authority is a social factor; the treatment, being a result of them both, must be investigated separately, as we cannot foretell from either of its components the form it will assume; on the other hand, it is precisely from the treatment that we can best judge of the affection.
1. Authority.—It seems beyond doubt that in the aboriginal society the husband exercised almost complete authority over his wife; she was entirely in his hands and he might ill-treat her, provided he did not kill her. Out of our thirty statements, in six cases (Kurnai, Bangerang, Lower Murray tribes, according to Bonney, Geawe-Gal, Port Jackson tribes, North-west Central Queenslanders) the absolute authority of the husband is explicitly affirmed. We read in them either the bare statement that the husband had an absolute power over his family; or, in the better of them, we are more exactly informed that he had only to abstain from inflicting death on his wife. It was the latter's kinsman who would avenge her (Kurnai, Bangerang, North-west Central Queenslanders). It is difficult to ascertain in what form society would interfere with the husband if he transgressed the limits of his legal authority, i. e. killed his wife. Curr informs us that the woman's relatives would avenge her death. Howitt says that there would ensue a blood feud, which comes nearly to the same. It is very probable that the woman's kin retained some rights of protection.[207] The remaining statements implicitly declare that the husband's authority was very extensive. (Encounter Bay tribes according to Meyer; New South Wales tribes according to Hodgson; Port Stephens tribes according to R. Dawson; Arunta; Herbert River tribes; Queenslanders according to Palmer; Moreton Bay tribes according to J. D. Lang; South-Western tribes according to Salvado; West Australians according to Grey.) It is clear that wherever we read of excessive harshness and bad treatment, wounds, blows inflicted on women, the husband must possess the authority to do it; in other words, he does not find any social barrier preventing him from ill-treatment. Especially as, in these statements, such ill-treatment is mentioned to be the rule and not an exception. In two statements we can gather no information on this point. According to the statement of J. Dawson on the West Victoria tribes, the husband's authority appears strictly limited by the potential intervention of the chief, who could even divorce the woman if she complained. But Curr warns us against Dawson's information concerning the chief and his power.[208] Curr's arguments appear to be very conclusive. Too much weight cannot be attached, therefore, to Dawson's exceptional statement. Discarding it, we see that we have on this point fairly clear information. We may assume that society interfered but seldom with the husband, in fact, only in the extreme case of his killing his wife. Six statements are directly, and the remainder indirectly, in favour of this view, and the only one contradictory is not very trustworthy.
But is there nothing in this assumption that would appear to contradict other well-established features of Australian social life? Against the husband's authority there could only be the intervention of the Central Tribal Authority or of the woman's kin. But the former was not strong enough to enter into questions concerning the private life of a married couple. The Tribal Government probably had to deal only with grave offences against the welfare of the whole tribe. And we never hear that it interfered with any household questions. The woman's kin, on the other hand, seems to have waived nearly all its rights over the woman (compare also above what had been said about the betrothal). Nevertheless, as mentioned above, it was the woman's kin who eventually intervened. It must also be borne in mind that as marriages were, without exception, patrilocal,[209] the wife was far away from her family, and, therefore, much less likely to be protected by her relatives. And, as we shall see below, when discussing the aboriginal mode of living, the single families live in considerable isolation, so that it would appear rather difficult to assume any intervention from outside in matters of family life. It appears, therefore, that all the circumstances on which family life depends point very clearly to, and are in complete agreement with, our assumption of a very extensive authority of the husband over his wife (or wives), limited only in some extreme cases by the kin of the woman.
2. Passing now to the other point: how far does the husband make use of his power? in other words, how does he usually treat his wife? Without entering more in detail into the motives that regulate his conduct, it is clear that even if we know his authority, we by no means know how he usually used or misused it. Here our impression when reading the evidence is undoubtedly that the general way in which wives are treated in aboriginal Australia is a very barbarous one. In fact, out of our thirty statements, fourteen speak more or less explicitly of barbarism, slavery, wounds and scars, etc. Only seven assert that the average treatment is a fairly good one and that bad treatment is only a consequence of certain trespasses, which are considered punishable and consequently punished. The remaining nine statements say that treatment is sometimes good, sometimes bad, or do not say anything about the subject. But in this case it is apparently needful to give a more careful consideration of the quality of the information than of its quantity. In fact, four[210] out of the seven of the authorities who affirm good treatment are very clear and explicit, and their statements are consequently quite consistent with themselves; two of them are, besides, our best authorities. Schultze and Bonney seem also in general to be quite trustworthy. From the other part of our evidence (that which asserts barbarous ill-treatment) only three are fairly reliable (Curr, Salvado, and, to a certain extent, Eyre). But even these are not so consistent with themselves: they affirm, that in spite of the barbarous ill-treatment, the women seem to be rather happy. If they were happy as a rule, it means that this ill-treatment did not appear to them cruel, and that they did not suffer under its atrocity. Consequently that it was only apparently bad (the same expression is used by Dawson, loc. cit.) in the eyes of the observers, and was not bad as measured by the standard of native sensitiveness. The statement of Spencer and Gillen confirms this view explicitly. The statements affirming bad treatment (Curr, Salvado, Eyre, etc.) do not distinguish the important point whether this ill-treatment was a punishment or not; whether it was inflicted only in definite cases where, according to the unwritten tribal law, the wife was guilty of an offence, or whether it was inflicted in fits of bad temper and ungracious mood. This distinction is very important; in the first case the husband would have only, so to say, an executive power of the collective, customary will, and his bad treatment would be only an act of justice; in the second case he would have been a real tyrant and his ill-treatment a mere act of brutality. This remark has also an important connection with the problem of authority discussed above. Howitt's statement, as well as Spencer and Gillen's, points very clearly to the fact that the ill-treatment was only an act of justice (from the aboriginal point of view). Mathew, on the other hand, explicitly says that the ill-treatment was caused by fits of anger. The other statements keep silence on the point. Some of them speak, indeed, of a purely arbitrary harshness without any reason, but this refers to "civilized blacks," especially under the influence of rum and other white man's vices.
There is a point that must not be forgotten in dealing with this question. The majority of observations were made on degenerated blacks (such as were in missions, raised on farms, in the service of white men, etc.). These blacks may have had quite different manners and customs from those of the aborigines in their primitive state. And their manners were not changed in the direction of amelioration, but the reverse. This conclusion is corroborated by an interesting passage in Howitt.[211] This author says that examples of alleged contempt and discourtesy of a man to his wife, as e. g. a man gorging himself with meat and throwing only a bone to his wife, may be partly "the consequence of the 'new rule' under the influence of civilization." They sometimes express customary rules of magic origin and are no sign of contempt at all. And the author adds that when he had the opportunity of observing the blacks for a week in more primitive conditions, "this week passed without a single quarrel or dispute." This all shows that, in case of contradiction, we may suppose that the statements affirming unusual ill-treatment are affected by errors due to bad material, insufficient observation, and false inference, rather than that the statements of kindness are exaggerated.
It would be interesting to note what effect the widespread practice of exchange of relatives (see above) had on the treatment of wives. Naturally it might be supposed that for his own sisters' (or relatives') sake every man would probably be more lenient towards his wife. But as Mr. Thomas justly pointed out, the exchange of females may be conceived also in the light of a certain family giving up its rights to a female, and receiving another one in exchange.[212] It would be, therefore, difficult to say anything a priori on this influence. A phrase quoted by Curr suggests that the former assumption would be nearer to truth. A black said once to him, speaking about his sister given in exchange for his wife: "If he beats my sister I shall beat my wife." Whether this common-sense idea of justice prevailed in general in the aboriginal mind it would be difficult to decide without further knowledge. But possibly exchange of females was also a cause of the amelioration of the woman's lot.
To sum up shortly, we have ten against four statements in favour of indiscriminate ill-treatment of wives. But, if we reduce both these figures by using only reliable ones, we have four against three in favour of good treatment. By closer analysis we find that ill-treatment is—in the primitive state of the aboriginal society—in most cases probably a form of regulated intra-family justice; and that although the methods of treatment in general are very harsh, still they are applied to much more resistant natures and should not be measured by the standard of our ideas and our nerves. For otherwise we should not understand how the feature of happiness, which is reported by nearly all our informants, could be present.
3. These considerations directly lead us up to an answer to our last question, viz. whether there is a kind of mutual affection or whether there is only the power of the man, and the legal factors, that bind the consorts together. In the first place, it is well to bear in mind that in this respect there must have been a great variety of cases corresponding to the characters of the individuals concerned. We only ask here, therefore, the quite general question whether, as implied in some statements, there was an absolute absence of any kind of personal feeling in all Australian families and the wife considered her husband as her master only and her natural enemy, she being merely his slave. But here we find also that the few statements (Curr, Eyre, Meyer, Mitchell) that imply such an opinion are not very clear and explicit (in this category we include all the statements as to slavery and drudgery which can possibly embrace not only the treatment itself but the underlying feelings); whereas there are ten statements (Howitt, Bonney, Dawson, Lumholtz, J. D. Lang, Salvado, Turnbull, Grey, Mathew, Macgillivray)[213] which affirm that there is real affection between husband and wife. Some of them come from our most reliable writers and are very explicit (Howitt, Bonney, Lumholtz, Salvado). As what has been said of the treatment refers indirectly to this point (for treatment is regulated by personal feelings and not by tribal authority), we may say that the assumption of a complete lack of any feelings of affection or attachment does not seem very plausible. That these feelings would show themselves in another way than in our society seems beyond doubt. But that they would be completely absent and their places taken only by fear and awe—that is not in agreement with our evidence. Even judging on this question a priori, we could hardly suppose that there would be a complete absence of all factors that tend to create mutual affection between consorts. In the first place we may remember that in many cases the motive of sexual love was not absent from the aboriginal marriages. This was apparently always the case in marriages by elopement, which occurred in all tribes and was, under certain conditions, a legal and recognized form of contracting marriage. In the cases when, following infant betrothal and other circumstances, the husband was much older than his wife, the motive of sexual love was probably not reciprocal, but it would operate as a cause for more tender feelings on the part of the males. In the second place, it must be remembered that there are no reasons why the blacks should be completely alien to the feelings of attachment. Husband and wife lived more or less completely separated from the community, forming a more or less isolated unit (see below, [on the mode of living]). They had many interests in common, and, this being the strongest bond, they had common children to whom they were usually much attached.
To sum up this chapter, it may be said that the husband had a well-nigh complete authority over his wife; that he treated her in harmony with the low standard of culture, harshly, but not excessively harshly; that apparently the more tender feelings of love, affection and attachment were not entirely absent from the aboriginal household. But it must be added that, on these two last points, the information is contradictory and insufficient.