[9] If the Urabunna rules are correctly reported on, they may have several "sub-phratries."
[10] J. A. I., xii. p. 497.
[CHAPTER VIII]
A NEW POINT EXPLAINED
On our theory, in each phratry there should be a totem kin of the phratry name—If not, fatal to Dr. Durkheim's and Mr. Frazer's theories, as well as to ours—The fact occurs in America: why not in Australia?—Questions asked by Mr. Thomas—The fact, totem kins of phratriac names within the phratries, does occur in Australia—The fact not hitherto observed—Why not observed—Three causes—The author's conjecture—Evidence proving the conjecture successful—Myth favouring Mr. Fraser's theory—Another myth states the author's theory—Mukwara and Kilpara remain, as phratry names, among many tribes which give other names to Eagle Hawks and Crows—The Eagle Hawk, under another name, is totem in Mukwara (Eagle Hawk) phratry—The Crow, under another name, is a totem Kilpara (Crow) phratry—Thus the position is the same as in America—List of examples in proof—Barinji, Barkinji. Ta-ta-thi, Keramin, Wiraudjuri, and other instances—Where phratry names are lost—Eagle Hawk and Crow totems are still in opposite phratries—Five examples—Examples of Cockatoo-named phratries, each containing its own Cockatoo totem—Often under new names—Bee phratries with Bee matrimonial classes—Cases of borrowed phratry and class names—Success of our conjectures—Practical difficulty caused by clash of old and new laws—Two totem kins cannot legally marry—Difficulty evaded—These kins change their phratries—Shock to tender consciences—Change takes the line of least resistance—Example of a change to be given.
On the theory propounded in the last chapter, the lead in making peaceful alliance and connubium between exogamous groups previously hostile, was probably taken, and the example was set, or the allies were captained, by two or in some cases more of the exogamous animal-named local groups themselves. Such leading groups, by our theory, in time became the two phratries of the tribe. If this were the case, these two kins, say Eagle Hawk and Crow, or, among the Thlinkets in America, Wolf and Raven, should be found to-day among the totem kins, should exist not only as names of phratries, but as names of totem kins in the phratries. If they are not so found, it will prove a serious objection, not only to our hypothesis, but to that of Dr. Durkheim, and (at one time at least) of Mr. J. G. Frazer. Their theory being that two primary totem kins sent off colonies which took new totem names, and that the primary kins later became phratries, in the existing phratries we should discover totem kins of the phratry names, say, totem kin Raven in Raven phratry, and totem kin Wolf in Wolf phratry. This phenomenon has been noted in America, but only faintly remarked on, or not at all observed, in Australia.
Why should there be this difference, if it does exist, in the savage institutions of the two continents? The facts which, on either theory—Dr. Durkheim's or my own—were to be expected, are observed in America; in Australia they have only been noticed in two or three lines by Mr. Howitt, which have escaped comment by theorists. When once we recognise the importance of Mr. Howitt's remark, that in some phratries the animals of phratry names "are also totems," we open a new and curious chapter in the history of early institutions.