1º. Abundance of food. Food in Australia is by no means abundant and often very scarce. The Australians are omnivorous in the widest sense of the word; they eat even mice, rats, lizards, beetles, etc. In some parts of Australia, especially on the West Coast and in the interior, the natives are continually suffering from hunger[181]. Thomas remarks: “In few parts of Australia can the native count on anything like regular supplies of food. He is dependent on the course of the seasons for his seeds and fruits; the time of year also affects the supply of fish in many parts; and in Central Australia, perhaps owing [[229]]to the barrenness of the land, much time is given up, if our accounts are accurate, to magical ceremonies, whose object is to promote the increase of game and plant life, so difficult does the native find it to obtain sustenance”[182]. We shall soon see that scarcity of food compels them to live in very small groups.
2º. Variety of food. There is a great variety. Concerning S. W. Australia Gerland enumerates 6 kinds of kangaroos, 29 of fish, two of seals; and further wild dogs, emus and other birds, tortoises, opossums, frogs, shell-fish, grubs of beetles, bird’s eggs, mice, rats, snakes and lizards; roots, mushrooms, resins and various fruits[183]. But this list, including (as Gerland remarks) everything eatable, proves only that they live very poorly. The natives of South Australia also, according to Eylmann, though they have a great many kinds of food, seldom live in abundance. During the frequent times of drought they suffer severely from want of food[184]. In Central Australia “with certain restrictions … everything which is edible is used for food”[185]. And as for fishing, though fish enters for a large part into the subsistence of the coast tribes, there are no fishing tribes in the higher sense in Australia, like those of the Pacific Coast. Their canoes, where they have any, are very primitive; and the principal means of catching fish are by spearing and setting traps[186].
3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Gerland states that to find sufficient food, the Australians must continually roam over the country. These wandering tribes cannot be large, else food would fail them; so the division of the Australians into numerous small tribes is a consequence of the nature of their country[187]. Spencer and Gillen speak of the natives of Central Australia as living in small local groups[188]. Brough Smyth remarks: “It is necessary for a tribe to move very frequently from place to place, always keeping within the boundaries of the country which it calls its own—, now to the spot where eels can be taken in the creeks; often to the feeding-grounds of the kangaroo; sometimes to the thicker forests to get wood suitable for making weapons; to the sea-coast [[230]]continually for fish of various kinds; and, at the right season, to the lands where are found the native bread, the yam, and the acacia gum”[189]. According to Eylmann, the natives of South Australia, in their barren country, are forced not only to continually move on, but to live in small hordes[190]. And Thomas states that “the tribal areas are almost invariably small”[191]. The writers who describe separate tribes also often state that these tribes are nomadic and live in small groups. We shall quote here only the statements of our ethnographers concerning one significant fact, that presents a striking contrast to the state of things on the Pacific Coast, viz. the improvidence of the Australians. In the Moore River District of W. Australia food is abundant in the summer; but the natives are reckless of the future; they consume whatever they have got. The natives of S. W. Australia preserve no food; if the game killed is too much for a family to eat in one day, neighbouring families are invited and a feast is given, till nothing is left. They do, however, store up acacia gum, and carry roots with them. The Queenslanders on Herbert River think only of the present moment. The Cammarray of N. S. Wales eat as long as they have anything; they never lay up provisions, except when a dead whale has been cast on shore. Of the aborigines of N. S. Wales in general Fraser tells us: “When the fish are abundant, the fishers cannot use a tithe of the fish they catch, and so sell them to all comers at a few pence for a backful. As for themselves, they have a noble feast, they and all their tribe; and, as is their habit whenever they have abundance, they gorge themselves so that their bodies are swollen to unnatural dimensions and seem ready to burst. When they can hold no more, they go to sleep like snakes, and sleep for twenty-four hours or more.” Similar particulars are gives by Angas. Spencer and Gillen, in their description of the natives of Central Australia, remark that “when times are favourable the black fellow is as lighthearted as possible. He has not the slightest thought of, or care for, what the morrow may bring forth, and lives entirely in the present”[192]. [[231]]As for the Tasmanians: “They lay up no store of provisions, and have been known in winter time to eat kangaroo skins”[193]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and South Australia, states that they “are very improvident, and accumulate no property beyond their weapons and rugs”[194]. And Forrest tells us that the natives of Central and Western Australia “live from hand to mouth, never collect more than enough for the day, and each morning have to look out for their day’s food”[195]. Thomas remarks, that it is not true that the Australian does not store food. “Much of his food he must perforce eat quickly, or natural processes would make his labour in vain. But the bunya-bunya nut, grass and other seed cakes, and possibly other kinds of food, were certainly put aside for future use”[196]. He evidently means to say, that their preserving relatively little food is not due to improvidence, but to necessity. But however this may be, the fact that most of the collected food is consumed quickly remains, and this fact, not the underlying motives, has important consequences with regard to the economic structure of their society.
4º. Trade and industry. Bartering is not at all unknown among the Australians. Fraser, speaking of N. S. Wales, remarks: “I have already spoken of pipe-clay and ruddle as articles of trade; the Mindi-mindi gatherings are the markets at which this trade is carried on. The necessity for these fairs is not far to seek. A black man’s own “taurai” does not furnish everything he requires for his daily life. In it there may be food enough, but he wants suitable stone for an axe, wood for his spears, and “bumerangs” and shields and clubs, flint for cutting and skinning, gum to be used as cement, and lumps of gritty sandstone, on which to sharpen his stone-axe; for adornment, the pipe-clay and the red-ochre are much valued, and so are swan-down feathers and the rose-coloured crests of a certain kind of cockatoo; some of these he can [[232]]supply, and for them he gets in barter others that he wants. Then also there are manufactured articles which he can give in exchange,—cloaks, rugs, baskets, knitted bags, nets, weapons, and tools; most of these articles bear the “brand” of the maker. In this way the black man’s wants are supplied by the mutual interchange of commodities. I suppose that, at these fairs, the usual amount of haggling goes on in the making of bargains, but there is no quarreling; for, during the time, universal brotherhood prevails. The fairs are held whenever there is a need for them”[197]. Intertribal commerce is also carried on by the Narrinyeri and Dieri[198]. It seems, indeed, that there is hardly any savage tribe, among which the interchange of commodities is quite unknown.[199] And in N. S. Wales it is not only the spontaneous products of nature that are exchanged, but manufactured articles, so the trade requires industry. Yet trade and industry are not nearly so fully developed here as on the Pacific Coast. Nowhere are there particulars given, showing that any Australian tribe is, like the Koniagas of the Pacific Coast, “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting.” On the Pacific Coast the coast tribes exchange their manufactured goods for the raw products of the hinterland; but in Australia there is nothing but hinterland.
That trade and industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific Coast is clearly proved by their not having here the same effect; they have not led in Australia to any development of:
5º. Property and wealth. Professor Steinmetz, in his Entwicklung der Strafe, has closely studied the forms of government existing among the Australian natives. From the details he gives it appears, that a man’s influence depends on his age, his bravery, eloquence, etc., and his having numerous relatives, but not on his wealth. Among the Queenslanders described by Lumholtz the old men have most influence. Among the Kurnai age, rather than bravery, gives influence. In Central Australia a man’s power depends chiefly on his age, but also on force, courage, prudence, dexterity, perseverance, and the [[233]]number of his relatives. On the Bourke and Darling rivers the council of old men is the only form of government. In Tasmania a man’s influence depended on his strength, courage, perseverance, prudence, and dexterity. The old men were highly honoured and had many wives. In the Wellington tribe there is no government whatever; all are equal. Among the Cammarray the old men are chiefs. Among the Narrinyeri chieftainship is elective; wisdom, moderation, and good humour are the qualities most required in a chief. Among the Dieri the oldest man of the clan is chief, but has not always most power. A chief has real power only when, besides his age, he has other valued qualities, such as bravery, eloquence, or a large family. Great warriors, orators and sorcerers have most influence. In the Moore River District there is no government, a perfect equality prevails. The natives of Port Lincoln have no government; old people are held in high esteem. In the Western District of Victoria “the succession to the chiefdom is by inheritance”. “The eldest son is appointed, unless there is some good reason for setting him aside.” If the heir is weakly in body or mentally unfitted to maintain the position of chief,— which requires to be filled by a man of ability and bravery,— and has a better-qualified brother, he must give way to the latter or fight him in single combat. Among the tribes of Victoria described by Le Souëf government in the true sense does not exist, but the bravest and strongest, and often the most dangerous men, have most influence[200]. Some other statements lead to the same conclusion. In N. W. Central Queensland “a ripe old age constitutes the highest social status in the camp, and the one calling for the greatest respect. There is no single individual chief to direct affairs”[201]. In N. S. Wales, according to Fraser, “there is nothing of the nature of kingly rule in any one of the tribes, nor is there an over-chief for the whole of a tribe; but the affairs of each section of a tribe are administered by a number of elders, among whom one man is considered the leader or chief, because of his superior wisdom and influence”. “If there are two rivals competing for the chiefship, they settle the matter by single [[234]]combat”. And Wilkes says: “As no system of government exists, or any acknowledgment of power to enact laws, they are solely guided by old usage”[202]. Among the Dieri chieftainship is elective according to the influence of the candidate’s clan and his oratorical power[203]. About Powell’s Creek there is no government whatever; “the oldest man in the tribe would usually carry most sway in tribal matters”[204]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and South Australia, remarks: “They have elders or chiefs corresponding with the Indian Medicine men, who I believe are principally self-constituted, or admitted as such on the score of age or personal prowess. Great respect is attached to age as a rule, especially in visiting another tribe”[205]. Among the native tribes of Central Australia, described by Spencer and Gillen, the chief has “a position which, if he be a man of personal ability, but only in that case, enables him to wield considerable power”[206]. In South Australia the chiefs are either hereditary or elected for their personal qualities[207]. A describer of the natives of North Australia tells us: “There are no recognized chiefs in a tribe in the true sense of the word, as far as I have come in contact with them; the old men of each tribe form themselves into a sort of council when anything of importance is to be discussed, and what they decide upon is generally carried out”[208]. Thomas remarks that, among the Australians in general, “where there was a tendency to select the son of the late headman, it was modified by the rule that he must have shown himself worthy of the post by attaining distinction as a warrior, orator or bard”[209], and Brough Smyth has the following statement: “The government of aboriginal tribes is not a democracy. There are the doctors or sorcerers who, under some circumstances, have supreme power; there are the warriors who in time of trouble are absolute masters; there are the dreamers, who direct and control the movements of the tribe until their divinations are fulfilled or forgotten; there are the old men (councillors) [[235]]without whose advice even the warriors are slow to move; and, finally, there are the old women, who noisily intimate their designs and endeavour by clamour and threats to influence the leaders of their tribe”[210].
We see that influence and power in Australia depend on personal qualities, not on wealth. We have only found two instances on record of men trying to strengthen their influence by means of their property. Gason tells us of a celebrated Dieri chief, who received regular tributes from the hordes under his control. The writer often observed him distributing presents among his personal friends, in order to avoid their jealousy[211]. But this is quite another thing than what we found existing on the Pacific Coast of North America. In the latter group a rich man, by being rich, attains to power; whereas here the chief, elected for his personal qualities, receives tributes, and by distributing what he has received strengthens his influence. Moreover we are told that these Dieri “have no property except a few weapons or ornaments; they are generally buried or destroyed”, viz. after their owner’s death[212]. Lumholtz speaks of an old man in Queensland who distributed his property among his fellow-tribesmen to attain to greater influence[213]. This looks somewhat like the state of things existing on the Pacific Coast; but as the same writer tells us that there is no government except the council of old men, this may be an isolated case. And even if among one or two tribes wealth gave a certain influence, this would not impair the conclusion we have arrived at, that generally a man’s influence and power do not depend upon his wealth, whence we may infer that wealth and property are little developed here.
6º. Condition of women. Whereas on the Pacific Coast women are held in rather high esteem, and therefore provided by the men with slaves who help them in their work, the condition of women in Australia is decidedly bad, as we have seen in the first chapter of Part I[214]. [[236]]
7º. Militarism. We have shown that slaves are sometimes taken in order to strengthen their masters’ force in warfare. On the other hand, where militarism does not prevail to any considerable extent, the tribe can afford the luxury of having male slaves living among them who do not fight. As for the Australians, their wars generally are not sanguinary, and often settled by single combat[215].
Our conclusion is that the Australians differ from the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America in many respects. Food is by no means abundant; the highly developed fishing methods of the Pacific Coast are unknown here; the Australians are migratory and improvident, and live in small groups; though some tribes interchange commodities, trade and industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific Coast; the objects of property are very few and wealth does not exist; the condition of women is a bad one. Only in two respects do both groups agree: there is a great variety of food, and militarism does not prevail to any great extent. We have seen, however, that “variety of food” here means that the Australians must avail themselves of whatever is eatable, i.e. that they live in the deepest misery. Therefore henceforth we shall no longer speak of variety of food as a circumstance favourable to the existence of slavery; and in the next paragraphs we shall not inquire whether the Central North Americans and Eskimos have a variety of food.