TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:

Inconsistencies in hyphenation and spelling, including inconsistencies in the spelling of the names of tribes, locations, authors, and aboriginal terms, have not been corrected. Punctuation has been silently corrected. A list of other corrections can be found at the [end of the document]. The Table of Contents starts [here].

THE FAMILY AMONG THE
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

MONOGRAPHS ON SOCIOLOGY

EDITED BY
Prof. L. T. HOBHOUSE
AND
Prof. E. A. WESTERMARCK

Vol. II

THE FAMILY AMONG THE
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES

A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY

BY
B. MALINOWSKI
Ph.D. (Cracow)

London: University of London Press
PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, LTD.
BY HODDER & STOUGHTON, WARWICK SQUARE, E. C.
1913

HODDER AND STOUGHTON
PUBLISHERS TO

THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS

FOREWORD

The importance of the subject treated in this study, as well as the prominent part played by the Australian evidence in the problem of kinship, will, it is believed, amply justify a detailed inquiry into the institution of the family in Australia. It is, however, always desirable for a monograph like the present one, besides being a mere collection and description of facts, to have a sufficiently wide theoretical scope. It ought to demonstrate some general principle upon the particular example treated, and to approach the problem from a new standpoint.

I wish here shortly to indicate how far a slight and imperfect attempt in this direction has been made. In describing the facts of family life in Australia I have tried to show that even if the problems of origins and development of an institution be put aside and the inquiry be limited to the actual facts (in this case to the actual working of the aboriginal kinship organization), there are plenty of subjects of great theoretical importance, some of which, as yet not fully considered by sociologists. On the other hand, I have tried to show that in dealing with purely sociological problems it is necessary, in order to do justice to the complexity and fulness of social phenomena, to draw into the field of inquiry a series of facts often hitherto partially or completely neglected. The facts of daily life, the emotional side of family relations, the magico-religious ideas of the aborigines about kinship and sexual relations, customary as well as legal norms—all these factors must be taken impartially into careful consideration in order to give the full picture of an institution as it embraces living man in a living society. In other words each social institution must be studied in all its complex social functions as well as in its reflexion in the collective psychology.

As a matter of fact, by a certain tendency to fanciful construction, natural in all early speculations about a new domain of facts, many problems in the study of primitive kinship have been artificially simplified, others unduly complicated and obscured. Thus, for instance, when in the discussion of primitive forms of marriage the whole problem of the position of the children and of the emotional attitude of the parents towards them has been neglected; or when different legal terms have been applied to undifferentiated societies and legal ideas attributed to primitive man, without asking how far and under what conditions this may be done; or, again, when the sexual aspect has been treated as the only essential feature of marriage. On the other hand, the concepts of "primitive promiscuity," "descent through females only," "mother-right" and "father-right" have proved meaningless and abstruse; the two latter, of course, as far only as they have been used in the majority of cases without a satisfactory definition.

It is easy to see why such somewhat artificial conceptions have found their way into the study of primitive marriage and kinship. In the early days of these studies work had been done not by specialists, who would try to apply to a new set of problems new methods, but by men learned in other branches of science, who looked at the facts, not full in the face, but from a peculiar and often remote standpoint. The illustrious founder of these studies on the Continent, the Swiss savant Bachofen, was a student of history of law and classical culture, and he was chiefly concerned with establishing the primitive mother-right of the prehistoric Greeks and Romans. The chief theoretical interest of the eminent ethnographer Morgan was the unravelling of the riddle of primitive forms of marriage out of the invaluable material contained in his tables of kinship terms. McLennan assigns a prominent place in his investigations to factors which had hardly ever played a very important part in primitive society, as, for instance, marriage by capture, female infanticide and levirate. It is evident that in all these and similar speculations the chief attention was not drawn to the actual working of the social mechanism, but to survivals, rudiments and fictitious primeval conditions. And the method of sociological thinking has not been developed upon living social forms, but upon shadows and petrified remains. Whenever concrete institutions have been theoretically treated, they were approached with preconceived ideas, as, for instance, in the well-known monograph of Fison and Howitt, and in the book of Herr H. Cunow—both works relating to Australian kinship organization. When reading the theoretical chapters of the latter, one has the impression that the Australian tribes were a museum of sociological fossils from various ancient epochs of which the petrified form has been rigidly preserved, but into whose inner nature it is quite hopeless to inquire. The understanding of actual facts is sacrificed to sterile speculation upon a hypothetical earlier state of things.

Prof. Tylor's well-known article (Journ. Anthrop. Inst. xviii.) was, perhaps, the first protest against this loose and far-fetched treatment of the subject. He based his method of research on the firm ground of a statistical survey of facts, and his method of reasoning on the philosophically sound principle of inquiring into the mutual dependence of phenomena.

The whole problem has been set on a new basis and its treatment recast in the fundamental treatise of Prof. Westermarck on the History of Human Marriage. Several of the most important aspects of the question which had been omitted in the speculations of the previous writers have received in it their full treatment; in taking into account, in its manifold aspects, the biological basis of the problem he has shown how many of the current conceptions about primitive marriage and kinship could not hold good in the light of a closer criticism. Besides this merely critical contribution, and besides the biological argument, the History of Human Marriage constitutes a valuable addition to the purely sociological treatment of the problem. By resolving the problem of marriage into that of family, by pointing to the importance of the relations between parents and children, of the mode of living, etc., the author has shown that marriage is rooted in a complex of sociological conditions, and that there are many points to be treated before we arrive at definite conclusions and broad generalizations.

Another important aspect of the problem has received its full treatment by Mr. Crawley in his study of primitive marriage (the Mystic Rose; compare the note in the Addenda at the end of this volume). Working out thoroughly some conceptions suggested already by Prof. Frazer in his Golden Bough, the author has shown the social importance of the ideas about human relations and in particular about sexual relations as held by primitive man.

The tendency towards a reform in the method of sociological treatment of kinship and family has been shown not only from the side of purely theoretical writers. Some of the modern field workers, who happily for our science are at the same time distinguished scholars, have achieved a considerable advance in the method of collecting evidence. This refers in the first place to the Cambridge School of Ethnology, whose members under the lead of Dr. Haddon have obtained such remarkable results from their work in the Torres Straits Islands. Dr. Rivers, who specially worked out the chapter on kinship in the joint publication of this Expedition, has, by the introduction of the genealogical method of inquiry as well as by the systematic study of the functions of kin, given perhaps the most useful instruments of inquiry into the social working of family and kinship organization. Thus both our theoretical conceptions and our methods of getting at the facts are certainly approaching more and more the first postulate of scientific study: the possibility of an adequate description of facts and their mutual dependences as they exist now in living primitive societies. Only on a basis of such knowledge are further speculations fruitful.

As regards the general principles of sociological method much has been done in recent times by the French school of sociology, grouped round the editor of the Année Sociologique. The important question, how methodically to present evidence, has received its full attention in the excellent works of Dr. Steinmetz and his pupil, Dr. Nieboer, which are examples of a clear and conclusive way of utilizing ethnological sources. I am glad to acknowledge my intellectual indebtedness to both these schools.

I have tried to collect sufficiently complete evidence, and in this endeavour have used some of the older sources whose trustworthiness might perhaps be disputed. But many of their observations are highly valuable if properly interpreted; and moreover it was necessary to bring their statements into line with the newer evidence for the sake of critical comparison, as much of what they say has been uncritically accepted and given without reference by some secondhand compilers (for instance, Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi.; Cunow) and hence found its way into the newer sociological literature.

The statements I have taken from the different authors are quoted at length, and I do not think that I have thus uselessly increased the bulk of the volume. By an unprejudiced collection of evidence, which is, moreover, presented in a manner independent of, and accessible without reference to, the theoretical discussion, I hope to have given a useful compilation of observations which may serve for further theoretical purposes other than those of the present writer.

In order to make short and yet clear references possible a list of the works quoted is given at the end. With its help the short indications in the footnotes will be perfectly plain.

In this place I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mr. J. Martin White, whose munificence has made the publication of this book possible. As a student of sociology at the University of London I am indebted to Mr. Martin White, who, as it is well known, has founded the chairs of Sociology at this university, and furthers these studies in various ways—not the least by his personal contact with and interest shown in the students and their work.

I had, while working on the present book, the privilege of personal intercourse with Prof. Westermarck, a privilege I value more than I can express. I owe much to Dr. Rivers for the constant aid and counsel generously given me during my studies. Much assistance was given to me by Mr. Wheeler, who freely put at my disposal his extensive knowledge of the subject. I have to thank Dr. Tallqvist for several important remarks upon some pages of my proofs.

But my debt is the greatest to Miss Helena Hadley, without whose kind help I could not have overcome the difficulties of writing in what is for me an acquired tongue. Her advice and criticism, both as regards style and thought, were quite invaluable for me, and this is only a feeble acknowledgment of my indebtedness and feelings of gratitude.

B. M.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD

I. Exposition of the problem and justification of the task (pp. [1] sqq.).

Some contradictions and obscurities concerning family and kinship in Australia (pp. [1-6]).—Necessity of a careful and detailed description of all the features of the individual family among the Australian aborigines (pp. [6-9]).—The sense in which the conception of law and legal should be applied to the Australian native society indicated (pp. [9-17]).

II. Method of dealing with the evidence (pp. [17] sqq.).

At the outset only a general definition of "family" adopted; on the other hand raw ethnographical material given. Necessity of continually checking these two data with each other (p. [17]).—In dealing with the ethnographical evidence three points to be taken into consideration (pp. [17] sqq.).—(1) Criticisms of each statement (pp. [18] sqq.).—Verbal criticism (hermeneutic) (pp. [18-19]).—Criticism of contents (pp. [19] sqq.).—Different elements which might possibly have been the source of errors; and upon an analysis of which criticism in question may in part be based; (a) Material which the author had under observation (pp. [20-22]).—(b) Circumstances and method of obtaining information (pp. [22], [23]).—(c) Personal character and profession of the writer (pp. [23], [24]).—(d) Purpose for which the book was written (p. [24]).—(e) Form and quality of the writer's generalizations and abstract formulation (pp. [24], [25]).—(2) Geographical localization of statements (pp. [26] sqq.).—Condition under which local differences may be safely assumed (pp. [26], [27]).—(3) Final inferences from the evidence (pp. [27] sqq.).—Character of this operation; analytical division of the information on a given subject under different headings. Separate discussion of each point. Contradictions emphasized and not concealed (pp. [27-29]).—Conclusion drawn (pp. [29], [30]).—Its confrontation with kindred facts (pp. [30], [31]).—The chief methodological aim: general and complete clearness of all the operations of inference and argument (pp. [31-33]).

CHAPTER II
MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES

Prof. Westermarck's definition of marriage and family accepted at the outset as starting-point (pp. [34], [35]).—Inquiry first directed towards the legal aspect of marriage and ideas on marriage, as expressed and embodied in the aboriginal modes of obtaining wives (pp. [35], [36]).—Statements concerning these facts (pp. [36-47]).—Rough survey (pp. [47], [48]).—(1) Normal forms of marriage (pp. [48] sqq.).—Chief features and forms of the normal methods: betrothal in infancy (p. [48]);—exchange of sisters or relatives (pp. [48], [49]);—obligations of contracting parties (pp. [49], [50]);—some traces of marriage by purchase (pp. [50-52]);—public, tribal character of marriage arrangements (p. [52]);—betrothal and marriage ceremonies (pp. [52-53]).—(2) The violent forms of marriage (pp. [53-55]).—Capture (pp. [54], [55]).—Elopement (pp. [55], [56]).—Theoretical inferences drawn from these facts (pp. [56] sqq.).—The legal aspect of marriage (pp. [56-58]).—The elements enforcing ipso facto the validity of marriage (pp. [58], [59]).—Collective ideas expressed by the facts analyzed (pp. [60-62]).—Marital bonds not lax, but on the whole strong and permanent (pp. [62-66]).—Summary (p. [66]).

CHAPTER III
HUSBAND AND WIFE

Exposition of the problem (pp. [67], [68]).—Statements (pp. [68-74]).—Numerous contradictions extant on this subject. Some apparently trustworthy statements, affirming a very extensive authority on the part of the husband, combined with a certain mutual attachment (pp. [74], [75]).—Division of the subject under three headings for the purpose of securing more definite answers (pp. [76], [77]).—(1) The authority of the husband over his wife nearly absolute, limited only in cases of wilful murder (pp. [77-79]).—(2) Ill-treatment not the rule; from this, combined with the foregoing point, follows (pp. [79-82]).—(3) Existence of some affection and attachment between the aboriginal married couples (pp. [82-84]).—On the whole the information in this chapter very contradictory (p. [84]).—Strength of marital bond, as expressed by mourning and burial ceremonies and customs (pp. [84-88]).

CHAPTER IV
SEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE

General character of the information on this subject indicated, and some controversy contained in this chapter justified (pp. [89-91]).—Problem set forth (pp. [91], [92]).—Statements (pp. [92-100]).—Local differences between different groups of tribes in sexual matters (pp. [100], [101]).—Three points investigated: (1) The husband's definite sexual over-right and control over his wife involving his consent in all cases. Otherwise adultery considered a crime (pp. [101-103]).—(2) Chastity in general; its slight recognition (pp. [104], [105]).—(3) Regulated licence (pp. [105-107]).—Its chief form: the Pirrauru practice (pp. [108], [109]).—A detailed discussion of the latter showing its lack of the features of "group marriage" (pp. [109-123]).—In general all sexual licence regulated and devoid of the character of promiscuity and disorder (pp. [123], [124]).—Digression on sexual jealousy among the Australian aborigines (pp. [124-131]).

CHAPTER V
MODE OF LIVING

I. The relation of the family unit to the tribal and territorial organization of the aboriginal society (pp. [132] sqq.).

Terminology (pp. [134], [135]).—Statements (pp. [136-149]).—Rough survey (pp. [149], [150]).—The territorial unit, the local group a body of people possessing in common a tract of country and inhabiting it to the exclusion of anybody else (pp. [150-152]).—Three different forms of possession of land in Australia (pp. [152], [153]).—Idea of rights in a portion of land probably to a great extent of magico-religious character (p. [153]).—The mode of living, the tribal division varying according to local conditions and with opportunities of food-supply. In the majority of tribes (especially those of the arid regions) small groupings of about one to three families usual (pp. [150-157]).

II. The internal structure of the local group, with reference to single families (pp. [158] sqq.).

Statements (pp. [158-165]).—Disposition of camps, the mode of occupying the huts and other functions of daily life subject to strict rules pointing to the isolation of the single families (pp. [165-167]).

CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION OF KINSHIP

I. Theoretical analysis of this concept (pp. [168] sqq.).

Importance of adapting sociological concepts to those social conditions to which they are applied, exemplified on the concept of kinship (pp. [168], [169]).—Necessity of giving a definition of kinship for scientific use (pp. [169-171]).—The present discussion specially directed to suit the Australian evidence (pp. [171], [172]).—Necessary and sufficient conditions for admitting the existence of individual parental kinship in any given society (pp. [172-174]).—Further features thereof to be looked for in the variable social conditions and in the data of "collective psychology"; "collective ideas" held about kinship and "collective feelings" referring to it (pp. [174-176]).—Preliminary definition of kinship (p. [176]).—Analysis of the concept of consanguinity (pp. [176] sqq.).—Modern European idea of kinship conceived in terms of consanguinity (p. [177]).—Physiological and social consanguinity (pp. [178-182]).—Exact definition of the latter (p. [182]).—Kinship not always based upon ideas of community of blood. Common features of the ideas underlying kinship (pp. [182], [183]).—Normative ideas referring to kinship. Descent (pp. [183-185]).—Analysis of the legal side of kinship (pp. [185], sqq.).—Legal only one of the aspects of kinship (p. [185]).—In primitive societies in particular kinship not a legal relationship (pp. [185], [186]).—Discussion of some opinions thereon (Mr. Thomas, Prof. Dargun, Prof. Frazer) (pp. [186-190]).—Restricted use of the term legal in the Australian aboriginal society (pp. [190], [191]).—Justification of the study of the emotional characteristics of kinship (pp. [191] sqq.).—Importance of feelings in the task of characterizing any personal relationship. "Collective feelings" (pp. [191], [192]).—The presence in the Australian ethnographic material of objective facts which express the collective feelings referring to kinship (pp. [192-194]).—Analysis of these facts (pp. [194-197]).—Mutual dependence of collective ideas and collective feelings referring to kinship (pp. [197], [198]).—Summary (pp. [198], [199]).—Critical survey of some definitions of kinship given by other authors (Morgan, MacLennan, Mr. E. S. Hartland, Dr. Rivers, Fison and Howitt, M. von Gennep, Prof. Durkheim, Prof. Westermarck, Sir Laurence Gomme) (pp. [199-206]).—Two additional remarks (pp. [206], [207]).

II. Some examples of kinship ideas suggested by the Australian folklore (pp. [207] sqq.).

Introductory remarks (p. [207]).—Belief in totemic conception existing among the Central tribes (pp. [208], [209]).—Absence of knowledge concerning physiological procreation (pp. [209], [210]).—Some important points discussed (pp. [210] sqq.)—(1) The ignorance in question complete (pp. [210], [211]).—(2) In particular no idea of individual paternal consanguinity (pp. [211], [212]).—(3) Analysis of the aboriginal ideas about reincarnation (pp. [212-217]).—Conclusion: absence of "consanguinity" (in the social sense) among the Central tribes (pp. [217], [218]).—Beliefs in which some kinship ideas are expressed (pp. [218] sqq.).—Among the Northern tribes special close tie between spirit-child and father (Gnanji, Umbaia and other Northern-Central tribes) (pp. [218-220]).—Pre-established kinship involved in the belief concerning reincarnation and return of dead people (pp. [220-225]).—Customs of the couvade type (pp. [225], [226]).—Geographical extension of the nescience of physiological fatherhood (pp. [226], [227]).—Two North Queensland beliefs involving a clear idea of spiritual tie between a father and his child (pp. [227-229]).—Other examples (pp. [229], [230]).—Survey of the beliefs of the South-Eastern tribes possessing the idea of paternal consanguinity (in the social sense) (pp. [230-232]).—Summary (pp. [232], [233]).

CHAPTER VII
PARENTS AND CHILDREN

I. The first maternal cares and suckling of the infant (pp. [234] sqq.).

Statements (pp. [235], [236]).—Close ties between mother and her offspring during infancy and early childhood (pp. [236], [237]).

II. The relation between parents and children during childhood (pp. [238] sqq.).

Statements (pp. [238-249]).—Affirmation of a close tie of affection and devotion between parents and children (pp. [249], [250]).—Illustrations drawn from concrete facts (pp. [250], [251]).—Applicable to both the father and mother; to female as well as to male children (p. [251]).—Great leniency of treatment (pp. [252], [253]).—Bearing of the affection of both parents to their children upon the relation between husband and wife (pp. [253], [254]).—No data for assuming the existence in Australia of patria potestas as a legal form (p. [254]).—Lack of information as to the actual character of the paternal authority in Australia (pp. [254-256]).—Rudiments of education (pp. [256], [257]).

III. Children at puberty removed from their parents' camp, and consequent weakening of the relationship (pp. [257] sqq.).

Marriage of females at puberty (pp. [257-259]).—Great disparity of age between husband and wife (pp. [259], [260]).—Statements (pp. [260-262]).—Boys at puberty and afterwards (pp. [262] sqq.).—Statements (pp. [262-267]).—Boys undergoing initiation; their life in a special camp ("bachelors' camp") (pp. [267-269]).

IV. The life-long permanence, nevertheless, of the tie between parents and children (pp. [269] sqq.).

Statements (pp. [269-272]).—Lack of information as to the relationship between sisters and brothers (pp. [272], [273]).

CHAPTER VIII
ECONOMICS

The individual family an economic unit (p. [274]).—Statements (pp. [275-281]).—Sexual division of labour a marked feature of Australian marriage (p. [281]).—The woman's share of work harder, more important and indispensable than the man's (pp. [282-283]).—The man's share not devoted to the exclusive benefit of his family (p. [283]). Statements concerning the aboriginal communism in food (pp. [283-286]).—Their bearing upon the economics of the household (pp. [286], [287]).—Sociological features of this sexual division of labour (pp. [287], [288]).—Division of consumption within the family (pp. [288], [289]).—Description of some minor economic features concerning the household (pp. [289-291]).

CHAPTER IX
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS pp. [292-304]

ADDENDA " [305-309]

BIBLIOGRAPHY " [310-316]

INDEX " [317-326]

THE FAMILY AMONG THE
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES

CHAPTER I
EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD

I

The problem of the social forms of family life still presents some obscurities. What appears to be most urgently needed is a careful investigation of facts in all the different ethnographical areas. I propose in this study to undertake this task for Australia. I shall avoid making any hypothetical assumptions, or discussing general problems which refer to the origin or evolution of the family. I wish only to describe in correct terms and as thoroughly as possible all that refers to actual family life in Australia. In other words I intend to give in outline the social morphology of the Australian family.

It may be well to show briefly the necessity for this task, which to some may appear superfluous, and to indicate the lines on which it will be attempted. In the first place there are some contradictions with regard to the problem of relationship or kinship in Australia, which can be reduced to the question: Is kinship in Australia exclusively individual; or is it exclusively group kinship (or tribal kinship, as it often is called); and, further, do these two forms exclude each other or do they perhaps exist side by side? When Howitt says: "The social unit is not the individual, but the group; the former merely takes the relationships of his group, which are of group to group,"[1] this obviously means that there is no individual relationship, consequently no individual family in Australia. It is important to note that the passage just quoted is placed in the chapter on Relationship in Howitt's chief work on Australia, and that consequently it refers to all the tribes described by the author, i. e. to the majority of the known Australian tribes. The same opinion that there is only group relationship and no individual family is supported by another passage, no less important and general, for it is placed at the conclusion of Howitt's article on the organization of the Australian tribes in general: "It has been shown that the fundamental idea in the conception of an Australian community is its division into two groups. The relationships which obtain between the members of them are also those of group to group."[2] And again: "The unit of aboriginal society is, therefore, not the individual, but the group. It is the group which marries the group and which begets the group."[3] There are also a few passages in Spencer and Gillen which deny the existence of the individual family, at least in some tribes.[4]

Thus the impression drawn from the passages just quoted[5] is that there is no individual relationship and, what follows as an immediate consequence, no individual marriage, nor individual family in Australia. Such a conclusion would be absolutely false. For the same author (Howitt) writes: "Individual marriage in Australian tribes has been evident to everyone."[6] Curr speaks in still more positive terms: "No relationship but that of blood is known amongst Australians."[7] The social relations which exist amongst the Australian aborigines are of five sorts; first, those of family; second, those of the tribe; third, those between associated tribes; fourth, those of neighbours who belong to different associations; fifth, all other persons.[8] We see that in Curr's statements there is again no room for any kind of group relationship. Obviously Curr's information contradicts in plain terms the foregoing set of statements, and such a contradiction among our best informants is truly puzzling. There seems to be some misunderstanding in the present problem.

This is not only my own opinion. Mr. A. Lang discusses the same question and finds it necessary to prove in a short article that individual relationship exists in Australia. He says: "It is certain that 'blood' or 'own' relations are perfectly recognized. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen inadvertently deny this, saying: 'The savage Australian, it may be said with truth, has no idea of relationships as we understand them.'" This example is not the only one, as has been shown above, and indeed their number could be easily multiplied. Mr. Lang proves by several instances that this opinion of Spencer and Gillen is erroneous, and concludes: "The savage Australian does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations. It was necessary to make this fact clear and certain, as it has been denied."[9] The same contradiction has also been pointed out by Dr. Westermarck: "As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison's statements have caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert that among the Australian savages groups of males are actually found united to groups of females."[10] And in a footnote Dr. Westermarck quotes Lubbock, Morgan, Kohler, Kovalevsky. With such views Dr. Westermarck contrasts Curr's[11] opinion that strict monogamy obtains, and that of the Rev. J. Mathew,[12] "who fails to see that group marriage 'has been proven to exist in the past and certainly does not occur in Australia now.'"

Again E. Grosse in his well-known book, speaking of Howitt's work on the Kurnai says that this author "... hat sich so gründlich in seine Hypothese einer Gruppenehe ... der prähistorischen Australier vertieft, dass er darüber ganz vergisst, seine Leser darauf aufmerksam zu machen, dass die historischen Australier in Einzelnehe leben."[13] This is quite true, especially the remark that one of the chief sources of error in sociology is speculating on the origins and prehistory of an institution before this institution is thoroughly known in the present state.

And it seems as if in the present case a good many of the difficulties may be solved by understanding some of the statements made as referring to hypothetical earlier stages. As a matter of fact the passage quoted above, where the existence of group relationship is affirmed, is continued thus: "The idea of the relation of individual to individual, and of individual parentage, without reference to the group, is of later origin, and is the result of a number of social forces acting in the same general direction and producing change."[14] It is evident therefore that group relationship is supposed by Howitt to be the former state, and individual relationship a kind of innovation. But there is such a lack of clearness, such a confusion of the past and present tenses, that we are here again at a loss. Take for example the following passage: "The latest advance which has been made in the subject of Australian marriage was the conception of marriage in the group, and of group to group, and of the filial relation of one group to another."[15] This last phrase should be, in all probability, understood in the past tense, as referring to prehistoric times. But the author gives absolutely no hint whether this be so or otherwise. And when he on the next page refers to Mr. Curr's assertion, that there is actually no group relationship in Australia, and criticizes this assertion, a suspicion is aroused that this view of the existence of marital and filial groups is meant to express the actual status. This is enough to show how vague and puzzling the question of the individual family and individual relationship still is.

It is unnecessary to insist on the bewilderment, but the polemical mood in which our informants always approached the problem of relationship and family has had its unfortunate consequences. In the first place it is easy to see that these two groups of facts—individual relationship and group relationship—are treated by the writers as if they excluded each other, or at least as if one of them were gradually encroaching upon the other. Whereas it is quite possible that both individual and group relationship might exist side by side, originating from different sources, and expressing two different sets of social relationships. In the second place, the polemical attitude of our best informants (Howitt, and Spencer and Gillen) against individual relationship resulted in their giving very meagre information about the individual family. As a matter of fact, in all theoretical passages of works devoted to the social organization of the Australian tribes, the individual family is passed over in absolute silence.[16] As this unit obviously plays a foremost part in the social life of Australian tribes, I submit it is quite justifiable that in these pages some information about this unit should be gathered and its importance brought out. Special attention has been devoted to the facts of actual family life.

To sum up, it may be said that the defects in our information as to the individual family, and the contradiction and confusion surrounding it, do of themselves justify an examination of this institution. These contradictions are due probably not to any intrinsic reasons, but to certain theoretical postulates and axioms adopted by some of our informants. And as the exact description of actual facts seems to suffer therefrom, a revision of the theoretical side of the problem, as well as a collection of evidence from a somewhat extensive number of sources appears advisable.

But over and above clearing up some contradictions, solving some difficulties, and filling up a gap in the information concerning Australian kinship organization, there is a much deeper justification for a detailed collection and classification of facts referring to the individual family in Australia. I mean, it is only such a proceeding that can give us a scientific, correct and useful definition of the Australian individual family (or any other social unit in general). A priori only a vague meaning can be attached to the term "individual family," when it refers to a society different from ours. For the essential features of the individual family, as of all other social institutions, depend upon the general structure of a given society and upon the conditions of life therein. A careful and detailed analysis of the family life and of the different aspects of the family unit in connection with other social phenomena is therefore necessary. Such an analysis enables us to describe the said unit in a complete and exact way.

It is Dr. Rivers to whom we are indebted for emphasizing the methodological standpoint in this connection. In his article[17] he points out that we cannot a priori assert the existence of even such an apparently unquestionable fact as individual motherhood in every human society whether actual or hypothetical. To affirm that in a given society motherhood is individual and not communal (group motherhood), a strict analysis of a whole series of circumstances is necessary. Applying Dr. Rivers' argument to the other family relationships, we may say that all the circumstances referring to the relation between man and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, must be submitted to a careful and detailed analysis; and that only such an examination can give us the right idea of what may be called the individual family in a given society—in this case the Australian individual family.[18]

As mentioned above, many authors, who have contributed so much in other respects to our knowledge of Australian kinship organization, have not entered into details as to the family life, or actual relationship. Even Mr. Thomas, although he quite acknowledges the existence of individual relationship, confines himself to the remark that in Australia exists "the family in the European sense." But this expression is not adequate. We cannot possibly find in Australia any social unit that would exactly fit the forms of our individual family; for this is intimately connected with the structure of our society, and none of the social conditions it requires are found in Australia. We can only say a unit which is analogous to our individual family, and even then we would be more metaphorical than exact. Mr. Lang, on the other hand, is not exhaustive enough for our purpose—which is a description of the family unit that will define it fully for sociological use. Nevertheless as he writes in reply to Dr. Rivers he has accepted the latter's methodological standpoint, and he gives a series of apposite remarks and examples. But he concludes: "It is needless to give more examples; the savage Australian does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations." This conclusion is quite correct, but it is not sufficient. The mere affirmation that the actual relationship exists and is recognized by the natives is not enough. This has been obvious to every careful, unprejudiced reader of the first-hand ethnographical material.

The aim of the present study is to define what this individual relationship is; to describe its different aspects and features; how it manifests itself in its different social functions and, as far as can be ascertained, how it must impress itself upon the native mind. And here lies the important methodological point on which some stress must be laid. It is not the actual relationship, or the individual family, or "family in the European sense" which we have to look for in Australia. It is the aboriginal Australian individual family, with all its peculiarities and characteristic features, which must be reconstructed from the evidence. It will be necessary to describe minutely all the relationships generally embraced by the term Family,[19] and to describe them in terms taken from the native social life. In other words we have to look for the connection between the facts of family life and the general structure of society and forms of native life; and to take into account all psychological data available, such as ideas on procreation and reincarnation.

Only by such a description can we reach a correct and scientific definition of a given institution in a given society. It is essential that the elements of this definition should be taken from the conditions of social life in the given society. As an example we may take the legal side of marriage. Amongst us marriage is a legal act enforced on the one hand by the authority of the law with all its complicated social working and the power of the State at its back; on the other hand by the authority of the Church, which exercises a profound moral pressure in relation to this institution. These or even analogous factors will be sought in the Australian tribes in vain. And yet marriage there is not deprived of its legal validity and of its social sanction. It is not an act of mere fancy, brutal force or accident, but the legal factors have there quite a specific character, and can be found and understood only in connection with the general tribal structure and government.

Besides all that has been said above against a general offhand affirmation, that the individual family exists in Australia, it may be added here that such an assertion is practically quite useless. No further conclusions or inferences can be drawn from such a vague statement. Only by knowing exactly and minutely all the features and characters of the said unit can the different questions attached to this problem be answered; only so can it be judged whether the individual family or certain features of it are survivals or innovations; or whether they are so deeply rooted and connected with the social life and the whole organization of the tribes, that neither of these suppositions is justifiable. Such special and concrete definitions of a given social phenomenon in a given ethnic area, as the one which it is intended to give here for the Australian individual family, can serve also as a basis to form by induction a general conception of the individual family; and only from a rich collection of such material from different peoples can any sociological laws be constructed. As said above, a general working definition of the word individual family may be accepted at the outset of our investigations. After a careful analysis of all particular relationships concerned; and further, of the economic unity of the family, division of labour within it, legal sanction, etc., content can be given to the rough definition laid down at the beginning, and scientific exactness can be given to our conception of the individual family in Australia.

It seems desirable in this place to make a digression in order to consider the problem of law and the legal side of social phenomena in the Australian aboriginal society, as we shall often have to use these concepts. A more detailed and exhaustive discussion of it would involve a treatise on primitive law, but as I am unable to indicate any place where the concepts in question are defined in a way satisfactory for the present purpose, I define them here briefly.[20]

All social organization implies a series of norms, which extend over the whole social life and regulate more or less strictly all the social relations. We find such norms and rules in the Australian aboriginal society, different kinds being enforced by different forms of social sanction. The validity of some is due to the evil results which are intrinsically connected with their violation. So e. g. we know that the breaking of certain food taboos has as an inevitable consequence premature grey hair, eruptions on the skin, or some other mishap. There are other rules, which are observed because any departure from them would bring general contempt and ridicule upon the culprit; a form of chastisement to which the natives are said to be extremely sensitive. There are still other types of social norms, sanctioned by a more direct collective action. In some cases the magicians of the tribe will use the dreaded method of "pointing the bone," thus bringing about the illness and death of the culprit; or a regulated fight ensues; or a man has to undergo a definite ordeal. Occasionally a group of people organize an armed party on their own account, but with the consent of the community; and so on.

Briefly it may be said that different types of social norms have different kinds of collective sanction and that we may suitably classify the norms and regulations according to the kind of sanction they enjoy. Here seems the proper place to introduce the concept of Law, Legal. We can agree to call such norms Legal, which enjoy an organized, more or less regulated and active social sanction. To make this definition plausible, we may remark that it makes the Australian legal institutions correspond to what we call law and legal in higher societies. Further it would be necessary, in order fully to justify our definition, to show: (1) that among the Australian blacks there exist such modes of regulated, organized and direct social sanction; (2) that they differ from other modes of sanction and that the collective mind is quite aware which norms enjoy just this form of sanction.

In answer to the first problem we may generally point to the existence of tribal government. That a kind of centralized authority exists in Australia and that it has well-determined functions has been shown at full length by Howitt.[21]

This government consists roughly speaking of headmen and a tribal council, composed in the first place of old men of the tribe, skilled magicians and experienced warriors. This camp council seems as a rule the more influential factor, and only in few cases are we informed of chiefs with extensive powers.[22] What is important for us is that one of the main functions—if not the chief one—of those central authorities is to decide in case of difficulties in tribal affairs and to give sentence, a function which is that both of a legislator and of a judge.[23] The old men are the only depositories of tribal lore; they also know the rules and norms and how to apply them. We are informed in many places that they discuss important matters and decide vital questions; and especially in cases where any law has been transgressed. They possess also executive power; they can organize an armed party; they arrange and control the regulated fights; and they have also in their hands the personal power of punishment by magic.[24] It may therefore be said in general that the rudimentary form of central authority, as found in Australia, possesses quite clearly traceable features of juridical functions and executive power; it forms a kind of tribunal, and it has its organs to carry out the sentence. It is hardly necessary to add, that those institutions exist only in a rudimentary form; but they appear to be quite unmistakable. Besides this central authority, which sometimes takes the juridical functions upon itself, there are other forms of organized action, carried out by groups of individuals, personally interested in the case. Here the legal character, i. e. the feature that distinguishes such action and the underlying norm from mere violence, fancy or custom—lies in the fact that such an action is regulated by strict rules and prescriptions. And it is in just such a mutual connection of a norm and social enforcement that the fundamental feature of legality may be seen. So e. g. in the Central Tribes a man who has by magic charmed away a woman can reckon upon the actual support of a definite group of his kindred. The legality of his act is based upon the existence of a certain norm and the existence of a form of active and regulated social support which enforces this norm. Without the norm the social action would be mere violence. Without the social enforcement the norm would be a moral or customary rule; so enforced, it may properly be called a law.[25] It is impossible, for want of space, to deal here more in detail with this question, which could correctly be answered only by collecting all the evidence available, and bringing the results into connection with the general features of Australian society, such as age grades and tribal secret societies. I only indicate here the point of view, and I shall in what follows refer to it and exemplify it by concrete instances.

The second problem, viz. whether the distinction between the customary and religious rules and legal norms may be considered as well defined in Australia, is still more difficult to answer. The small differentiation of that society hardly allows any very clear and definite sociological distinctions. But, broadly speaking, it seems that the distinction between (1) a trespass, whose punishment is supernaturally entailed by its very committal; (2) a trespass, punished by ridicule and public contempt; and (3) a crime, punished by the decision of the community, acting as a whole, or by its central organs, or certain groups of it—that this distinction between sin, improper conduct and crime (as we can call those three categories) is quite well marked in different features of aboriginal social life. What might fully elucidate this question, would be a collection of facts, classified according to these categories.[26]

These few remarks are merely made to settle the terminology. By definition a given norm or rule is Legal if it is enforced by a direct, organized, and definite social action. And by the word legal will be designated this side or aspect of a given social relation which is regulated by laws, as just defined.

Our considerations indicate also in what direction an analysis of the social conditions in Australia would be interesting from the point of view of primitive jurisprudence. In the first place, there is a great variety of modes in which the different legal norms are preserved, impressed upon the social mind, and taught to different members of the society. Here the connection of different norms with religion, myth, totemic cultus, organization of the secret society, etc., might be discussed. In the second place a careful investigation of the different forms of social sanction, based partly on belief, partly on collective ideas and feelings, partly on actual institutions and direct enforcement, might be carried out. In connection with it there might be a classification of the norms; and the domain of the purely legal norms, or rather the properly legal aspect of norms and different social phenomena could be exactly traced. In other words each norm should be studied in connection with the way in which it is "codified" (i. e. preserved for and imparted to social knowledge); and in connection with its sanction. In the case of a legal norm the tribunal and the executive organs should be indicated as far as possible. Undoubtedly we find in such a primitive society as the Australian many institutions still in a state of confusion, which on a higher level are quite well determined and differentiated. But the more confused the phenomena, the clearer our conceptions must be in order exactly to follow the different ways in which the elements are interwoven and combined. What is an isolated and defined institution in a higher society, may be merely a side or aspect of social phenomena in a lower one. But it is highly important to use definite concepts to denote such aspects or sides in undifferentiated societies, because it often widens our horizon and puts our ideas to a crucial test.

I wish to add that in the present case it is only the necessity for clearness and convenience that makes a definition necessary. The domain of primitive jurisprudence cannot be considered fully explored yet; the chief aim of a good definition is to state the proper problems and to show the groups of facts that must be inquired into in order to give right answers to the problems proposed.

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.

Mourning and Burial Ceremonies

Among the duties and obligations which determine the relationship of husband and wife, there are some which may be mentioned in this place. I mean the customs and rites connected with mourning. Mourning expresses a whole complex of feelings and ideas, of which two sets are important here, inasmuch as they throw light upon the relationship of the mourner and the mourned. Firstly, mourning always expresses sorrow and grief (real or feigned) for the deceased; secondly, the various mourning ceremonies imply the idea that there was a strong tie between the two persons involved, a tie which persists after death and which must be broken by the magical virtue of rites.[214] Both these interpretations of mourning (sorrow for the deceased and the necessity of breaking the bond) involve the idea that the relationship between husband and wife was acknowledged by society as an individual and strong personal tie. As the modes of obtaining wives have shown us that to bring about a marriage it was necessary to get the sanction of society; so the long mourning of the widow and the different formalities she has to perform, before she becomes the property of the dead man's heir or is allowed to remarry, show that marriage was not dissolved at once, even by the death of the man. It shows, therefore, that the tie between husband and wife was not a loose one, and not merely established by the fact of possession or cohabitation; and that the appropriation was based not only on legal ideas, but deeply rooted in magico-religious feelings and representations.

The idea that mourning is performed in order to express sorrow, apart from its being obvious in the ceremonies themselves, is realized and formulated by the natives. When a very old and decrepit woman dies, or an old man who has lost his memory and is useless in tribal matters, the natives do not perform any elaborate ceremonies. They allege as a reason that they "do not feel enough sorrow for them."[215]

Ceremonies involving the motive of sorrow are mentioned in several places by Spencer and Gillen. Among the Arunta, "when a man dies his special Unawa or Unawas smear their hair, faces and breasts with white pipeclay and remain silent for a certain time until a ceremony called Aralkililima has been performed."[216] The widow has a special name. In some of the northern tribes she has to keep silence. E. g. "Among the Warramunga ... the widows are not allowed to speak for sometimes as long a period as twelve months, during the whole of which time they communicate only by means of gesture language."[217] Among the Arunta the widow has to live in the woman's camp and suspend, to a large extent, her usual occupations.[218] When she wishes the ban of silence to be removed, she has to perform a ceremony in public, which consists in the main in an offering of vegetable food to the younger brother and sons of the deceased. "The meaning of this ceremony, as symbolized by the gathering of the tubers or grass seed, is that the widow is about to resume the ordinary occupations of a woman's life, which have been to a large extent suspended, while she remained in camp in what we may call deep mourning."[219] Analogous ceremonies of nearly the same duration and involving similar ordeals and privations, are in use in some other tribes: among the Kaitish and Unmatjera the widow has her hair cut off, she has to smear her body over with ashes, during the whole time that mourning lasts, i. e. several months, she has also to keep silence.[220] Amongst all these tribes the women inflict upon themselves the most cruel wounds. "The women seem to work themselves up into a perfect frenzy, and to become quite careless as to the way in which they cut and hack themselves about, with, however, this restriction notable on all such occasions, that however frenzied they apparently become, no vital part is injured, the cutting being confined to such parts as the shoulders, scalp, and legs."[221] The authors give a detailed description of such ordeals undergone by two widows of deceased men in the Warramunga tribe. "The actual widow scores her scalp with a red-hot firestick."[222]

Taking mourning customs as a measure of the intensity of sorrow and grief, it may be seen that here these feelings are supposed to be very strong, as the hardship and ordeals are very great. Of course, there is no question of individual feelings. The widow may be in some cases really glad that her husband has died, as well in Australia as in any of our modern societies. What is shown at any rate is, that society supposes and requires such feelings, and that they are duties according to the social moral code; in fact, that sorrow and grief for the deceased are required by the collective ideas and feelings. Whether these feelings are displayed in order to appease the spirit of the deceased, whether there is real sorrow as a basis for these customs, these are questions irrelevant in this place.

Probably many different motives contributed to form the mourning rites and duties, as they are now in existence. These duties have in Australia apparently not merely a customary, but also a legal character. For we read in Spencer and Gillen: "a younger brother meeting the wife of a dead elder brother out in the bush, performing the ordinary duties of a woman, such as hunting for 'yams,' within a short time of her husband's death, would be quite justified in spearing her."[223] And, again, it is said in another place, that if a woman would not comply with the severe ordeal which is her duty, "she is liable to be severely chastised or even killed by her brother."[224]

Whatever more special explanation might be attempted of all these laws and customs it is certain that they express the fact that the marital bonds are very lasting. The obligations last after the death of the husband, and expiation must be made for the eventual new union. For Spencer and Gillen give a detailed account of all the complex formalities and duties to be performed before the widow can remarry, or rather is given up to the younger brother of the deceased, to whom she belongs by law.[225] After the performance of several ceremonies and a long lapse of time, she may still, if she likes, paint a narrow white band on her forehead, which is regarded as an intimation that she is not anxious to marry at present, as she still mourns, though to a less degree than before, for the dead man.[226] "The spirit of the dead man was supposed to have been watching all these proceedings as he lay at the bottom of the grave."[227]

Unfortunately the other authors do not give anything approaching Spencer and Gillen's full account of burial and mourning. In particular, if there is any description, the actual and tribal relatives are not differentiated. All that I have adduced here from Spencer and Gillen refers to the actual widow. A short remark of Roth may be quoted: "In the Boulia district when a man dies, his nearer relatives have special mourning performances. These nearer relatives, in the case of an adult male, are considered to be the wife and his brother and sisters by the same mother, not his father or mother; with an adult woman, only the brothers and sisters by the same mother."[228] Amongst the Dieri, "a widow is not permitted to speak until the whole of the white clay which forms her 'mourning' has come off without assistance" (perhaps some months).[229] There is also a statement about the husband's mourning. Amongst the Victorian tribes, "when a married woman dies and her body is burned, the husband puts her pounded calcined bones into a little opossum skin bag, which he carries in front of his chest until he marries again, or until the bag is worn out."

To sum up, it may be said, that as far as Spencer and Gillen's evidence may be taken as typical of what burial and mourning is in Australia, the legal and customary aspects of the marriage bonds is not less strongly expressed in the way in which they are dissolved, than it is in the way in which they are brought about.

CHAPTER IV
SEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE

The next point in our investigation is the sexual aspect of the Australian marriage. Unfortunately it will not be much easier to draw a decisive inference from the evidence in this case than it was in the foregoing one. There is perhaps less patent contradiction between the statements; and we are able here to reduce many of the incongruities to geographical differences. But the whole question is very complicated by the fact that the sexual features of marital life in Australia have caused much discussion in connection with the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity and group marriage. They have been very often interpreted according to this hypothesis. Different customs have been pointed out as unmistakable survivals of previous states of marital communism or group marriage. Group marriage has even been said to be in actual existence amongst some tribes.

In accordance with our opening statement, polemics will be strictly avoided here, particularly in reference to questions of prehistory; and, therefore, we need not concern ourselves with the problem whether certain facts point to the previous existence of group marriage or promiscuity; nor with the problem whether certain features are survivals of a similar state of things.[230] Highly objectionable from our point of view, however, is the fact that our best informants (especially Howitt and Spencer and Gillen) describe the facts of sexual life of to-day in terms of their hypothetical assumptions. To gain, therefore, a clear picture of the actual state of things we shall have to disintegrate all that is hypothetic in the statements from the actual facts.

That is the first reason why it will be necessary to submit here and there the statements to some discussion. But there is another reason. Being concerned with the problem of the individual family and individual relationship, we must keep in mind that although the sexual aspect of family life is very important, nevertheless, it is only one side of the picture, and that to outline this picture correctly, we may not exaggerate one side of it. Now, by a quite illegitimate silent assumption, the sexual features are often treated as the most important—in some cases as the exclusive factors of marriage. But marriage, as we saw and shall have the opportunity to see still more clearly, is rooted in all the manifold facts that constitute the family life: mode of living, economics of the household, and above all the relation of the parents to their children. Unless it is proved, therefore, that the unity of family life and the individuality of the family break down on all these points, no general inference as to group marriage can be drawn from the mere facts of sexual communism. In other words, sexual licence is nothing like group marriage. How far we have the right to infer the actual existence of group marriage (ergo group family) from sexual facts in Australia, must therefore be discussed now, while we are concerned with the sexual aspect of the Australian family.

I wish to make it quite clear that any discussion upon our evidence will be carried out merely with the aim of getting a clear picture of the actual state of things. It is not our task to polemize with the general theories as to the previous state of things, origin of family, etc., set forth by our authors. For a criticism of Howitt's, and Spencer and Gillen's speculations on the origin of marriage, the reader may be referred to the excellent chapter in Mr. Thomas's work. This criticism seems to me to leave no doubts that the general views expounded by the ethnographers mentioned above are hardly founded on any of the Australian facts. These views are mere hypotheses, drawn theoretically from facts. Personal knowledge of these latter could hardly have enabled the ethnologists to theorize more correctly on them. From Mr. Thomas's criticism it results also, that it is no exaggeration to say that the continual application of these hypotheses to the actual state of things considerably obscures the clearness and value of their evidence. It is necessary to add, nevertheless, that Howitt especially always gives very first-rate information concerning family life, the institution of marriage, etc.; and, according to my view, his theories are contradicted by the excellent and admirably rich information he himself gives on social matters. If we can seldom agree with him as speculative sociologist, we always admire him in his ethnographic research.

The following statements are intended to give an account of all the features of sexual life in Australia, especially as far as they bear upon family life. We shall, therefore, in the first place pay attention to the way in which sexual intercourse is limited and determined by marriage. Are the marital relations the exclusive right and privilege of the husband? Or has he only a certain over-right, modified by some other factors (which we must endeavour to determine). Or is there (at least in some tribes) really a sort of group marriage (using the word "marriage" to designate mainly the sexual side of it)? In the second place we must also pay some attention to the more general questions of chastity, licence before marriage, and so on. And finally, the features of the interesting and important forms of ceremonial and regulated licence must be traced more in detail.

Statements.—Amongst the Kurnai "the husband expected strict fidelity from his wife, but he did not admit any reciprocal obligation on his part towards her."[231] ... "The expected fidelity towards the husband was enforced by severe penalties. In cases of elopement her life was in his hands.... Each man not only expected his wife to be faithful to himself, but he, on his part, never lent her to a friend or to a guest."[232] In another place,[233] Howitt says, about the same tribe, that sometimes wives were exchanged "by order of the old men" to avert some impending danger to the tribe. We see that with these rare exceptions, the husband had quite exclusive sexual rights over a woman. Even the general practice of wife-lending seems to have been entirely absent. Now, as Howitt is a strong adherent of the theory of group marriage, we may accept his statements asserting individuality of "marriage" as especially trustworthy.

Amongst the Murring[234] "the only occurrence of licence is when a visitor from a distance is provided with a temporary wife by the hosts.... In cases of elopement, when the woman is captured, she becomes for a time the common property of the pursuers. With these exceptions, marriage seems to me strictly individual."[235] (We see that here again Howitt speaks of individual marriage where there are only, in fact, individual sexual rights.) The only exceptions were here, wife-lending to visitors and the characteristic form of punishment.

Curr says:[236] "Amongst Australians there is no community of women. The husband is the absolute owner of his wife (or wives)." He is very jealous and "usually assumes that his wife has been unfaithful to him, whenever there has been an opportunity for criminality; hence the laws with respect to women are very stringent." A woman is completely isolated.[237] The husband will, nevertheless, often "prostitute his wife to his brothers" or visitors.[238] Here we see the same: the man can dispose of his wife (the term prostitute is here probably used rather in rhetoric sense, for it does not seem that the man would receive any direct contribution for wife-lending); but he is very jealous in all cases where anything might happen behind his back.

On the West Victorian aborigines Dawson writes[239] that illegitimate children were rare, and the mother was severely beaten, sometimes even put to death, by the relatives. "The father of the child is also punished with the greatest severity and occasionally killed." The woman's relatives do not even accept his presents as expiation. "Exchange[240] of wives is permitted only after the death of their parents and, of course, with the consent of the chiefs, but is not allowed if either of the women has children." What is said about illegitimate children, would point to sexual morality before marriage. But we can hardly conceive how in a society, where females are handed over to their husbands, often before, and at the latest at reaching puberty, there could be illegitimate children at all. The whole statement is not clear.

Beveridge[241] says of the aborigines of Victoria and Riverina: "Chastity is quite unknown amongst them." "In their sexual intercourse ... they are not in the least bit particular, consequently incest of every grade is continually being perpetrated."[242]

"Among the Wotjobaluk it was not usual for men to have more than one wife, and they were very strict in requiring fidelity from her, and did not lend a wife to a friend or to a visitor from a distance." Death was the punishment for both the wife and her accomplice in case of adultery.[243] According to this statement not only fidelity is required in this tribe, but even chastity is known as a virtue. This seems rather exaggerated, and as it is given only by a correspondent of Howitt, we shall not attach to it too much weight. Nevertheless, this, in agreement with all our other statements on Victoria, shows that the standard of sexual morality could not be very low there, as we might infer from the foregoing statement.

"Marriage is not looked upon as any pledge of chastity, indeed, no such virtue is recognized." And in a Latin footnote the author enumerates the proofs: promiscuity of unmarried people; wife-lending and exchange; general ceremonial licence.[244] But the Adelaide tribes were much degenerated, and possibly some customs relate to the Lake Eyre tribes, with whom the author was also acquainted.

J. Moore Davis[245] speaks in a Latin passage of the licence at corroborees and of the rights of access enjoyed by old men at the initiation of the girls. The statement is not localized.

Among the Narrinyeri, youths during initiation are allowed unrestricted sexual licence.[246]

In the Turra tribe: "Women were bound to be faithful to their husbands, also the husbands to their wives. Whoever was guilty of unfaithfulness was liable to be punished by death at the hands of the class of the offender."[247] This statement is very clear; but if it is equally correct it reports quite an exceptional state of things.

Schürmann writes about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Although the men are capable of fierce jealousy, if their wives transgress unknown to them, yet they frequently send them out to other parties, or exchange with a friend for a night; and as for near relatives, such as brothers, it may almost be said that they have their wives in common."[248] But does this community of wives refer merely to sexual matters? It is probably so, as the author mentions it in connection with the general description of this side of aboriginal life.

C. Wilhelmi writes about the same tribes: "Although the men are apt to become passionately jealous if they detect their wives transgressing without their consent, yet of their own accord they offer them and send them to other men, or make an exchange for a night with some one of their friends. Of relatives, brothers in particular, it may be said that they possess their wives jointly."[249] This statement and the foregoing can hardly be looked upon as independent; for Wilhelmi knew the missionary Schürmann personally, and had from him a good deal of his information; the two statements are almost literally identical.

Amongst the Yerkla Mining tribes: "A wife is bound to be faithful to her husband." She is severely punished; if successively guilty, killed.[250] Women are lent, but very seldom.[251]

A. L. P. Cameron reports some cases of sexual licence among the Darling River tribes. They used to exchange wives "either at some grand assembly of the tribe, or in order to avert some threatened calamity." But the author adds, "This custom is, I think, rare at present."[252] At any rate, we may bracket this statement with that of Howitt, who also speaks of wife exchange, in order to avert impending calamity.

Charles Wilkes writes, that jealousy is very strongly developed among the New South Wales blacks. From it originate occasional quarrels, and the women suffer especially from jealousy and suspicions. There are also regulated fights and ordeals in order to settle quarrels and enmities ensuing from sexual matters.[253]

Tench mentions the sexual licence of unmarried girls among the Port Jackson tribes.[254]

We read about the natives of Botany Bay, that the men were very jealous.[255]

Turnbull says, that quarrels arise usually from jealousy in sexual matters. The affair usually becomes more general and involves the whole tribe.[256]

Amongst the Geawe Gal there were probably occasions on which "promiscuous intercourse (subject to the class rules) took place."[257]

Amongst the Kamilaroi "the punishment for adultery was, that when a woman was taramu, that is, shifty, wanton, adulterous, the husband complained to his kindred, who carried the matter before the headman, and if the charge was found to be true, her punishment was to be taken without the camp and to be handed over to all comers for that night, and her cries were not heeded."[258] Women were lent to friends, visitors, but with their own consent.[259] This statement confirms again the majority of those relating to the South-east tribes. The husband did not tolerate any trespass in these matters; and the community intervened. On the other hand, he had (with her consent) the right to dispose of her.

Amongst the Euahlayi: "There are two codes of morals, one for men and one for women. Old Testament morality for men, New Testament for women."[260] This applies, probably, chiefly to sexual matters, for we read in another place,[261] "Unchaste men were punished terribly.... The death penalty for wantonness was enforced." Also a girl "found guilty of frailty" is severely punished by her relatives.[262] An "absolute wanton" is ignominiously treated, the result being almost inevitably death.[263] This statement is incomplete, as we are not told if adultery and wantonness are punished only when they are perpetrated without knowledge of the husband; in other words, we are not informed if the widespread custom of wife-lending was absent or not among the Euahlayi.

Amongst the Dieri there was besides the regular Tippa Malku marriage, the occasional Pirrauru relation. The sexual intercourse of the latter was confined to some festival or to the case when the Tippa Malku husband was absent. The number of Pirraurus of each man was limited, and they were strictly assigned to each other. There was sexual jealousy amongst the Pirraurus. The husband had, apparently, the right to decline the use of his wife to any Pirrauru. The Pirrauru relation will be discussed more in detail below. The custom of wife-lending is prevalent: "continually their wives are lent for prostitution, the husband receiving presents."[264] It may be noted, that this is the only place where wife-lending is stated to take this form. Besides, we are informed by Howitt that the unmarried girls and widows were allowed a considerable amount of sexual freedom, this custom being called Ngura-mundu.[265]

The Urabunna, living in the neighbourhood of the Dieri, had an institution analogous to the Pirrauru custom. Besides his Nupa or individual wives, of whom he might possess one or two, who were "specially attached to him and lived with him in his own camp," he could have several Piraungarus to whom he had "access under certain conditions."[266] (But we are not informed what these conditions are; we may infer, however, that they are analogous to those existing among the Dieri, which we know in detail: see below.) Our authors inform us further that the Piraungarus "are to be found living grouped together."[267] We shall discuss below this Piraungaru relation more in detail.

Amongst the Arunta nation, there are different occasions on which men besides the husband have sexual access to the woman. There are the customs at the "initiation" of the girls.[268] And there are many cases in which the husband is compelled by custom to waive his rights on behalf of some one else; such instances generally happen in connection with ceremonial gatherings.[269] It is important to note that on these occasions men have access to women with whom it would be most criminal for them to have intercourse under normal conditions; and a man may cohabit even with his mother-in-law, from whom he is under normal conditions absolutely isolated.[270]

The ceremonies of initiation of girls in Central Australia, and sexual promiscuity connected with them, are also mentioned by W. H. Willshire. Women after initiation are sexually "at the mercy of all who may get hold of them."[271] The same author mentions also the sexual "immorality" of the natives in question.[272] This raw statement, although inadequately formulated, corroborates Spencer and Gillen's exact data.

Analogously in the Northern tribes there are several exceptions from the individuality of sexual relations. The man may lend his wife to his friends or to people whose favour he wishes to gain. There are customs at the initiation of girls, when several men, standing to the girl in a certain group (tribal) relationship, have access to her. In the third place there is the sexual licence connected with certain ceremonies, when men are obliged to cede their wives to some of their tribesmen.[273] And we read the description of the most horrid atrocities which men inflict as punishments upon their unfaithful wives.[274] We read in the same place that the charming away of women by magic was one of the chief sources of fights and quarrels. About sexual jealousy in the Central and Northern tribes, we read: "Now and again if a husband thinks that his wife has been unfaithful to him, she will certainly meet with exceedingly cruel treatment."[275]

We are informed about the existence of the practice of exchange of wives among the Northern tribes (Port Darwin, Powell's Creek) in the answers to Prof. Frazer's "Questions."[276]

J. D. Lang says about the aborigines of Queensland, that the "conjugal relations are maintained with great decency." But he mentions the custom of wife-lending.[277]

Amongst the Maryborough tribes, sexual licence is allowed before marriage and there is a camp of unmarried girls.[278] Many, however, "remain perfectly virtuous until their promised husband fetches them."[279] Women who were wanton after their marriage "are looked down upon as the prostitutes of the tribe, and are lent to visitors as temporary wives."[280] Here chastity seems to be not so strongly required. But the statement is somewhat odd as regards the camp of unmarried girls.

Amongst the Kabi and Wakka tribes (Queensland, near Maryborough), there are cases where the "seniors of the camp" have some rights over a woman. In general none but the husband had any matrimonial "rights over the wife, and the jealousy made him take good care she was not interfered with, unless he was a consenting party."[281] Here we have again the characteristic feature: the husband had exclusive sexual rights over his wife; but he might dispose of her, and used to do so.

Amongst the North-west Central Queensland aborigines[282] there is a certain licence before marriage "unless they should happen to be betrothed"; in that case the husband does not like it. "Morality in its broadest sense is recognized a virtue." And in another place we are informed that "if an aboriginal requires a woman temporarily, he either borrows a wife from her husband for a night or two in exchange for boomerangs, a shield, food, etc., or else violates the female when unprotected, when away from the camp, out in the bush." In the latter case, if the woman is unmarried "no one troubles himself about the matter." If married, a quarrel would ensue if the husband came to know anything.[283] Roth gives also an account of the initiation ceremonies, in which females, arrived at puberty, are ceremonially deflorated by old men. It is important to note that the exogamous class rule is disregarded on such occasions, when several men of forbidden degrees have access to the woman, but blood relations are strictly excluded. A girl acquires a new designation, corresponding to the new age grade; she becomes marriageable and enters altogether into a new status.[284]

Among the natives of Cape York the unmarried girls are allowed to have free intercourse, but a female once married is required to be absolutely faithful to her husband, and this requirement is enforced by severe punishments.[285]

Amongst the tribes of West Australia: "The crime of adultery is punished severely—often by death."[286] Grey speaks also of the "stern and vigilant jealousy."[287] "... the bare suspicion of infidelity upon their part is enough to ensure to them the most cruel and brutal treatment."[288] But he mentions also the continuous rows and plots that issue round a beautiful woman,[289] who knows sometimes how to evade the precautions of her husband. Grey speaks emphatically of the "horror of incest."[290] Fidelity seems, therefore, to be severely enforced in these tribes. Grey says nothing about wife-lending. Chastity does not seem to have obtained there, nevertheless.

We read in Oldfield, about the West Australian tribes, that there was an "initiation" ceremony before a female was considered fit for marriage; in it "all the males of the tribe" partook. Women sometimes betray their husbands.[291]

Mrs. D. M. Bates reports, that among the tribes of West Australia she had under observation, there exists a "certain tribal morality" and "bad or loose living women (according to their ideas) occupied much the same status in a certain degree as our unfortunate sisters do amongst us." There were even contemptuous names for women of bad conduct.[292] Unfortunately, this statement says absolutely nothing of what would be the most interesting thing to know, viz. the ideas of the natives about sexual matters, in other words, the code of the "tribal morality." Here, besides the fidelity which was strictly required, a complete chastity is affirmed. On the whole it seems to agree roughly with Grey's and Salvado's statements; he also does not mention any regulated licence. As our information on West Australia is so scanty, we can hardly decide whether sex morality stands there much higher than in the Central and North-eastern peoples; but as we have reason to regard both the information of Grey and of Salvado as trustworthy and accurate, we may assume that this difference actually existed.

Similarly Bishop Salvado speaks of the great jealousy of the natives of South-west Australia and of their morality. "Le sauvage ne pardonne jamais l'insulte faite à la pudeur des femmes qui lui appartiennent; c'est un outrage qui se paye cher et le plus souvent par la mort."[293] "... je n'ai jamais observé autour de nous un seul acte tant que ce soit peu indécent ou déshonnête parmi eux ... au contraire j'ai trouvé les mœurs louable au plus haut point."[294]

Scott Nind informs us about the natives of King George's Sound, that "infidelity is by no means uncommon. The husband keeps a jealous eye on his wife, and on the least excuse for suspicion she is severely punished."[295]

In reviewing this material, the first thing to be noted is a considerable geographical variety of custom and law in sexual matters. There are clear and radical differences between the South-eastern tribes, the South Central, North Central, and Northern Queensland tribes. The views on sexual morality apparently differ as much as the actual practices. Whereas in Victoria, South-eastern New South Wales, and the Southern territory of South Australia there are no traces of regulated licence, or at least not in a very conspicuous form—in the South Central tribes the features of Pirrauru relations; in the Central and North Central different forms of ceremonial licence are highly developed, and play an important part in tribal life. In Queensland there does not seem to exist such a very strict sexual morality, as far as we can gather from our statements. Our five statements from West Australia do not give a very clear picture. Undoubtedly these geographical differences, as here indicated, must be conceived as merely rough approximations. There are too many contradictions between the statements concerning the South-eastern area; the data as to Queensland and West Australia are too few and vague to allow anything beyond mere generalities. But broadly, as is indicated above, these local differences undoubtedly exist.

Besides the data contained in the statements there is, to confirm this view, the opinion of A. W. Howitt. In his article on the tribal and social organization in Australia, this writer directly points out the radical differences existing between the South Central and the South-eastern tribes in sexual matters; and as he knew from personal acquaintance or from reliable informants the whole area, we may consider this geographical difference as thoroughly established.[296]

Let us now draw some general conclusions from the evidence. The points selected at the outset for special attention were: first, the problem of the rights, privileges, and restrictions of the husband in sexual matters; second, the question how is chastity in general, considered and valued? third, a survey of the cases of ceremonial or regulated licence.

1. The first question may be broadly answered by saying that the husband had in general a definite sexual "over-right" over his wife, which secured to him the privilege of disposing of his wife, or at least of exercising a certain control over her conduct in sexual matters. In some cases this over-right amounted to quite an exclusive right, which even in some exceptional tribes was never waived. We read of cases where the husband was not only never compelled by custom, or any other social force, to dispose of his wife, but apparently never did it on his own impulse. In these cases we may say that the absolute faithfulness of a married woman was enforced, and that her chastity was recognized as a virtue. (Wotjobaluk, Turra, and the South-western tribes according to Salvado.) Besides there are several other statements, from which it appears that the sexual rights of the husband were nearly exclusive, and that he was not inclined to waive these rights in order to derive therefrom any personal profit. So among the Kurnai there was no wife-lending nor any other similar custom, and wives were exchanged only in quite exceptional cases in order to avert impending evil. The same is asserted in Cameron's statement. Among the Yerkla Mining women are but seldom lent. Mrs. Parker writes that wantonness was considered a crime among the Euahlayi, and nearly the same has been said by Mrs. Bates about the West Australians. Roth speaks of morality in a broad sense. Grey and Macgillivray write that women were expected to be strictly faithful to their husbands. But in these two last cases we do not know whether lending or exchange of wives was entirely absent, or is only not mentioned by the authors. All the statements which affirm strict and vigilant jealousy, without further analysis, leave the question open as to whether the husband ever allowed adultery to his wife, or whether he punished it only when perpetrated without his consent. But interpreting these statements according to the other more detailed ones, it may be said that in general, such exclusiveness of marital rights and appreciation of chastity seem rather to be an exception; and some caution must be used in accepting the above-mentioned cases of absolute faithfulness and chastity required from married women. As a rule, even where there is not regulated licence, wife lending and exchange, hospitality, etc., seem to be more or less practised.

In the majority of statements these customs are found in one form or the other; in these cases we cannot speak of an absolute fidelity or exclusive individual sexual right of the husband. We read in fifteen of our thirty-eight statements of the customs of wife-lending or exchange; and in twelve some form of sexual licence is mentioned. But in all these cases, where the woman is given away, this is done with the consent and generally on the initiative of her husband, who in the majority of cases derived some benefit from the transaction.[297] Exchange of wives obviously implies an advantage to the husbands. The same must be assumed in the case of hospitality and wife-lending when the courtesy of the husband presupposes a reward in one form or another. In the case of ceremonial licence as related by Spencer and Gillen, wife-lending is always a kind of retribution for religious services. Payment of this nature occurs also for other services, and may be used as bribery towards an avenging party.[298] The husband always disposes of his wife, who is never allowed to take the first step in this matter, and it is consequently he who benefits from her conduct. This conduct does not seem punishable or wrong in any sense to the native mind. Quite otherwise is it with the woman who trespasses without the sanction of custom or without her husband's approval. In all such cases she is considered culpable and more or less severely punished. This is directly stated by Shürmann and Wilhelmi, and appears in nearly all the other statements.

The punishment dealt out in cases of elopement was discussed above in connection with the mode of obtaining wives. We saw that as a rule the punishment is severe. Sometimes the kindred of the offended party (i. e. the husband) help him to punish the offender; sometimes the whole local group takes his side. Several of our statements assert that in cases of elopement, the woman when caught becomes the common property of all her pursuers, and that afterwards she has to undergo severe punishment (Kurnai, Murray tribes). In some statements we read that adultery is punished with death (Wotjobaluk, Turra, Kamilaroi, Euahlayi, South-western tribes); in others, that the punishment for adultery or even a suspicion of it is very cruel (Curr, Spencer and Gillen, J. Mathew, Grey). It appears, therefore, that the husband is very careful about maintaining his over-right over the sexual life of his spouse. He very often has to submit to some customary practices, and often subordinates his wife to some private aim; but he must always give the initiative, or at least have the sexual life of his wife under his control.

2. In the second place a word about the chastity of the unmarried women is necessary. Here we may remark at the outset that this question seems relatively unimportant, as we know that girls are handed over to their promised husbands on arriving at puberty, or even before.[299] On the other hand, it seems hardly probable that girls would have sexual intercourse in their extreme youth (that is, before being married); during this period, girls are continually under the control of both parents, and especially of the mother, and as it will appear from the statements referring to the "bachelors' camp," it is probable that males and females are kept apart from each other before reaching puberty.

That girls had no sexual intercourse before marriage is also suggested by the custom of "initiating" girls by the old men, which takes place immediately before they are handed over to their husbands. From the detailed descriptions of Spencer and Gillen and W. E. Roth it appears that at this initiation girls are deflowered (Central, North Central and Central Queensland tribes).[300] On the other hand, the custom of levirate—i. e. of handing over the widow to the deceased's brother or nearest relative—seems to be very widespread (compare above, [page 63]); so that there are hardly any marriageable and unmarried widows in the aboriginal society. Accordingly we find but little indication of any misconduct in the case of unmarried females, and the few instances we meet with are so little detailed that they do not throw much light upon this question; it is especially uncertain whether they are exceptional innovations, or whether they have any more serious social raison d'être. It is mentioned that there exists an unmarried girls' camp with sexual licence (Maryborough tribes, see below, [p. 266]). Roth mentions that unmarried girls are free in their conduct as long as they are not promised in marriage. We read of a similar freedom in the Dieri tribe, as also in the statements of Tench and Macgillivray. The most important form of licence before marriage seems to be, therefore, the practice of initiation just mentioned.

Speaking now of chastity in general, and summing up both what was said under the first and the second heading, it may be affirmed that it is not considered in the light of a necessary virtue. Before marriage the girl has to submit to a general sexual intercourse, and after it the woman becomes on many occasions the property of another man. This refers more especially to the tribes described by Spencer and Gillen and Roth. It was said at the outset that a much stricter morality seems to have prevailed in the South-eastern tribes, although there, too, we read of sexual licence (during initiation among the Narrinyeri, and in general, according to Beveridge and Moore Davis). But as it was there possibly much more rarely practised—we are informed by our very best source, Howitt, about several tribes, that they knew and practised chastity (Kurnai, Turra, Wotjobaluk, etc.)—we may keep to the geographical distinction.

3. Let us in the third place speak more in detail about customary and ceremonial licence, as it merits for many reasons our special attention. Here belong, besides the ceremonial defloration of girls by old men (just spoken of), the different forms of licence practised at large tribal gatherings, and especially the Pirrauru relationship, found in several of the South Central tribes.

Besides the exact and detailed data about ceremonial (or ritual) defloration that are given by Spencer and Gillen and Roth, these ceremonies are mentioned also by Willshire, Beveridge, Moore Davis, Mathew, and Oldfield. But the short notes of those latter authors are hardly sufficient to allow any further discussion; they may be considered as a confirmation of the more exact evidence, but the latter, and especially Spencer and Gillen's data, must serve as material for all analyses. These ceremonies, on the one hand, seem to correspond to the initiation ceremonies of the males. It is only in this light that they are represented by Roth, who does not mention any close connection between these ceremonies and marriage, but represents them as the condition of marriageability. The said ceremonies possess, as a matter of fact, many points of analogy with the male initiation ceremonies. They are performed on arrival at puberty; Roth states that the girl then acquires a new name and new status. The operation performed then upon the initiated is also to some extent analogous in both cases.[301] On the other hand Spencer and Gillen represent these ceremonies as directly connected with marriage. What the underlying ideas in this connection are, it is difficult to say. It has been suggested that such ceremonies express a kind of expiation for marriage.[302] But as this idea is not directly embodied in this institution, and as it is not necessarily a condition of its existence, and, moreover, as it has not been directly affirmed by the natives, it may be treated merely as an assumption.

A very important and striking feature of ceremonial licence in general, is that the sexual intercourse, which takes place on that occasion, is not subject to class rules. We are indebted to Messrs. Spencer and Gillen for a very minute account of customary licence, which takes place as a rule during corroborees and other ceremonies. "In the Eastern and North-eastern parts of the Arunta, and in the Kaitish, Iliaura and Warramunga tribes, considerable licence is allowed on certain occasions, when a large number of men and women are gathered together to perform certain corroborees. When an important one of these is held, it occupies perhaps ten days or a fortnight, and during that time the men, and especially the elder ones, but by no means exclusively these, spend the day in camp preparing decorations to be used during the evening. Every day two or three women are told off to attend at the corroboree ground, and with the exception of men who stand in the relation to them of actual father, brother, or sons, they are, for the time being, common property to all the men present on the corroboree ground."[303] On all such occasions the class rules are disregarded, they are even broken, so to say, in the most radical way: a man may have, in connection with certain performances, access to his mother-in-law, who under normal conditions is most strictly tabooed to him.[304] And again, in the Warramunga tribe an example is quoted when a tribal father has access to his tribal daughter on ceremonial occasions.[305] This example refers to a case where the woman was offered by her husband as a kind of retribution for some services rendered in performance of ceremonial functions. In the same tribe there are other occasions (in connection with burial) on which a man is bound by custom to offer his wife to a man who was useful to him.[306] The class rule is disregarded in such cases, too. This holds good also in the case when a man receives this form of reward for having been useful to the community as a messenger.[307] When an armed avenging party is sent to carry out a sentence on some other local group, the latter may attempt to bribe the members of the avenging party by offering them some women. If these are accepted, the sentence is not carried out, and the avenging party returns peacefully home. Sexual intercourse under this condition is also not subject to the class rule.[308] It may be said, therefore, that on all occasions[309] when ceremonial licence takes place, the strict class exogamy does not hold good; whereas incest, as regards blood relationship, is always strictly forbidden. This refers both to the initiation rites and to ceremonial licence in the tribes described by Roth and by Spencer and Gillen.

In this place a somewhat extensive digression concerning the Pirrauru custom must be made. This question plays such an important part in all speculations about a former state of group marriage, and it is undoubtedly such an interesting fact by itself, that it would be impossible not to give here an account at least of its most essential features. The custom in question consists in the fact, that in certain of the South-east Central tribes a man and a woman are put into a relationship which involves occasional sexual connection and some other mutual rights and obligations, to be discussed in detail below. This custom is found in the tribes living North, South and East of the Lake Eyre, the Urabunna, the Dieri, Yantruwunta,[310] and other kindred tribes. We know the most about the Dieri, whom Howitt chooses and represents as a typical example of all these tribes, and whose Pirrauru practices in his opinion differ only slightly from those of the neighbouring tribes. This is important, for our knowledge about the Dieri practices is much more ample than in the case of any other tribe; and it does not agree in all particulars with what we are told about the Urabunna by Spencer and Gillen.[311] We shall, therefore, rely in the first place upon the information given about the Dieri by Howitt, Gason, and Siebert, and in our general view of the Pirrauru we shall be guided by this information.

It is first to be noted that the custom in question exists side by side with individual marriage. We find this expressly stated in three places by Howitt.[312] But besides these merely verbal assertions of authorities, we have much better proofs of the assertion in the facts related by them concerning the Pirrauru customs. From these facts it clearly appears that individual marriage existed quite independently of the Pirrauru relation, and that it was even only slightly affected by this relation. We shall enumerate the most important features of the Pirrauru custom of which we are informed, occasionally remarking under each heading what is the difference between marriage and the Pirrauru relation. It will appear that many of the factors that constitute marriage are completely absent in that relation, and that others play in each quite a different rôle.

1. In the first place, let us ask how was the Pirrauru relation brought about. We are informed that on the occasion of large tribal gatherings such as corroborees, invitation gatherings, etc., when the whole tribe was present, the old men and the heads of the totems, assembled in camp council, decide which men and women should be allotted to each other. The result of this decision is then publicly announced.[313] Now we know[314] that the individual or Tippa Malku marriage is brought about in quite a different way: the girl is promised as an infant to her future husband. Such an infant betrothal is usually accompanied by exchange of females; and the decision lies in the hands of the girl's family (her mother's brother). We see that the mode of obtaining the individual Tippa Malku wife is quite different from the way in which the Pirrauru relationship is established; and we see also that the latter does not show any of the characteristics which enforce and express the individual character of marriage.

Undoubtedly it has its legal aspect, for it rests on the authority of the camp council of old men, which seems to be the only form of tribal authority known in these tribes. The old men seem also to keep an eye on the Pirrauru connections in their subsequent course (see below under [5]). These relations, therefore, bear, thanks to this sanction of the tribal elders, the character of validity and legality, and are to a certain degree compulsory. (How far they are compulsory in the case of the husband of the allotted woman, see below under [6]); but they involve neither the mutual obligation of two families, nor a period of long engagement, nor any factors expressing collective ideas of the individuality of mutual appropriation of a man and a woman.[315]

There are still two points connected with this heading which emphasize the difference between the individual marriage and the Pirrauru relation,[316] namely that individual marriage must precede Pirrauru relations; in other words, that only married women may be made Pirraurus. Secondly, that although any woman may have only one Tippa Malku husband (men may have several Tippa Malku wives), she may have several Pirraurus. This very point induced many writers to consider the Pirrauru as a form of group marriage.[317] That this relation bears a group-character is beyond doubt. That it must be clearly distinguished from marriage is just what we try to show here.[318]

2. Another interesting point about the Pirrauru, is that no consent of the parties is asked.[319] But this appears, according to other data, to hold strictly good only as far as the woman is concerned. For we are told[320] in another place that a woman's wishes are not taken into account unless through the mediation of her husband. Hence it seems that on one side a man's wishes may be taken into account, and on the other side a man may even dispose of his own wife. This points to the fact that a husband's consent or mediation when his wife is concerned may be of some weight. The same conclusion results from the fact (already noticed by Mr. Thomas in this connection) that two men may eventually exchange their wives in connection with the Pirrauru custom.[321] All this appears quite plausible if we bear in mind that[322] the old men keep the greatest number of females for themselves—at least all the most comely ones. And that these very men have afterwards the right of disposing of their wives. They will, on the one hand, exchange some of the females with each other; on the other hand, they will allot perhaps some of their wives to one or another of the young men living in celibacy. In fact, we read that very often old and renowned warriors give their wives to some youngster, who regards it as a great honour.[323] In conclusion it appears probable that the man had a voice in the choice of his Pirrauru or had not, according to his personal influence. As to the woman, it was her husband's part to decide, or at least to influence the opinion of the camp council. But statements are not clear on this point, and we are left here to a great extent to our own conjectures.

3. From the foregoing, it results that the husband still retains some over-right and control over his wife. And that is a very important point. For in the light of this fact, the waiving of sexual privileges connected with the Pirrauru custom does not appear to encroach any more on the husband's right to his wife than the custom of wife-exchange or wife-lending. This fact of the necessity of the husband's consent is confirmed by Howitt's explicit statement. We read[324] that a man has right of access to his Pirrauru only during the absence of her husband or, if the latter were present in camp, only with his consent. It is evident, therefore, that the husband's rights are by no means annihilated or superseded by the Pirrauru's rights. He waives his rights voluntarily, and his consent is essential.

4. Another point of importance is that this relationship does not constitute a permanent status, and that it may be actualized only at intervals. In the first place, the sexual licence involved in this custom is exercised during the tribal gathering, for the night in which the assignation of Pirraurus took place; the licence lasts for about four hours.[325] This relation is probably renewed during some of the next gatherings; during the husband's absence; when a man is sent on an embassy with his Pirraurus; in some cases where the husband gives his consent. But although none of our sources say so expressly, we may safely deny the assertion that the Pirrauru relation had a permanent status. For, if it were actually valid and exercised permanently, we would not be informed, as we are, as to the special occasions on which it takes place, and of the conditions under which it may be exercised. Again, if the Pirrauru involved a permanent status or, more explicitly, if groups of men and women who are Pirraurus to each other respectively, normally and permanently live in marital relations, no one of our authorities, who plead so strongly for the character of group marriage in the relation in question, would omit to emphasize such an important feature, which would support their views in the highest degree. For this is a crucial question indeed: if the Pirrauru right entitles, in the first place, only to a short licence and establishes permanently merely a facultative right, then, even in its sexual aspect, it does not approach the rights established by Tippa Malku marriage in these tribes. And, although the evidence on this point is not quite decisive, we are, as we saw, entitled to suppose that the sexual licence connected with the Pirrauru is only an occasional one.

Besides the facts and reasons enumerated above, I may adduce a very important passage from Howitt's last work, which may be considered the ultimate opinion of this eminent ethnographer concerning the problem of group marriage in Australia—a hypothesis of which he always has been a most ardent supporter. "A study of the evidence which has been detailed in the last chapter has led me to the conclusion that the state of society among the early Australians was that of an Undivided Commune. Taking this as a postulate, the influence on marriage and descent of the class division, the sub-classes and the totems may be considered on the assumption that there was once an Undivided Commune. It is, however, well to guard this expression. I do not desire to imply necessarily the existence of complete and continuous communism between the sexes. The character of the country, the necessity of moving from one spot to another in search of game and vegetable food, would cause any Undivided Commune, when it assumed dimensions greater than the immediate locality could provide with food, to break up into two or more communes of the same character. In addition to this it is clear, after a long acquaintance with the Australian savage, that in the past, as now, individual likes and dislikes must have existed; so that, admitting the existence of common rights between the members of the Commune, these rights would remain in abeyance, so far as the separated parts of the Commune were concerned. But at certain gatherings, such as Bunya-bunya harvest in Queensland, or on great ceremonial occasions, all the segments of the original community would reunite. In short, so far as the evidence goes at present, I think that the probable condition of the Undivided Commune may be considered to be represented by what occurs on certain occasions when the modified Communes of the Lake Eyre tribes reunite."[326]

This shows that after a long and mature consideration of the problems in question, Howitt came to the conclusion that "group marriage" never could have existed as a permanent status, and that it could have been established only in connection with large tribal gatherings. In such a light the hypothesis of former or even actual "group marriage" becomes very plausible, or rather it ceases to be a hypothesis and it becomes one of the best established facts of the Australian ethnology.

But at the same time, although we may accord the term "group marriage" (if any one wishes at any price to retain it), we must note that such a state of things is radically different from marriage in the usual sense of the word, and in particular from marriage as found in actual existence in the Australian aboriginal society, and described in this study. It will be sufficient to point out that such an occasional sexual licence lasting several hours during an initiation gathering could not create any bonds of family, such as may result from community of daily life and community of interests, common inhabiting of the same dwelling, common eating, especially common rearing of children—all factors which, as will be shown below, act only in the individual family and tend to make out of the individual family a well-established and well-defined unit.

We must adduce one fact which stands in opposition to what is just said. I mean the statement of Spencer and Gillen, that amongst the Urabunna the Piraungarus are "generally found living grouped together." This statement might possibly point first to a permanent state of marital relations, secondly to a common mode of living. Now it may be remarked that such an offhand statement on such a crucial point shows undoubtedly that the authors were insufficiently informed themselves on this point, and that, therefore, we must accept this statement with the utmost caution.[327]

The problem of the mode of living of the Pirrauru groups involves two questions—first, what persons constituted the local group (temporary or permanent); and second, how the members of a Pirrauru group lived within it. The statement of Spencer and Gillen may mean that a group of Pirraurus constituted a given temporary local group. But within this group husband and wife must have formed a distinct unit. Now as to the question of how far such a grouping of Pirraurus (if we accept the above statement as correct) would imply a permanent marital status between the Pirraurus, it is impossible to answer. On this point, too, the information about the Urabunna is vague and defective, and it is safer to base our conclusions on the more explicit and reliable material given by Howitt in the case of the Dieri.

[5.] Did the Pirrauru union last for the whole life, or could it be dissolved? In one place we read that the relation in question lasts for life; in another place we are told[328] that the old men watch over the Pirraurus in order that there may result no trouble from mutual jealousy; and if a man has too many Pirraurus they compel or advise him to limit himself to one or two. No answer can be given, therefore, to this question.

[6.] We mentioned above that if the Pirrauru relation, according to Howitt's supposition there quoted, only involved sexual licence during big tribal gatherings, this relation would be absolutely deprived of any of the characters that are the chief constituents of marriage and family. But here we must indicate that such an assumption is not quite justifiable. In fact, in some of the facts related about the Pirraurus, there are hints pointing to the existence of economic bonds and of community in daily life between Pirraurus. We read[329] that if in the absence of her husband a woman lives with one or two of her Pirraurus, she occupies with them one hut and shares with them the food. Therefore, in the absence of her husband, a Pirrauru actually took his place, and in this case the Pirrauru relationship is not merely a sexual connection, but it assumes the real form of marriage. In another place[330] we read that a man possessing several Pirraurus may lend one of them to some one who is deprived of this advantage. Thus it seems that the Pirraurus acquire a kind of real right over their Pirrauru wives; and that it goes as far as the faculty of disposing of them. And again we are informed that if a woman has a young man for a Pirrauru she is often jealous of him and looks strictly after him, and if he does not obey her readily enough, tries even to compel him by punishment.[331] All these instances, which could perhaps be further multiplied, show that under certain circumstances, which we unfortunately do not know with sufficient precision, the Pirrauru relationship assumes a much more serious character than a mere sexual licence exercised during a few hours.

[7]. There remains still to examine what form the relationship of children to parents assumes in the tribes where the Pirrauru relationship exists. Here we are quite well informed that the individual relation between the children of a woman and both their parents (their mother and her Tippa Malku husband) is fully recognized by the aborigines. It is true that Spencer and Gillen say that there is only a "closer tie" between the married couple and their children, and that the children acknowledge the Pirraurus of their parents as parents.[332] But this statement is very unsatisfactory; such a complicated question cannot be answered by a short phrase; for we are by no means aware what the words "closer tie" mean. As unsatisfactory is Howitt's remark, that owing to the promiscuous sexual intercourse, no woman can know if the children are the offspring of her husband or of the Pirraurus, and, therefore, the children must be considered as possessing group fathers and not individual fathers.[333] Apart from the objection that this applies merely to paternity and not to motherhood, which would remain at any rate individual, we must point to our subsequent investigations, which will show that the physiological question of actual procreation does not play a very important part in the determination of relationship. Probably it does not play in these tribes any part at all, as they (at least the Urabunna) seem not to have any knowledge of the actual physiological process of procreation. So we see that although both Howitt and Spencer and Gillen try to prove the existence of group relationship between the Pirraurus and their children, their conclusions appear to be ill founded in facts, and to be rather the fruits of speculation than of observation. Our suspicions are strengthened by the unsophisticated remark of Gason, to which we must ascribe much weight, as he knows the Dieri tribe better than any one else, and as he has no theory of his own to prove or to demolish. He says: "The offspring of the pirraoora are affectionately looked after and recognized as if they were the natural offspring of the real husband and wife." Although this phrase is not very happily formulated, its meaning appears to be that the married couple recognize all the children of the woman and treat them with kindness and affection, without making any distinction. If, according to the views just mentioned, the children were accepted by all the men cohabiting with a given woman, i. e. by her husband and all the Pirraurus, the phrase quoted above would be obviously quite meaningless; for why should the offspring be recognized as if they were the husband's own children in order to be treated well? It may also be pointed out that the Dieri father is very affectionate to his children.[334] And in all the statements referring to this subject we clearly see that it is a question merely of the individual father and by no means of a group of fathers.

After this survey of what appear to me to be the most important points referring to the Pirrauru custom, we see that nearly each one of them is involved in contradictions and obscurities. To draw any general conclusion we must proceed with the utmost care and precaution. Our information about Piraungaru of the Urabunna is nearly worthless. And we may safely repeat with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew more facts and knew them better than we can do from their description, then perhaps their conclusions, drawn from these unknown facts, may be correct; but if they draw their general conclusions only from the facts they communicate to us, then we are justified in rejecting them.

Our chief aim in discussing the features of the Pirrauru relationship was to ascertain how far this relation possesses the character of marriage. That it is a "group relation" is beyond doubt.[335] That it is a form of marriage has been accepted by Howitt, Fison, and Spencer and Gillen without much discussion.[336] Mr. Thomas has shown already how unsatisfactory the reasons are, on the strength of which Pirrauru is considered to be a form of group marriage, or even a survival of the previous stage of group marriage. He has shown how insufficient, in the light of an exact definition, the information is, how many essential points we still want to know to be able to make any more conclusive assertion. Mr. Thomas' criticism bears especially on the lack of a strict use of the term "group marriage." He gives a correct definition (page 128 of the work quoted) of this term, and consistently puts to its test the views propounded by the previously mentioned writers. From this discussion he concludes that in the Pirrauru relationship we can find neither the features of an actual group marriage nor the traces of such a previous state of things.[337] This criticism and conclusion appear to me so convincing and final, that I would have simply referred to them without entering again upon this rather perplexing question, were it not a good opportunity for pointing out again by means of this example, that the sexual aspects of marriage and the family cannot be discussed separately, detached from each other; and for showing how incorrect it is to represent the sexual side of marital life as the complete and unique content of marriage. On the contrary, marriage may not be, as so often repeated here, detached from family life; it is defined in all its aspects by the problems of the economic unity of the family, of the bonds created by common life in one wurley, through the common rearing of, and affection towards, the offspring. In the above points I tried to show that in nearly all these respects the Pirrauru relationship essentially differs from marriage and cannot, therefore, seriously encroach upon the individual family. This will appear still more clearly when all these points are exhaustively discussed in their bearing upon the individual family.

Now I would like to show that Howitt, as well as Spencer and Gillen, based his assertions as to the group marriage character of the Pirrauru relation upon a misleading exaggeration of the importance of the sexual side of marriage. Spencer and Gillen say that every man has one or two individual wives or Nupa "allotted to him as wives, and to whom he has the first but not the exclusive right of access."[338] But besides these there is the Pirrauru institution in which "a group of women actually have marital relations with a group of men." And as a conclusion, it follows simply, that in Australia there exists a group marriage, and that not a "pretended" one (Spencer and Gillen criticize here Dr. Westermarck's expression), but a "real" one. This reasoning would inspire some mistrust by its summary and laconic character alone.[339] But it is also evident that in the passage quoted the authors speak exclusively of the sexual side of marriage, and that they actually mean to imply that this sexual side is everything which requires attention, if marriage in a given case should be described. And this is obviously false. The incorrect reasoning is repeated by the same authors in their later work.[340] From the fact that sexual access is open to the Pirraurus, and that there are no special names for the individual parents and children (which does not seem to hold good for the Dieri, however), the inference is drawn that group marriage exists instead of individual marriage. Not even the conditions under which a man has access to his Pirrauru are discussed! Our discussion (from Howitt's detailed data) has shown that even in sexual matters the Pirrauru are far behind the Tippa Malku; indeed, that there is no comparison between the sexual rights of an individual husband and of a Pirrauru.

The same insufficiency of reasoning is shown by Howitt. He says in one place[341] that there is individual as well as group marriage among the Australian aborigines. But under the word marriage he understands the right of sexual access. And on this ground he asserts that among the Kurnai there existed individual marriages exclusively; and among the Dieri there was also group marriage. It is characteristic that no one of these writers tried to give any explicit definition of marriage; but from what I have quoted it appears quite clearly how one-sidedly and narrowly they conceived marriage.[342] And this conception was not only fatal to the theories and views held by them on the question, but it vitiated to a certain extent also the information they gave us about these facts. For they did not try to ascertain and to inform us about the most important particulars, which were perhaps not quite out of the reach of their investigation.[343]

We have based our discussion of the Pirrauru relation on a broad conception of marriage, determined by factors of the daily life, the household, the relation to children, etc. In our systematic and objective description of facts relating to the Pirrauru relation we found in the first place that individual marriage exists besides the custom in question; that it has its radically distinctive features—a different form of betrothal or allotment of a wife to a man; an entirely different kind of sexual rights and privileges; and, what is perhaps the most important fact, an absolutely different aspect of the child question, connected with the fact that only a man and his wife form a real household, live in the same wurley, and share their food supply together and in common with their children. All these points constitute a real and radical difference between the individual marriage connected with the individual family, and the purely sexual connections involved in the Pirrauru relation in its usual form, i. e. when the husband is present in camp. It is only during the latter's absence or during diplomatic missions that the Pirrauru relation assumes at all the character of marriage: then both Pirraurus occupy the same camp, the woman provides food for her Pirrauru, etc. But these occasions are only temporary and exceptional ones, and we are, unfortunately, not informed, even with the smallest degree of approximation, how often they may on the average occur, whether they are very rarely realized exceptions, or whether they are facts that take place fairly often. At any rate, it is certain that these essential features of the Pirrauru relationship never take place simultaneously with the individual marriage. In other words, the individual marital relations are in force when the real husband is in camp and all rights (even the sexual ones) of the Pirraurus cease. So that although the Pirrauru relation, on exceptional and probably rarely recurring occasions, assumes a few more of the characteristics of marriage, it never becomes anything like actual marriage. And this is to be noted, too: the full actuality of Pirrauru relations may come into force only under the condition that the husband be absent. It is only by an incorrect and superficial exaggeration of the sexual side of marriage, that the custom in question has been baptized group marriage.[344] And still less acceptable is the assertion that this "group marriage" is "the only form of marriage in existence" among the South Central tribes.

We may remark about the sexual features of social life in Australia in general, that far from bearing any character of indiscriminate promiscuity on the whole, they are, on the contrary, subject to strict regulations, restrictions, and rules. Every form of licence must be subject to customary rules. The principle of class exogamy is maintained in the majority of cases: so the Pirrauru relation is subject to class rule, as is also wife-lending, wife-exchange, and the rare cases of licence among unmarried girls and widows. But the licence occurring during religious, totemic, and other ceremonies is, as we have seen above, not subject to the class rule. Even the most prohibited and tabooed degree—that between a man and his mother-in-law—is violated by custom.

This fact is also noteworthy for the criticism of theories which see both in class exogamy and in sexual licence survivals of former group marriage. At some ceremonies of a magical and religious character sexual licence occurs, in agreement with the principle that survivals are always connected with religious facts. But if class exogamy is also a survival of group marriage, why should this fall in abeyance on such occasions? For if these two principles were so deeply connected, why should one of them (class exogamy) be entirely neglected on the very occasion when the other (ceremonial licence) is most conspicuous? Is that not again one of the serious difficulties in the way of the hypothesis of a previous group marriage, a difficulty which at least must be accounted for, and which is always completely ignored by the authors concerned?

There is justification for saying that the notion of adultery and the reprobation thereof is well known to the aborigines, and that they punish and condemn unlawful unions of all kinds. As W. E. Roth says, "morality in a broad sense" is well known to the Australian aborigines. It could be even said that sexual morality does exist, only according to a special code, which is obviously different from ours, if we understand by "morality" the fact that there exists a series of determined norms and that these norms are followed.

Closely connected with this question is the more psychological problem of sexual jealousy. The existence of sexual jealousy, especially on the part of the males, has been often referred to by various authors in order to criticize the theories of primitive promiscuity and group marriage. On the other hand, it was pointed out that motives of jealousy are much less strong among some primitive peoples; and many instances have been adduced to prove this assumption. So e. g. about the Australians, Spencer and Gillen say: "Amongst the Australian natives with whom we have come in contact, the feeling of sexual jealousy is not developed to anything like the extent to which it would appear to be in many other savage tribes." ... "It is indeed a factor which need not be taken into serious account in regard to the question of sexual relations amongst the Central Australian tribes."[345]

It seems to be beyond any doubt that sexual jealousy, as we conceive it, is completely absent from the aboriginal mind. It has always been a serious defect in ethnological reasoning that such ideas and feelings as those connected with our meaning of "jealousy" have usually not been analyzed, nor the question asked whether they had any meaning and place in a given society, or whether we must assume other corresponding elements to give a new content to the word. Our sexual jealousy—the ideas as well as the feelings involved therein—is moulded by innumerable social factors; it is connected with the notion of honour; it is the result of ideals of pure love, individual sexual rights, sacredness of monogamy, etc. One of the strongest motives is the care for the certainty of physiological fatherhood: paternal affection is strongly enhanced by the idea of blood connection between a man and his offspring. All these factors are obviously either absent or deeply modified in the Australian aboriginal society. It is, therefore, quite wrong to use the word jealousy and ask if it is present among them, without trying to give to it its proper content.

In the first place, we may assume in this society, as in the whole of mankind and in the majority of higher animals, a physiological basis for jealousy in the form of an innate instinct;[346] a natural aversion of an individual towards an encroachment on his sexual rights and a natural tendency to expand these rights as far as possible—within certain variable limits. That among the Australian aborigines such instincts of jealousy are not absent, that they are, on the contrary, very strongly developed, is evident from nearly all the facts quoted and all general considerations. It is proved by the high esteem in which in some tribes chastity is held; by the fact that fidelity is required in all other tribes, and that it yields only to custom. The demand for fidelity in all tribes has been discussed above. There is a whole series of statements that emphatically affirm a very strong feeling of jealousy; and connected with it is the fact that the majority of fights and quarrels are about women (Curr, Dawson, Mrs. Parker, Schürmann, Wilhelmi, Wilkes, Turnbull, Phillipps, Tench, Spencer and Gillen). Now, that these instincts of jealousy do not assume the delicate and refined form they possess in our society, results merely from the difference in the corresponding collective ideas which influence and mould the elementary instinct.

With our few data available we can attempt only a sketch of the psychology of the feelings of jealousy among the aborigines. It may be observed that although the sentiment of sexual love might be postulated in all human hearts, it seems to be, to a certain extent, banished from the majority of the Australian matrimonial matches by the very way in which they were brought about.[347]

This must also to a great extent deprive jealousy of its violent character. On the other hand, social opinion, which in our society works through ideas of honour and ridicule, strengthening the feelings of jealousy and giving to them a certain outer prestige, even in cases when they may not be actually felt—in the Australian Aboriginal Society uses these factors with a directly contrary effect. As a matter of fact, in many cases, public opinion compels a man to give his wife away; it is considered an incident of hospitality, a virtue. In other cases it is an honourable duty, as e. g. in cases of wife offering during a ceremony in order to express gratitude. We read that in cases where a man begrudges his wife to a Pirrauru he is regarded as churlish. Obviously, these social factors act here to modify and moderate the feeling of sexual jealousy. We find no instance or statement which would point to a contrary influence of these factors in the Australian aboriginal society.[348] But, as pointed out above, the idea of individual sexual over-right and control over his wife is strongly present in the aboriginal mind. This right is undoubtedly realized as a privilege, and the natural tendency to keep his privileges for himself, or dispose of them according to his wish or interest, must create a strong opposition to any encroachment. In other words, the sexual act has its intrinsic value, and it is considered as an unquestionable advantage. And the right to this advantage constitutes a kind of private property. The feeling of jealousy exists here in its economic sense: the proprietor of a certain object begrudges the use of it to any one whom he does not invite to it, or who is not otherwise entitled to the privilege. And this seems to me one of the strongest probable sources of jealousy, besides the natural physiological impulse of aversion, mentioned above. I think it is corroborated by the facts enumerated, which show that the husband vigilantly watches over and keeps his over-right.

In regard to the motive of jealousy as connected with the question of progeny—the care to be sure of a man's own real paternity of his children, we may remark that this motive must be absent in many tribes, viz. in those tribes where the physiological rôle of the father in procreation is not known. We know with all certainty that this is the case in the Central and North Central tribes, as well as in the North-east part of the continent.[349] But it appears to be the case in the South Central tribes. It is stated that the Urabunna have quite analogous beliefs in reincarnation of ancestors, in their dwelling-places, and other totemic matters.[350] Spencer and Gillen do not say anything definite about the appreciation or want of knowledge of physiological paternity, but that is perhaps because they were less well acquainted with the Urabunna, who were also probably in a more advanced stage of decay. By analogy it may be inferred that the Urabunna, like all the other neighbouring tribes, had with the whole apparatus of analogous beliefs, also the lack of the knowledge in question. We might infer the same about the Dieri and kindred tribes, who seem to be almost identical in all respects with the Urabunna, but of whose religious and totemic ideas we are by no means so well informed as of their social organization; in fact, for these psychological data it is undoubtedly to Spencer and Gillen that we owe the major part of our knowledge about Australia.

Certainly the ignorance of physiological fatherhood in the South Central tribes is of a hypothetical character. But provided it is a fact, we see that the area occupied by tribes which believe in the supernatural begetting of children extends over the whole Central and North-east area. There is no evidence on this point in the case of the Western tribes. We find only in the South-eastern tribes a knowledge of the real process of procreation. It is interesting to note that thus the area of greater sexual promiscuity and less pronounced jealousy is conterminous with the area where natural paternity is unknown. Whether there be any real dependence between these two series of facts it is impossible to assert, as our knowledge of the natives' psychology is too scanty. But if our information on this point be reliable, and if these limits be correct, then the coincidence just noted is rather suggestive.

To return to the question of jealousy, we have, after having stated the general problems, discussed the influence exercised on it by social pressure or custom and other psychical factors. Finally we have shown that the sexual act is not in all tribes conceived as leading to childbirth, and that this bears upon the problem of jealousy. But it must be remembered that they have ideas of the sexual act which are entirely foreign to us, and which may account also for some differences in their views of, and feelings about, jealousy. Here come in ideas of the magic influences and virtues attributed to the sexual act. In Australia there are unmistakable signs of it.

The ceremonial act of defloration, in connection with the initiation of females, is undoubtedly connected with some mystic ideas of its magical character. This is shown especially clearly in the fact that this ceremonial act is employed for medicinal or hygienic purposes, as stated in Roth and in Beveridge.[351] We saw that the only instance of the exchange of wives in the Kurnai tribe was when it was ordered by the old men, to avert impending evil. The same is reported by Cameron of some of the Darling River tribes. This shows clearly how feelings of jealousy, which seem to have been fairly strong in this tribe, may be subservient to a belief in the magical, beneficial influence of sexual intercourse, performed in a certain prescribed way. The many instances in which sexual intercourse, usually not between husband and wife, takes place during certain religious ceremonies, as well as the fact of sexual abstinence, which is often to be observed on such occasions, shows that it has its magical side. From this conception of the sexual act as endowed with some magic properties, there would result differences in the ideas and feelings connected with jealousy. On the one hand, such magic properties would require in some cases the waiving of individual sexual rights, as we saw in some of the instances just mentioned. And in these cases the instincts of jealousy would be suppressed by the more powerful feelings inspired by supernatural apprehensions. On the other hand, it is possible—although there are no examples of it—that the very magical aspect of the sexual act would make it especially subject to jealous watchfulness and exclusiveness. Apart from any speculations, it appears certain that all these different ideas and conceptions are in intimate interdependence, and that we can only safely speak about jealousy (or any other such compounded psychical complex) in a given society, when we know all such connections.[352]

To sum up our results in this survey of jealousy in the Australian aboriginal society. Negatively: A priori it may be said that nothing like sexual jealousy in our sense of this word—save the broad and uncertain physiological instinct—can exist. As a matter of fact, a whole series of customs, duties, and tribal regulations absolutely contradict the existence of jealousy in our sense. Positively: The existence of strong instincts of jealousy in many cases must be acknowledged. To understand the more definite forms which these instincts assume, it is necessary to note the presence or absence of motives which would influence, check, or develop these instincts. The unquestionable physiological instinct of jealousy and the natural tendency to keep up one's private exclusive rights, are two sources from which jealousy seems to be derived. It is deeply influenced by the ideas on the magical character of the sexual act which the Australian aborigines undoubtedly possess; and in the majority of tribes by the absence of the knowledge of physical paternity. The tribal customs show that it does not amount to the idea of exclusive inviolable personal rights which essentially characterize our conception and feelings of jealousy. But within its narrower limits it seems to be very strong and important.

CHAPTER V
MODE OF LIVING

I

The three points hitherto discussed refer more exclusively to the relationship between husband and wife, and do not involve that between parents and children. They bear more on marriage than on the family. But, as so often repeated, the full description of marriage can be made only in connection with, and on the basis of, a knowledge of the family life in its larger sense. We proceed now to this more general discussion, and in order to carry it out on broad foundations it will be well in the first place to consider the family unit[353] in connection with the territorial and tribal organization; that is to consider the mode of living of the family in connection with the higher territorial and tribal units. It has been repeatedly said that each social unit should be discussed in connection with the general structure of society and the general conditions of life in a given area. When theoretically stated this appears a commonplace; in practice it is seldom carried out by ethnologists.

That the facts of aggregation are of the highest importance in sociology appears also to be quite clear.[354] These facts have been described by Mr. Wheeler for the Australian aboriginal society, and we shall in several places refer to his work. It will serve us as a basis in the following discussion, which nevertheless does not appear superfluous as it is connected more exclusively with the problem of family. In this connection the main question to be asked is: Do the natives usually live scattered, in single families, or in larger groups? All the features of family life—the husband's authority, the sexual marital relation, the economics of the household, the relation of children to parents—would appear in a different light, and our ideas thereon might in many respects be modified according to the answer we obtained to the above question. This point (i. e. the mode of living) would also be decisive in the problem of group relationship: if the natives live normally in single families, which assemble only occasionally, then the individuality of the family relationship is placed beyond any doubt. And if there are, besides, any group relations, they must radically and absolutely differ from the individual one; for the latter, and it only, is constituted by the most powerfully binding element—continuous daily contact. If, however, the aborigines live in more or less numerous groups, our question is still open, and we have to inquire: Do the families, which (permanently or temporarily) form one body, live in a state of social communism and promiscuity? Or are they more or less isolated from each other? That will form the second part of our task.[355]

Let us now gather information about the first point, i. e. the size of the groups in which the natives live. Our statements are at first sight contradictory on this point; but this is largely due to the total lack of fixed terminology. It will be well to settle the latter beforehand and determine more exactly what we are to look for in the statements. For that purpose we must forestall the results of our research and broadly outline the state of things; it will give us a guiding thread through the statements. Roughly speaking, in Australia the tribe as a social unit is characterized by name, common speech, custom and territory.[356] It is divided (and sometimes subdivided again) into smaller groups; these consist of individuals closely related, possess a sort of government, and are connected with a portion of the tribal territory which they practically use in common.[357] For the social division of the tribes is connected with and complicated by a parallel territorial partition. And there is always a certain territory allotted to the exclusive possession of a certain group. The tribe (as defined above) cannot be considered as proprietor[358] of the territory, for its different divisions may not encroach upon each other's grounds. We shall call (by way of definition) a Local Group, such a division of the tribe as possesses the exclusive right to use a given territory and to dwell within its limits. In the following statements we will give a series of examples of these local units, and the different forms they assume in different tribes. It will be possible, too, to give a more precise meaning to the word "proprietorship"; and to see in what sense land may be possessed or claimed by the Australian blacks. The authors seldom try to give to these terms any clear meaning, or to discern all the existing differences; but these will be evident enough from the facts contained in the statements. The problem of territorial division is only the basis for our main question, viz. the mode of living. The Local Group, which is the joint owner of its territory, is, so to say, only the upper limit of aggregation; i. e. the body of persons actually and normally living together cannot be larger than that group, for only its members are (in normal conditions) admitted to its grounds. But this Local Group may also live scattered over its district. There will be several data in our information which would rather confirm us in this supposition.

Now let us review the statements, bearing in mind the exact meaning given to the words Tribe, Local Group and Family. We have agreed to call Local Group a unit owning in common a portion of country, and we are asking how big this unit is in different tribes; if it lives scattered or in a body; finally, what idea can we form of "land ownership" in Australia.

Statements.—The Kurnai were divided into five exogamous "clans."[359] These were divided and subdivided several times, "each subdivision having its own tract of hunting and food ground, until the unit was a small group of kindred, frequently an old man, his sons, married or unmarried, with their respective wives and children." The author gives an instance of a family claiming a certain island and the swans' eggs laid on it, as its property,[360] and living under the authority of the oldest male in the family. "Taking such a family[361] as the tribal unit of the Kurnai, it was the aggregation of such families that formed what may be called a division, inhabiting a large area, and the aggregate of the divisions formed the clan."[362] This, and the expression family as "tribal unit," shows that probably its members lived actually together. It is a pity that Howitt does not give even approximately the numbers. Again, in another place, he writes of a "natural spread of families over a tract of country," and of "elders as heads of families."[363] These "families" unite in cases of mutual need for aid and protection[364] and in cases of corroborees, initiations, etc.[365]—Here the local group was a small unit of related persons. It claimed a certain territory and exclusively used its products, and vested authority in its oldest male. These local groups usually must have lived isolated from each other, because of the exclusive right in using the given area. Howitt mentions also the beginnings of individual claims to some products (swan's eggs) being even transmitted by inheritance.[366]

The statements of Howitt concerning the Murring tribes are not quite clear. "Claims to a particular tract of country arose in certain of these tribes by birth."[367] He does not say if these claims consisted in actual right to live, roam and hunt over the said tract of country. It is probable, however, that just this is the meaning, as he speaks immediately afterwards of an hereditary principle as to the grounds determining the habitation where one lives—a father pointing out the bounds of his child's country—"where his father lived, or himself was born and had lived."[368] If we can assume that each "family" (= local group) had its hunting-grounds so designated this would point to a far-going subdivision of country and consequently of the tribe; we can hardly infer anything conclusive from this statement alone. But it appears clearer in the light of the following remark: "The local group has in all cases been perpetuated in the same place from father to son by occupation, I may almost say by inheritance, of the hunting-grounds."[369] It seems, therefore, that generally in the tribes studied by Howitt, the local group (he calls it the "family," speaking of the Kurnai) was a very well-defined unit. And that, in the tribes in question the people who inherit a certain territory from father to son are just members of the local group. Its rights to the hunting-grounds were based on some—perhaps magic or religious—ideas of heredity.

An analogous state of things is reported to have obtained among the Wurunjerri (Victoria): "The right to hunt and to procure food in any particular tract of the country belonged to the group of people born there, and could not be infringed by others without permission."[370] In the territory of the same tribe there was a stone-quarry, the material of which was very valuable to the natives. The quarry was the property of a group of people living on the spot; the head of this group had special rights in connection with it. "It was Billi-billeri, the head of the family, whose country included the quarry, who lived on it, and took care of it for the whole of the Wurunjerri community."[371] This statement appears to me very important, as it shows how rights of possession might belong to a local group and centre in the headman of this group. This statement suffices to reconcile the apparent contradiction between individual claims to a country and group claims.

The local groups amongst the Bangerang, who lived at the junction of the Murray and Goulburn Rivers, seem to have been more numerous, owing, perhaps, to the easiness of food supply on the banks of two fishy rivers.[372] The tribe was divided in two exogamous moieties,[373] and the land "was parcelled out between these two sub-tribes."[374] Each respectively lived in a body, although moving sometimes from place to place. Curr speaks of their head-quarters in places abounding with fish.[375] One of the sections numbered about 150, the other somewhat less. These two "sub-tribes" or moieties constituted, therefore, rather numerous local groups. The "sub-tribes" of the kindred tribes mentioned by Curr seem also to have been numerous,[376] and to have lived each in a body,[377] so that they would be, according to our terminology, numerous local groups. Curr speaks also of individual property in land, but this seems to have had only a purely fictitious meaning, having nothing to do with any real right.[378] Private property in other things (e. g. fishing weirs, etc.) was known.[379]

Curr uses the term tribe in place of our local group. In his general work on Australia he gives a definition of tribe which quite agrees with what we called local group.[380] "By the word tribe I mean a number of men closely allied by blood, and living in the strictest alliance, offensive and defensive, who, with their wives and children, occupy, practically in common, and in exclusion of others, a tract of country...." Everybody must respect the customs of his tribe; and as no one may live apart from the tribal community, "there is no alternative between compliance with tribal custom and death."[381] "Although the lands of a tribe are nominally parcelled out amongst its members, it is the fact that they are used in common, and for several reasons must have always been used so." First, because for mutual protection the tribesmen must have often associated. Secondly, because of the economic conditions the tribe often was compelled to feed on a given spot.[382]

Angas, describing his travels in the Murray River district, tells that he met several times with native encampments; from the passage in question[383] we may infer that they were small groups. He says[384] that on the seaside (Encounter Bay), on the lakes, and on the Murray banks, where means of subsistence were fairly easy, the local groups were numerous. But this information is very loose.

Amongst the tribes of the Lower Murray River "particular districts having a radius of from ten to twenty miles, or in other cases varying according to local circumstances, are considered generally as being the property and hunting-grounds of the tribes who frequent them."[385] Eyre speaks of a further division of land amongst single individuals; it is handed down hereditarily in the male line. "A man can dispose of or barter his land to others."[386] At any rate, all members of a "tribe" (= local group) may roam over the common territory. It seems, nevertheless, to be rather a formal than actual, exclusive right.[387] The local groups may not trespass on their respective territories without permission.[388] The whole local group congregates only "if there is any particular variety more abundant than another, or procurable only in certain localities. Should this not be the case, then they are probably scattered over their district in detached groups, or separate families."[389] Here we are well informed on our principal points: the local group is the exclusive joint landowner; the individual has some claims which are not quite clearly defined, but surely do not mean exclusive economic usum fructum. They live scattered in small parties over their area. There is another passage in Eyre's book that confirms this latter point. He says that each family is independent and governed by the father; but that, "as a matter of policy, he always informs his fellows where he is going." So that "although a tribe may be dispersed all over their own district in single groups ... yet if you meet with any one family, they can at once tell you where you will find any other.... In cases of sudden danger or emergency, the scattered groups are rapidly warned or collected" by messenger or smoke signals.[390]

Mitchell's expedition, when exploring the interior of South-East Australia, met a party of blacks on the banks of the Murray, whom they had seen before on the Darling a few hundred miles distant.[391] This would apparently contradict the assumption of fixed boundaries. But the general evidence shows that, in exceptional cases, and with the leave of the neighbouring tribes—especially if these were friendly—a local group or any party of natives were allowed to travel even considerable distances for purposes of warfare, barter or ceremonial gatherings.

Amongst the Aborigines of Encounter Bay and Lower Murray River (the Narrinyeri) the local groups (H. E. A. Meyer calls them "tribes,"[392] or "large families" of connected people) seem to be numerous (the country abounds with fish and birds). These local groups have their head-quarters, from which their name is derived. But only in cases of great abundance of food does the local group live and move together. Usually single families roam in parties; the sick and aged remain in the head-quarters, and suffer often from want of food. Not only in search of food, but for the sake of performing corroborees, initiations, etc., and visiting each other, do these local groups roam about the country.[393]

From a passage in Taplin[394] we may infer that the local group of the Narrinyeri near Lake Alexandrina numbered about 200 natives.[395] The local groups of this tribe were, besides, exogamous, totemic, and had a regular form of government. We have not even a hint as to their mode of living; but if plentiful food supply was the chief condition of larger aggregations, then these latter would naturally have developed better in the lake country.

Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula there are local divisions; each with a certain totem and with headmen.[396] This seems analogous to the conditions among the Narrinyeri and Central tribes; but the information is not detailed enough to be considered quite reliable.

The Port Lincoln tribes seem to roam about in small parties of several families.[397] This statement is not sufficiently clear; probably a number of such parties constituted a local group.

We read, again, about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Each family has its distinct place, where they live together."[398] The uncertainty as to the sense in which the word family is used here makes this statement nearly useless. The same author says in another place: "It has been remarked that the population and general condition of the natives of Australia greatly depend on the nature of the locality they occupy; where the country is sterile and unproductive the natives are found to congregate in small numbers. In fertile districts they are comparatively numerous."[399] This opinion is in agreement with the fact that the population round Lake Alexandrina, where food supply was plentiful, was extremely dense.[400]

An author who has made his observations on the blacks of the Murrumbidgee River (New South Wales) and Moreton Bay (Queensland) writes: Each "tribe" (= local group) occupies a definite tract of country; a trespass of its boundaries by a stranger is punished with death.[401] This common district is subdivided among families of the local group. "During seasons when all the members of the tribe are not congregated together, each family hunts on its own grounds." The author quotes, also, instances where trees were marked and belonged to individuals.[402] This statement answers both our questions as to land ownership and modes of living; in both respects the "family" is the unit: it owns its area and it lives on and uses it normally in isolation from the others; proprietorship means here exclusive use. But we must bear in mind that what is called here family may as well be a small local group of closely related people, like those among the Kurnai. At any rate it certainly means that the blacks live in very small groups, perhaps in individual families, and that this scattered mode of living rests on a territorial basis. (In general the authority of G. S. Lang cannot be said to be of the best.)

We read in the travels of Gerstaecker that natives carefully keep to the boundaries of their own district. So that a traveller, to be quite safe, should always change his guide when entering upon a new territory.[403]

We read about the tribes of New South Wales in general: "Though they are constantly wandering about, yet they usually confine themselves to a radius of fifty or sixty miles from the place they consider their residence. If they venture beyond this, which they sometimes do with a party of whites, they always betray the greatest fear of falling in with some Myall or stranger blacks, who they say would put them to death immediately."[404] We find here again the local group owning its territory and having head-quarters; as well as the sacrosanctity of boundaries.

Turnbull remarks about the New South Wales tribes that the best food supply, and consequently the largest gatherings, were possible on the sea-shore and on the banks of fishy rivers.[405]

An example of family proprietorship in land is mentioned by Collins.[406] From it, it appears that this sort of proprietorship meant rather some mystic claim than any exclusive right of economic character.

We are informed that among the natives of New South Wales there is a great number of small tribes, each containing from forty to fifty individuals. "Each tribe has a certain beat, or hunting-ground, frequently of not more than twenty miles in diameter, from which they never move, unless on certain occasions when they visit the territory of a neighbouring tribe for the purpose of a fight, or a ceremony. Sometimes, the tribe will wander about in parties of five or ten; at other times all the members will encamp together."[407] In substituting the word local group for tribe, we get here again a fairly good statement.

In the statements of Fraser we find again the local group; he calls it "sub-tribe." It derives its name from a certain locality, owns a tract of country, which is guarded jealously against any infringement from any of the neighbouring sub-tribes.[408] This statement is illustrated by an example, and therefore appears rather trustworthy.[409]

"Each tribe is divided into independent families, which acknowledge no chief, and which inhabit in common a district within certain limits, generally not exceeding above ten or twelve miles on any side." The tribes number from 100 to 300.[410] "The families belonging to a tribe meet together upon occasions of festivals at certain seasons, and also to consult upon all important occasions."[411] The first phrase is not clear: we are not told whether what he calls the tribe owns its area in common, or whether the divisions called "independent families" possess each its own district. From the context, however, we see that we must assume the latter. Three hundred people occupy in Australia usually more than a hundred square miles.

Hodgkinson, speaking of the tribes between Port Macquarie and Moreton Bay, says that the tribes (local groups) keep each within very narrow limits. The district of each of them measures about 150 square miles; usually some ten to twelve miles of a river bank and the adjoining hinterland. "The whole body of a tribe is never united on the same spot, unless on some important occasion. They are more generally divided into small parties of eight or ten men, with their women and children, for the greater convenience of hunting, etc., and these detached companies roam over any part of the country within the prescribed limits of the main tribe to which they belong."[412] This statement agrees with the general type of information.

Of the Coombangree tribe, New South Wales, it is said: "Each tribe kept its own belt of country and separated into small camps, and only collected on special occasions."[413] In this statement the words "local group" should be substituted for "tribe."

The Dieri, divided into five local hordes, are still subdivided into smaller "local groups, each having a definite tract of hunting and food ground."[414] These local groups cannot be very numerous. The whole tribe numbers about 250. There are at least ten local groups, since they include about twenty persons each. But we do not know whether such a local group lived in a body or scattered over its territory.[415]

We owe one of our best statements as to the nature of the local group to Spencer and Gillen. Its totemic character, its organization with the alatunja at its head, the different functions of magico-religious character and many other social functions and characteristics define it perfectly well.[416] The territorial division seems to be much the same in all the tribes studied by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. "In all the tribes there is a division into local groups, which occupy certain well-defined areas within the tribal territory."[417] The possession of land is vested in them. "There is no such thing as one man being regarded as the owner of any tract of country. In every case the unit of division is the local totemic group."[418] This statement is quite clear. The local group owns a certain area, and all the individuals have the right to hunt and roam over it. They do not do it in one body, they live scattered in much smaller parties of one or two families. "The members of this (local group) wander, perhaps in small parties of one or two families, often, for example, two or more brothers with their wives and children, over the land which they own, camping at favourite spots, where the presence of water-holes, with their accompaniment of vegetable and animal food, enables them to supply their wants."[419] Here the picture is perfectly clear: the territorial unit is the local group; within its grounds all members have the right to hunt and roam; no other people may trespass over the boundaries. Such trespasses do not in reality frequently happen.[420] The area is not only economically the property of the local group, there are much stronger ties between the land, once the hunting and ceremonial ground of the Alcheringa ancestors, and their actual descendants.[421] But the local group does not form one body; division into single families seems to be, under ordinary circumstances, the normal status. We get here a good insight into the inner structure of a local group, the chief feature of which is the isolation of families. The local group acts as a body chiefly on ceremonial occasions. To sum up: the local group is the joint land-owner; proprietorship means exclusive rights to hunt and roam over the country; but in the native's mind it has much deeper roots, and the connection between the local group and its hunting-grounds is based upon all their traditions and creeds. Their mode of living is scattered; they hang usually round favourite spots (see below).

Speaking of the totemic myths of the Northern tribes Mr. Mathews says: "In those olden days, as at present, the totemic ancestors consisted of families or groups of families, who had their recognized grounds in some part of the tribal territory."[422]

Among the natives of Queensland[423] the territory is parcelled out completely amongst the different local groups; the boundaries are well known and mutually respected. This district is again subdivided amongst the members of the local group; the proprietor "has the exclusive right to direct when it should be hunted over, and the grass burned and the wild animals destroyed." If other men aggregate and use the products of his land he is regarded as the master of ceremonies. This statement gives us at least a clear and consistent definition of private proprietorship, which seems to be of a formal, ceremonial character. But it is not complete. We do not know if normally each family enjoys its district alone, with the head of the family always master of ceremonies, or whether the whole local group, or parts of it, hunt and roam usually in bodies. This statement is, therefore, not very useful.

We read about the Kabi and Wakka tribes of Queensland: "A few families claiming the same territory usually camped and travelled together, sometimes in smaller, sometimes in larger numbers. I characterize such family groups as communities."[424] And again: "Such communities were constituted by a few families occupying the same small area in common."[425] This is a clear definition of what we called local group, and agrees perfectly well with the general picture already outlined.

E. Palmer says that the game and other products of a certain country belonged to the tribe (= local group) there residing; the boundaries were respected and trespassers punished by death.[426]

In North-West Central Queensland the "tribe" (our local group) has its head-quarters.[427] This group has also an over-right over its territory, "over which the community as a whole has the right to hunt and roam."[428] There is still a further subdivision; each family possesses hunting-grounds of its own, and no other has the right to any product thereof without the family's permission. In the case of tribesmen, transgression is a trifle; in that of strangers, a very serious offence.[429] The statements of Roth do not, however, say anything about their mode of living. The mention of "head-quarters" points to a subdivision of land amongst families and to a scattered mode of living. In all probability we may assume here the following form: the local group as joint owner of its land; and single families having special rights to certain parts of it, and camping as a rule separately or in small groups, and aggregating in cases of emergency at the head-quarters. This is the only statement which attributes to families and individuals respectively a virtually exclusive right over a certain ground. We read in another place of the mode or rather the principle according to which individual proprietorship is determined in the North Queensland tribes: "The child's own country, its 'home' where it will in the future have the right to hunt and roam, is determined not by the place of actual birth, but by the locality where his choi had been held apart." Choi is the spirit part of the child's father, embodied in the father's afterbirth. The place of this choi is carefully determined after the child's birth, according to a customary ceremonial.[430] The extent of a local group is determined in the following statement: "there were from twelve to twenty heads of families constituting the group, each with its particular division, who together made the tribe."[431] Here again the land seems to be allotted to the local group, though, according to the foregoing passages, there was a further subdivision according to families.

As an instance showing that there were sometimes territorial changes and shifting of tribes may be quoted the statement of G. W. Earl, who says that a big tribe came from the interior and established itself at the base of Coburg Peninsula.[432] How far this statement is reliable it is difficult to say. Anyhow it is in opposition to the numerous and reliable statements which affirm that tribal boundaries were strictly kept and never changed.

The natives of Melville Island seem to have lived in more numerous groups. Major Campbell says that their "tribes" number from thirty to fifty persons each. On visiting an encampment he found about thirty wigwams, which would point to about fifty persons at least. "They lead a wandering life, though I think each tribe confines itself to a limited district."[433]

A clear statement concerning the scattered mode of life is given of the North-Western aborigines by J. G. Withnell, who lived amongst them for twenty years. "The natives generally live in families at various intervals of a few miles down the course of each river and its creeks."[434] "In fact they are small families constantly moving camp a few miles in any direction they please."[435] In another place we read: "The natives are divided into many tribes, having their boundaries defined." These tribes are obviously our local group. The members thereof live scattered in small parties, called by Withnell "families." Very interesting is Withnell's information concerning totemic local centres quite analogous[436] to those described by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. It is important in our present discussion because it throws light upon the problem of the connection between an individual or a family and a certain tract of country. From Withnell's information[437] it results that among the North-Western tribes there were also totemic centres, allotted each to a "family" (local group or part thereof?) at which ceremonies for the multiplication of the totem were performed. The claim to such centres is hereditary.

We read in Grey about the tribes of West Australia. "They appear to live in tribes (= local groups), subject, perhaps, to some individual authority; and each tribe has a sort of capital, or head-quarters, where the women and children remain whilst the men, divided into small parties, hunt and shoot in different directions. The largest number we saw together amounted nearly to 200, women and children included."[438] This directly asserts that the local group lived in one body; for of course the men were bound to return always to the head-quarters. Now if we had to assume that the local group numbered about 200 individuals we could hardly allow the possibility of obtaining food. Especially as in another place Grey says: "Landed property does not belong to a tribe, or to several families, but to a single male; and the limits of his property are so accurately defined that every native knows those of his own land, and can point out the various objects which mark his boundaries." This land is divided by the father amongst his several sons. But Grey does not define what proprietorship means. These two statements are quite inconsistent with each other; if every man of a big local group had to go to hunt on his own grounds (and we know that the food area for an Australian family is not small) they would have to spend their life in making journeys between their hunting-grounds and head-quarters. We must either suppose that Grey's tribes were quite small local groups which lived each on its own territory, and that when he speaks of from 100 to 200 persons assembled he refers only to exceptional meetings, or that the individual ownership of land had no real economic meaning, and that the natives actually lived in these tribes in more numerous bodies (perhaps the coastal tribes at least). This statement is, therefore, not very useful.

Bishop Salvado asserts a subdivision of land among single families (although he calls "family" a small party of related natives, see [p. 257]) acquired by right of birth.[439] Neighbouring families, small local groups, may enjoy their land in common.[440] Such small parties are quite independent, and governed by the oldest male.[441] They lead, as we may infer from that, normally a solitary, isolated existence. This statement of Bishop Salvado is also in agreement with the generality of our evidence. His "family" is evidently a small local group. (It reminds us of a similar unit amongst the Kurnai, also interrelated, owning a portion of land, governed by the oldest male). He says such small groups have been often incorrectly called tribes by other authors.

Mrs. Bates says the South-West Australians were divided into tribes or families; "these tribes appear to have been aggregated into geographical groups ... each occupied a definite tract of country."[442] But in another place she says that "each (family) occupied a definite tract of country" with well-marked boundaries.[443] This statement is marred by the lack of precision in using words like tribes, families, etc. The only thing that can be made out of it is that there was some local unit owning a definite tract of country. The right of ownership is defined by the right of hunting. A man is allowed to hunt merely his own district. But he has access to his wife's district too.[444]

In King George Sound each "tribe" (= local group) owns a certain district; this is further subdivided among individual families; each of these portions being hereditary in a certain family, which is proud of the extensiveness of its grounds. But all the members of the local group may roam and hunt over the whole territory. "Under normal conditions and in its own district the tribe (= local group) is divided into small parties or families; each party forming a camp of six or eight wurleys."[445] Only on special and important occasions does the local group aggregate. Strangers are not admitted to the territory. We see here, again, the actual proprietor of the land is the local group; families have some merely formal (or magical) claim to portions of it. The local group roams in parties, which are nevertheless not so very small. In from six to eight huts there may live from three to four families (we must count besides the married couples also the old people and grown-up children).

Scott-Nind says about the natives of King George Sound, "An encampment rarely consists of more than seven or eight huts; for, except the fishing and burning seasons, at which times large parties assemble together, their numbers are generally small, and two or three huts suffice. The number of individuals, however, seldom exceeds fifty."[446] "These encampments generally consist of near relatives, and deserve the name of families rather than of tribes."[447] Natives who live together have the exclusive right of fishing or hunting upon the neighbouring grounds, which are, in fact, divided into individual properties; the quantity of land owned by each individual being very considerable. Yet it is not exclusively his, but others of his family have certain rights over it; so that it may be considered as partly belonging to the tribe. The individual owner must be present on his grounds when the members of his group fire the country for game.[448] We have here again the local group as real and exclusive land-owner, the individual having only mere formal rights over the land. Scott-Nind describes with details how in connection with and dependence on plentiful food supply, the natives gather in larger numbers at appropriate seasons.[449] He says in several places that the parties in which the natives live and roam about number only a few individuals.

Out of the thirty-nine statements collected, thirty-one describe a certain group or family as owning a definite tract of country in common; this group is, by definition, what we called above the local group. But there are some complications as to its rights of possession over the given area. On the one hand there is some kind of "over-right" of the tribe over the district inhabited by all the local groups of which it is composed.[450] On the other hand there is a further complication arising from the alleged individual claims to landed property. As to the tribal over-right, it presents itself chiefly in the fact that, first, tribesmen (members of related and friendly local groups) are often invited and allowed on the territory of the local group; secondly, in cases of trespass, while strangers are punished severely (often by death), tribesmen are only considered slightly culpable. The tribe may probably sometimes congregate as a whole on a part of its grounds with the consent of the local group concerned. We must imagine the local groups of the same tribe as living in amicable relations and voluntarily exercising hospitality towards each other, especially in cases when food is plentiful on their territory.[451] But as a general rule the whole tribe neither uses its whole district, nor has a local group, forming a division of the tribe, the right to use any but its own territory without asking permission. The tribal over-right seems therefore of little importance.

The rights of a local group over its territory are, on the other hand, the most important form of ownership, and the only one which possesses economic features. These rights mean that all members of a local group may roam over its territory and use all the products, hunt and collect food and useful objects. In the case of the Central and North Central tribes we are expressly told that no individual or family claims may interfere with the rights that every member of the local group has to the whole local area. In twenty-one of our thirty-one statements referring to the right of the local group, we are not told of any family or individual proprietorship. In the remaining eight cases single families or male individuals seem to have some vague claims to special tracts of country. In three cases the information is ambiguous on this point. In the case of the Bangerang, Moreton Bay tribes (J. D. Lang), King George's Sound natives (Nind and Browne), this right is either of a merely mystic, intangible character,[452] or it is a formal right which gives to the individual the priority in decisions as to hunting, burning of grass, etc., and makes him "master of ceremony" in cases of an assembly on the given spot. In two instances this individual "land ownership" is stated to assume a more economic aspect (G. S. Lang and W. E. Roth). There are, besides, two statements on family "ownership" which do not mention the local group. According to one of them (Collins) individual claims to land have a mystic, fictional character; according to Grey's statement, individual property in land was the only positive one; but this latter statement is inconsistent and does not define the sense of the word "property,"[453] and is therefore of little weight. So on the whole we have three statements asserting that landed property of an economic character was vested in individuals or in single families respectively. On closer examination, one of them appears to be quite ambiguous (G. S. Lang), and another one inconsistent with its context (Grey). Roth's statement seems to be an exception. He says: "For one family or individual to obtain, without permission, vegetable, fowl or meat upon the land belonging to another family" constitutes a trespass; but then he adds that owing to their great hospitality each family readily invites its neighbours and friends to partake of the products of its land. Roth's statement, although an exception, deserves to be noted, owing to its explicitness and to the reliability of the author. It is only regrettable he does not inform us concerning one point more, whether these families or individuals respectively resided usually on their territories and used them exclusively, or whether they usually aggregated and lived on each other's domains, every one being only the host on his own territory. It is only in the first case that individual proprietorship would have an actual importance; accepting the second hypothesis, we revert to the case where the local group (a number of aggregated families) possesses the actual right of use of the land, the individuals being only formal landlords of their parcels. If we accept, on the other hand, the view that single families were in a purely economic and legal sense owner of their own tract of land, i. e. that they enjoyed the usum fructum of the latter for themselves, and that exclusively,[454] then we must also believe that the families lived scattered, and assembled only in exceptional cases. This consequence is important. But we see easily that although it is inevitable, supposing actual land ownership in single families, still the latter state of thing is not a necessary condition of it. Even when land is invested in the group, single families may live scattered (compare below). Claims to land by individuals and families in the Northwestern Central Queensland tribes were also based on ideas of a magico-religious character, being probably a mere magical connection of an individual or family with a portion of the country. (Compare the statement from North Queensland Ethnography.)

Summing up, there are three different kinds of "proprietorship" in the aboriginal society; or more correctly three kinds of claims to, and connections with, a certain territory. First, actual rights of roaming, hunting, fishing and digging; these rights belong usually to the local group (exceptionally, perhaps, to single families or individuals). Secondly, the customary right of local groups forming a tribe, mutually to use their hunting-ground; these forms of proprietorship have been designated "tribal over-right."[455] Third, the immaterial claim of individuals or families to a portion of the local district; this special right seems to be rather exceptional, and it appears problematic whether it has any economic character. In the light of this distinction it can easily be understood how the actual right of the local group was modified in two directions. The tribesman was tolerated on or invited to the ground, whereas the non-tribesman was killed. On the other hand, individuals or single families had possibly some claims of an unimportant character to particular spots. In general, we find it expressed in nearly all the statements more or less explicitly that the natives had a very clear idea of the rights of the local group to its territory, and that the boundaries of it were respected without exception.[456]

We pointed out that the rights of individuals to a certain tract of country had in general some vague magical character, and that they were probably always derived from some mystical relation of the individual to his birthplace or to another special spot. Now it may be added that there are hints pointing to the fact that possession of land in its real form, i. e. as invested in the local group, was probably based to a considerable degree on ideas of religious or magical kind. The information is unambiguous and detailed on this point as regards the Central and North-Central tribes. We know of a whole series of ideas of totemic character that bind a group of men to a given locality. How far this was valid in the other parts of the continent it is difficult to decide on the basis of the information available. But putting side by side the facts we know about the extremely large area investigated by Spencer and Gillen, with what we know of mystic individual rights in other tribes, we are justified in supposing that everywhere the rights of the local group (the only ones that present a real economic character) were the sum or resultant of such individual rights of magical or religious character, or that the group as a whole was attached by such ties to its area.[457]

Now to pass on to the main problem: to the mode of living. From the previous discussion we may infer that when the local groups are very small in themselves, then ipso facto the natives live scattered in very small groups (Kurnai, probably Murring, Dieri, New South Wales tribes according to Rob. Dawson, and tribes described by Salvado).

The same applies to the cases where we are told that the families own exclusively a certain area (Roth, G. S. Lang, Grey). But these cases were found to be not quite beyond question. In some instances when the local group is a larger unit, and there is no subdivision of land amongst families, several statements mention that the natives lived scattered in small groups, varying from two to four families perhaps. (Murray tribes according to Eyre; the Central and North-Central tribes according to Spencer and Gillen; the Moreton Bay tribes according to J. D. Lang; New South Wales tribes according to McDougall, Henderson and Hodgkinson; the Kabi and Wakka, West Australians according to Withnell, Browne, Scott-Nind.)

In some cases there are reasons for supposing that the local group was larger (Bangerang, Western Victoria, at Encounter Bay, on the lakes; perhaps on the sea-shores in West Australia according to Grey). The remainder of our information (fifteen statements) does not give any clear answer to this question. From these approximately exact data we come to the conclusion that the majority of tribes lived in small groups of two or three families of six to nine individuals each, and only in a few tribes were there larger bodies living in actual daily contact.

To get a more reliable answer on this point it is better to drop the less clear evidence and to take into consideration only such as is better and more reliable. If only the fully reliable and unambiguous statements be used, there are twelve affirming that aborigines live in small parties, which in some cases shrink to one family only (Howitt on the Kurnai; Eyre; R. Dawson; G. S. Lang; McDougall; Spencer and Gillen in the Central and North-Central tribes; Henderson; Hodgkinson; Rev. Matthew on the Kabi and Wakka; Withnell; Salvado). It should be noted that (1) some of these authorities are our best informants (Howitt Spencer and Gillen, Salvado); (2) that the area covered by these peoples is very extensive, and that the tribes in question are scattered over the whole continent. The statements which assert the mode of living in larger bodies are much less reliable. But it appears undoubted that the statements of Curr and Dawson, perhaps also those of Meyer, Schurman and Taplin (confirmed by Angas), are of quite unquestionable reliability. It is therefore clear that there were local differences in that respect. And such a geographical difference in the mode of living appears quite plausible, from general considerations. The reasons which must have determined the degree of aggregation in the Australian tribes were peculiarly economic ones: the scarcity of food supply was conditioned partly by the aridity of the soil, partly by the primitiveness of the means of procuring subsistence. Where the means of subsistence were plentiful and not easily exhausted, there larger groups could permanently aggregate. This was, in the first place, the case where fishing was at all possible. The Bangerang tribe resided in two large bodies at the junction of the Glenelg and Murray rivers; the large group of the Narrinyeri on Lake Alexandrina; probably the coastal tribes in general were larger and more sedentary. This seems corroborated by the fact that they had usually larger and better-built huts (see below). The same factors would also tend to produce a more sedentary mode of living (the Bangerang, the Kurnai (partly at least), and possibly other coastal tribes). The view that density of population was directly dependent upon the nature of soil is strengthened by the direct statements of Wilhelmi, Turnbull, Moorhouse and Angas.[458]

It may be mentioned that in places where, and times when, plenty of food was available, large numbers of natives gathered, but only temporarily, e. g. when a whale was stranded, or the Bunya-Bunya nuts were ripe, etc.[459] But as the major part of the continent is arid, we must suppose that the usual mode of living was in very small groups of one to three families; these groups being in exceptional cases regular local groups, in the majority of cases merely portions of them.

Let us briefly examine whether this general assumption contradicts any other features of Australian tribal life. If we consider their modes of procuring food, we find that the women had to go in search of roots, grubs, etc., in short do purely collecting work. It is obvious that this kind of work is never done well in big bands. On the other hand it is probable that one woman alone would be afraid to go on remote wanderings. The most favourable unit would be a group of two to three women with their children. The men hunted their game also in rather small groups. There do not seem to be any collective methods of hunting. The kangaroo was perhaps tired out by the common effort of several men. For the hunting of the smaller game, which was practically also a kind of searching, it would be rather unfavourable to go out in big parties. Considerations of an economic order, therefore, give no reason for discarding our assumption; on the contrary it is corroborated by them. To the question whether for security's sake the aborigines would not be compelled to aggregate, we must also return a negative answer. War was not the normal condition of the Australian blacks.[460] And I have not been able to find any statement of collective methods of organized defence.

To sum up our results in a few words: the territorial division points only exceptionally and problematically, even in these exceptional cases, to possession of land by single families. The territorial unit, called by us Local Group, although varying in its extent according to the locality, appears to consist usually of several families. But these families in their turn live usually either in one smaller group, numbering two or three families or, exceptionally, one only. In more fertile tracts, near big rivers and fertile coastal districts, the number of families living in permanent contact appears to be greater; in the extensive arid areas the number of families grouped together seems to be rather small.

II

The second part of our problem must now be faced: whenever there is a certain number of families aggregated (permanently or temporarily), what are the features of their social contact in daily life? What are their dwellings? Do they belong to several families or only to one? Are there any rules of camping, or do they camp quite promiscuously? And if there are any customary rules, of what status are they the expression? Besides the answers to these questions, we shall find also that there are rules for occupying the huts, for eating, etc. In general, all our questions will tend to elucidate whether there is a quite unlimited, promiscuous social contact among the members of an aggregate, or whether there are facts pointing to the isolation and separation of the individual families. Undoubtedly there is a difference between aggregation which is merely temporary and that which is permanent; we shall try to find traces of this difference indicated in the statements. These latter are not very rich in information. The facts themselves seemed perhaps to the majority of our informants much too commonplace and unimportant. But we owe to some of the deeper and more conscientious observers highly interesting details in this connection. More especially this remark applies to Howitt and some of his correspondents. We begin with these statements.

Statements.—We have a clear and detailed description of the mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461] As a rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some families[462] were closely related,[463] a certain distance was kept between their camps, which increased as the consanguinity diminished.[464] A man's parents could occasionally sleep with him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465] We see, therefore, that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the little girl";[466] bigger children camped separately. We shall find this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South Wales (Murring)[467] as to the Wurunjerri[468] of East Victoria.

Amongst the Gournditsh-Mara Tribe (Lake Condah, West Victoria) "each family camped by itself." During the meals "each wife was ... obliged to sit beside her own husband," and not "near any other man unless her husband sat between them."[469] It is a statement pointing to isolation of females from sex jealousy. We shall meet in the future with a few statements referring to the way in which meals are taken.

Customs pointing to the isolation of families, on the ground of sex jealousy are referred to by Curr.[470] "A woman never sat in a mia-mia (hut) in which there was a man, save her husband; she never conversed nor exchanged words with any man except in the absence of her husband and in reply to some necessary question," and only from a distance. Women had "no communication with persons of the opposite sex except little boys." From the paternal hut, where they lived, "their brothers of eight or ten years of age were excluded at night." And again, "among the Bangerang and other tribes I have known, each married couple had their own mia-mia, or hut."[471] These statements are quite clear. They coincide with the majority of our information. What is important and will interest us further in detail is the fact that boys at the age of about ten were excluded from the paternal hut. Females were given away about the same age, so that we may say that only small children remained with their parents. "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[472]

Describing the laying of a camp Curr says—

"As they arrived they formed their camps, each family having a fire of its own some half-dozen yards from its neighbour's."[473]

From Dawson's description of the aboriginal habitations,[474] we get a good glimpse into their mode of dwelling. Dawson says they have either a permanent or temporary habitation, and describes both. The former wuurn is bigger, and may accommodate about a dozen persons. But it serves only for the use of one family. "When several families live together each builds its wuurn, facing one central fire." But even the family, if the children are grown up, does not live in one party; "the wuurn is partitioned off into compartments. One of these is appropriated to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers." Here we see that husband and wife sleep also quite apart, with their small children. Grown-up but unmarried male or female children have compartments of their own. And if they were married they must have had their own separate camp. The isolation seems to have been amongst these tribes much less accentuated than amongst the East Victorians, for instance. Although separated, grown-up children lived in the same habitation, and even the wuurns of separate families were situated round a common fire, so that it "appears to be one dwelling." In their temporary huts the isolation is more pronounced. "While travelling or occupying temporary habitations each of these parties (parent, male and female children) must erect separate wuurns." Moreover each family must camp separately. A certain communism of living is expressed also by the common cooking,[475] although each family has its basket in which it cooks food.[476]

Eyre's information about the Lower Murray River blacks agrees to a certain degree with Dawson's statements. "Sometimes each married man will have a hut for himself, his wives and family, including, perhaps, occasionally his mother or some other near relative. At other times, large long huts are constructed, in which from five to ten families reside, each having their own separate fire."[477] Of course, here the communism is much greater, although the separation of the fire circles is still kept. These natives, as well as the tribes described by Dawson, were in better economic conditions, and therefore able to adopt sedentary life; they were also more skilful in the building of huts. The general type of a hut was a rude shelter of boughs only affording protection against rain.[478]

Brough Smyth affirms also perfect order and method in the arrangement of a camp. "The aborigines do not herd together promiscuously." If the whole tribe is present the natives are divided into groups each composed of about six dwellings. "Each mia-mia (hut) is five or six yards distant from its neighbours." If there are several "tribes" (groups), each camps in a separate place, in a position marking whence it came. Each hut has its separate fire (in opposition to Dawson's statement).[479]

Complete isolation and strict camp rules are stated by J. Moore-Davis. "Married men each with his family occupying the centre" of the camp.[480]

A statement quite contrary to nearly all others is given by Beveridge. He speaks of "the promiscuous manner they have of huddling together in their loondthals."[481] We need not, however, take this statement very seriously, as it is given in immediate connection with another doubtful one, viz. of absolute, even incestuous, sexual promiscuity.[482] Perhaps the observations were made on natives who were quite corrupted by contact with white men. At any rate this statement is directly opposed to all we know about these two features of Australian aborigines in their natural state of life. We may therefore discard them as unreliable.[483]

Collins writes: "In their huts and in their caves they lie down indiscriminately mixed, men, women and children together."[484] This statement is not quite clear, as we do not know whether these "men, women and children" form one family, or are related, or whether there is a great number of them, etc. It is also opposed to what we learnt from Howitt and many others of the customary order observed in occupying a hut. Besides, Collins had under his immediate observation blacks hanging round the town of Port Phillip, demoralized and degenerate; their females seem to have been already addicted to prostitution.[485] They were no longer in their primitive state; and all observations, especially relating to their mode of living, which changes immediately with the conditions of life, must be accepted with caution. I do not consider this statement any more reliable than that of Beveridge which I discarded. From other passages where he speaks of the small inland huts "affording shelter to only one miserable tenant,"[486] and the larger huts on the sea-coast, "large enough to hold six or eight persons," we might infer that there was room only for one family in each hut. Here also we read that the coastal tribes, which probably had a better food supply and led a more sedentary life, had larger and better-built huts.

We read concerning the Turra tribe of South Australia[487]: "In camping, the place of the parents is to the right-hand side of their son's camp; the brother to the left side; sister-in-law to the right side or near his father's. In the camp the husband sleeps at the right hand of the fire, his wife behind him, and her young children behind her." This, less detailed than Howitt's statement, corroborates it to the full. We see that each camp is occupied exclusively by a married couple and their small children; and that inside the hut as well as in the configuration of the camp there is a strict customary order. It is important to notice that these statements, reporting strict camp rules and referring to tribes scattered over a great area (Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia) are given by very reliable authorities, and that Howitt at least gathered them by collecting information about the ancient customs of the Kurnai and Murring from old natives; using, therefore, the only correct method. They refer, therefore, to old customs, which probably were no longer observed in the tribes spoilt and demoralized by contact with settlers. Much weight is to be ascribed, therefore, in this matter to the information of Howitt and his correspondents.

Schürmann states shortly: "Each family occupies a separate hut; and, if there be any unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[488]

Henderson says about the New South Wales natives, "Each family has its own gunya and fire."[489]

George Barrington observes that among the Port Jackson natives each hut was occupied by one family.[490]

When the families who formed a "tribe" (= local group?) meet "each family has its own fire and provides its own substance."[491] In the description of his travels Dawson tells us that when the native party was joined by a stranger with his wife the latter did not approach the other men, but slept alone by herself at a small fire.[492] This points to the fact that a married woman normally never slept in the immediate neighbourhood of any other man but her own husband.

Spencer and Gillen affirm, again, the complete isolation of families who, according to them,[493] normally roam scattered on the territory of the local group. "Each family, consisting of a man and one or more wives and children, occupies always a mia-mia, which is merely a lean-to of shrubs, so placed as to shield the occupants from the prevailing wind." This statement is perfectly clear, and we may fit it into the general picture we drew from all the other evidence.

Among the natives of Central Australia (probably of the Arunta nation) a married woman "may speak to any but the young men."[494] Thus she is practically excluded from any intercourse with them.

Among the natives of Moreton Bay the conjugal relation is maintained by them "with great decency and propriety, every family having its separate hut and fire."[495]

A very clear and concise statement is given on this point by the Rev. J. Mathew, referring to the Kabi and Wakka tribes. "The family, consisting of husband and wife, or wives, with their children, constituted a distinct social unit. They occupied the same gunya (dwelling), they ate together, they travelled together."[496] After having described the construction of the hut he adds: "This sufficed for a family. The dwellings were placed a little distance apart, facing in the same direction, and each had its own small fire in front."[497]

Roth says about the tribes of North-West Central Queensland: "The husband sleeps in the same gundi as his wives."[498] The way of taking meals is not quite uniform among all tribes observed by this writer. At Cape Bedford "members of one family take their meals together, except the single young men (above puberty), who dine apart." In another tribe (Tully River) "each family dines by itself." On the contrary, "on the Bloomfield River men, boys and girls (up to four or five years of age) dine together; all the other females ... mess apart."[499] Among the natives of Koombana Bay, "in the family, the man, women and children dined together."[500] There are three kinds of huts among the North Queensland tribes: the simple shelter of boughs; a hut built somewhat more carefully against rain; and a hut built for protection against cold, this hut, being of course, the most elaborate.[501] From the description of these huts we may infer that they were occupied each by one family only.

The isolation of families caused by the jealousy of the husband is plainly stated by Grey: "He cannot, from the roving nature of their mode of life, surround his wives with the walls of a seraglio, but custom and etiquette have drawn about them barriers nearly as impassable. When a certain number of families are collected together, they encamp at a common spot, and each family has a separate hut or perhaps two. At these huts sleep the father of the family, his wives, the female children who have not yet joined their husbands, very young boys[502] and occasionally female relatives; but no males over ten years of age may sleep in family huts. They have got their own separate encampment."[503] If any strangers are present with their wives, they sleep in their own huts, placed amongst the married people. If they are unmarried or without wives "they sleep at the fire of the young men."[504] "Under no circumstances is a strange native allowed to approach the fire of a married man."[505] Their huts being so scattered over a rather large area, their conversation is held by means of a loud chant.[506] It must be remembered that Grey asserts in several places the great and vigilant jealousy of the natives.[507]

Bishop Salvado, who speaks also of the great jealousy of the males and the fidelity exacted from the females,[508] gives us the following account of their mode of camping: "Lorsqu'une famille se dispose à dormir, les garçons qui ont passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls, autour du feu commun, les plus petits avec le père, et les enfants à la mamelle, aussi bien que les filles, quel que soit leur âge, avec la mère. Les femmes jouissent du droit d'ancienneté, la première dort plus près du mari, ainsi de suite."[509] Another passage[510] testifies also that they roam in single families; the reason alleged is easier food supply.

We read in Browne that one hut holds only two or three persons.[511]

The general inference to be drawn from these twenty-four statements is, roughly speaking, that the general features of native camp arrangements were orderliness, fixed rules, isolation of families, settled and restricted social contact, and by no means social communism and unregulated social promiscuity.

Five instances give strict rules which obtain in arranging camps. These were probably much more widespread than might be supposed from these few instances. But, as mentioned above, these camp rules would probably fall into abeyance at once when the natives came in contact with civilization. It was only by attentive inquiries that Howitt extracted them from the natives. Besides these we read in fifteen statements that each family camped separately. So that twenty of twenty-four statements assert that there was in this respect complete isolation of the families. Sexual motives played undoubtedly an important part in this isolation. We are told so expressly in several places (Curr, Grey, Salvado, J. D. Lang). In the case of even friendly strangers a certain amount of mistrust—of evil magic as well as of actual bad intentions—may have operated. There are indications of it in statements of Br. Smyth and Grey. But in the detailed examples given by Howitt, where all the camping families are closely related and usually consist of more than one generation (father and sons, etc.), we can hardly conceive that either of the above-mentioned motives would come into play. At any rate this regulated camp order shows how important this question was in the native social life and how strong the idea must have been that each family had its own place apart from the others, and the more remotely related people were, the less intimate contact would be.

The aborigines possess different kinds of huts. Of interest for us is the fact that the majority of them are made to hold only one family. Fourteen statements assert it explicitly or implicitly. In three instances we are told of the existence of larger huts (Eyre, Dawson, Collins). In two of them the separation of families is maintained in spite of the larger dwellings. Only Collins' information is doubtful in this respect.

Within these huts the family camped according to fixed rules. We have five instances given by Howitt and his correspondents, and Bishop Salvado. These rules show clearly that each hut, each fire-place, was reserved for one family, and that this status had its customary form and sanction. There were three instances of separation during meals (Gournditsh-Mara, some of the North-West Central Queensland tribes, and the Kabi and Wakka). In three statements we are told that both sexes separated during meals (Curr, Angas, Roth). What Curr tells us of the marked social separation of families is remarkable; especially in respect to the isolation of the women.[512]

Two statements were rather in contradiction with our general results: Beveridge's statement of promiscuous huddling and Collins' vague information. We stated our reasons for not giving them much weight, and they cannot outweigh the sum-total of reliable information which is fairly unanimous on this point. It is also in general agreement with the information we gathered on sexual matters as well as with our conclusion as to territorial distribution, and it corroborates our results on both these points. For on the one hand it was found that in normal life there exists individuality of sexual relations; on the other hand the usual scattered mode of living would correspond to a fairly complete isolation in cases of tribal assembly.

Our last considerations have clearly demonstrated how the individuality of the family unit shows itself in the aboriginal mode of living. A single family is normally in contact with a few other families only; sometimes it roams alone over its own area. But even when there are several families living together, the camp rules keep them apart from each other in nearly every function of daily life. The children, who live in intimate contact with their parents in the same hut, must necessarily set them apart from all their (the children's) other relatives. We must assume, therefore, that the individuality of the relation of each child to its actual parents is deeply impressed by all the circumstances of daily life on the child's mind. This assumption is in accord with the information we can gather on this point. But before we begin to look it through, let us discuss the theoretical side of the kinship (or relationship) problem.

CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION OF KINSHIP

I
Theoretical Analysis of this Concept

It is undoubtedly one of the most valuable discoveries arrived at by modern sociological science that each institution varies in accordance with the social environment in which it is found. A given institution or social form (like the family, the state, the nation, the church) appears under various forms in different societies, and among peoples with a very low culture only rudiments thereof may be expected. This point of view, applied to marriage and the family, has led some writers to the assumption of forms as much opposed to those usual in our societies, as promiscuity and group marriage is opposed to individual marriage and the family. Nevertheless, although the variability and multiplicity of forms of marriage and family were acknowledged, the concepts applied to them were still the old ones, directly borrowed from our own society and formed upon the facts found amongst ourselves. In particular the sociologically untrained ethnographers comprehended the phenomena of kinship only under our own social concepts, judged them according to our own moral standard, and described them with words the meaning of which ought to have been defined when applied to a new case; nevertheless these terms have been nearly always used by ethnographers in the same sense in which we use them amongst ourselves, i. e. as expressing ideas of community of blood through procreation.[513] That this is quite erroneous will be shown below. How far the idea of kinship changes from society to society, what are its essential invariable features, and what are the variable elements—these are the problems that must be set forth.

The inadequacy of our ideas of kinship as applied to lower societies has been often felt by those ethnographers who wished to enter deeper into the problems of kinship among a given people. They have found the greatest difficulty in conveying to a European reader the meaning of different terms of relationship. While warning the reader to put aside our (the modern European) ideas of kinship, they have hardly succeeded in giving any definite and clear concept instead. The reasons for this failure are simple: our ideas of kinship are defined by certain facts which are not to be found in the given primitive society. In order to define kinship so as to fit the latter, the author ought to bring forward a series of facts, playing a part analogous in the given society to that played by the essential defining elements amongst us. But it is by no means easy to know among which facts to look for such analogous, defining elements. And here again arises the necessity of a general definition of kinship, one which would afford indications in what direction to search for social facts giving a right idea of kinship in any given society. Such a general definition would be like an algebraic formula, having its constant and its variable terms; if for the latter special data be inserted (in this instance the special conditions proper to the given society), the special value for any given case is obtained (namely the special concept of kinship proper to the given society). And it should also be indicated within what range the variables should be taken; in other words, in what facts the elements which specifically determine kinship in the given society must be looked for. The practical value of such a general definition of kinship is obvious. On the one hand it indicates the constant elements in kinship common to all societies; on the other hand it indicates the general character of the variable elements, and the way in which they must be looked for and worked into the general formula.

By the word kinship, roughly speaking, is denoted a series of family relationships (those of parents to children, brothers to sisters, etc.), all of which consist of a set of extremely complex phenomena. They are made up of the most heterogeneous elements: physiological (birth, procreation, suckling, etc.), social (community of living, of interests, social norms, etc.), and psychological (different ways in which these relations are conceived, different moral ideas, and different types of feelings). Special care must be taken to select in all these elements the essential ones, as an omission would be just as fatal for the investigations as an overburdening with secondary elements. Moreover, it would be specially valuable to look at all these heterogeneous determining elements from the same point of view, and view them all under one and the same aspect. Leaving on one side the purely physiological problem of kinship,[514] it appears necessary to give a sociological view of kinship, i. e. to show the social bearing of physiological facts as well as of psychological elements. But it appears also necessary to view the whole of the phenomena of kinship from the psychological point of view; that is, to show how the sociological and physiological facts of kinship are reflected in the "collective mind" of the given society.

Besides for other reasons (adduced below) this appears necessary, because one of the most important scientific uses that has been made of the different human systems of kinship is one that presupposes a certain definite meaning, as given to the terms of kinship in very low societies. In Morgan's deductions a very important part is played by the assumption that kinship is always understood in terms of consanguinity; in particular that it was understood thus by primitive man; that in all (even the lowest) societies all ideas of kinship were essentially based upon the community of blood, established in the case of the mother by her share in bearing, in that of the father by his part in procreation. Only by assuming that these facts were known to the lowest, prehistoric savages, could Morgan draw inferences from systems of kinship terms about the forms of sexual intercourse. If, on the other hand, the relation between sexual intercourse and birth escaped the knowledge of primitive men, they could not have based their idea of kinship upon community of blood between father and offspring; hence there could be no connection between forms of sexual intercourse and forms of kinship as conceived by primitive man. Whether there could be connection between marriage, defined sociologically, and kinship is another and more complicated problem. In any case Morgan uses throughout his book the word consanguinity, and he defines it as the tie of common blood arising from the sexual act. In other words he sets forth the problem in a simplified and incorrect form. The question how kinship may be conceived in a given society, especially in a low one, naturally presents itself as a very important point of investigation.

As in the following pages there will be question more or less exclusively of the individual relation between parents and children, the present discussion may be fittingly restricted to the individual parental kinship in Australia. In the second part of this chapter facts giving some insight into the aboriginal collective ideas of kinship are set forth; and in the following chapter other different facts will be brought forward in order to complete the definition of individual parental kinship. But in accordance with what has been just said, it is needful to have some guiding principle in collecting this material, and this will now be looked for. This discussion, being only concerned with the Australian facts, does not pretend to be complete, but perhaps if the results are worked out so as to suit our modern European concept of kinship as well as the Australian one, it might, should it be correct, be applicable also to other societies.[515] Let us now proceed to give the general definition of kinship and in the first place to indicate which are its constant, uniform factors found in all societies.

Amongst the heterogeneous factors which together make up parental kinship, the physiological facts appear to be the most constant, for the natural process of procreation is in all human societies the same. But the social consequences of this process vary very widely according to other variable elements, as will appear clearly below in our discussion of consanguinity. Part of them only, together with some social elements, may be taken as the uniform, constant basis of kinship, such as must serve for the first point of departure in an attempt to discuss more in detail the kinship in any society. It appears probable that this basis is given by the existence of a group formed by a woman, her husband, and the children whom she has borne, suckled and reared. The existence of such a group will be considered as the necessary and sufficient condition for individual parental kinship. Where such a group exists we are justified in affirming that individual parental kinship exists, although it is not yet completely defined thereby; further facts must be adduced in order to complete the definition. Those further facts are precisely the variable terms in the general formula of kinship; it remains still to indicate their general character. But a few words must be first said about the constant factors of kinship just mentioned.

They consist in the existence of the individual family group as determined by individual marriage and by individual motherhood. Individual motherhood means that the same woman who gave birth to a child stands to it in a special close relation in its later life also: she suckles it and rears it, and she is bound to him or her by the manifold ties resulting from the community of life and community of interests. This woman is bound on the other hand to a man by individual marriage; and thereby her children are bound to him also; and the mother, her husband, and her children form the social unit called the individual family. The existence of such a unit is to be established by showing its different social functions, and the different ways in which its solidarity and individuality are marked in a given society. It is clear that the position of the father is in this way first established socially only, as the husband of the children's mother. Nevertheless it must be borne in mind that thus his relation to the children is clearly marked; and that this is only a preliminary, so to say formal, determination of fatherhood, which in all societies appears to be much more materially defined by other factors, discussed hereafter.

The existence of the individual family as a social unit, based upon the physiological facts of maternity, the social factor of marriage and other social factors, are thus chosen as the basis upon which we may proceed to analyze more in detail the individual parental relation. Whether this basis exists in all human societies and forms what was called above the constant, invariable elements of parental kinship, may remain an open question. This could only be answered correctly a posteriori, on the basis of a series of special researches in many societies. The existence of individual motherhood, as this word is defined here, seems to obtain in the majority of human societies (or even in all of them). Nevertheless, as pointed out above,[516] even this point cannot be treated as self-evident. This applies in still higher degree to individual marriage, which has often been denied as regards many societies.[517] In this place we have mainly to keep before our eyes the Australian society and our own society, the latter of which affords, so to say, the heuristic principle, the clue to the understanding of the former. As far as those two societies are concerned, our choice appears to be the right one, and the social-physiological basis mentioned above contains the essential common elements of kinship in both societies.

The existence of individual marriage and its legal, sexual and psychological aspects have been discussed and established in the preceding chapters, as far as Australia is concerned. A discussion on individual motherhood will be given below. The existence of the individual family group in Australia, based upon individual marriage and upon individual motherhood, is the subject of the remaining chapters of this study. So that the existence of this physiological and social basis of kinship may be taken as granted.

Bearing now in mind that what will be said hereafter applies in the first place to Australia, it may be said that in the physiological and social basis of kinship adopted above, the minimum of conditions necessary for the application of the idea of individual kinship was enumerated. But this minimum is not sufficient to determine this idea completely in any given society. By studying only the social facts which determine the individuality of family life within the society, we should not exhaust all the features and essential aspects of parental kinship in any society. The existence of the individual family merely indicates unambiguously that individual parental kinship exists in the given society. For this social unit having a deep analogy with our own individual family, the relation between the members of both these social units must also have some deep resemblance. But to exaggerate this resemblance would be as erroneous as to deny it. Besides the features common both to our parental kinship and to that of the Australian, there are also those which differentiate these two relationships. They must be sought for in the differences in the social conditions, which may even modify the physiological basis of kinship, as for instance when physical fatherhood is in one society established beyond doubt by exclusive sexual appropriation, while in the other there can be no question of it, owing to sexual communism. The variations in the general social conditions obviously also affect the purely sociological side of kinship. To point this out clearly, it is enough to mention that each relation is subject to the normative influences of the society in the midst of which it exists, and these norms and their sanction vary with the general social structure.

The variable elements in parental kinship must be also looked for in the different elements of the collective mind, connected with the parental relationship; in other words, in the different collective ideas and feelings which have parental kinship for their centre. Moreover, as mentioned above, there are reasons why the knowledge of the collective idea of kinship is sociologically important. It may be emphasized here that we should cripple and curtail our knowledge if we arbitrarily abstained from inquiring what influence the collective knowledge as to procreation, consanguinity, affinity, etc., may have upon the social aspect of the relation in question.

The same thing may be said of another domain of collective mentality: that is, of the feelings involved in parental kinship. The type of feelings underlying this relationship may vary with the society, in the same way as these feelings vary with each individual case in any given society. And as these feelings essentially determine the character of parental kinship in any given society, it appears that the discussion of this point cannot be omitted. Thus into the general formula of kinship there must enter also the psychological elements: collective ideas, expressing in a given society what is kinship, what are its legal, moral and customary aspects; and the collective feelings prevailing in a given society. From the interaction of these psychological elements with different variable social elements arise the more special, peculiar factors which define kinship in any given society. In other words, the variable elements in the general formula of kinship are seen to arise chiefly from the collective psychological interpretation and valuation of some of the physiological and social facts underlying parental kinship.

To sum up, it may be said that parental kinship is the personal tie obtaining between members of the parental group or individual family, and like all other personalties it must be further determined in each society by the characteristic collective feelings and collective ideas which in the given society give it its specific meaning.[518] This is that general formula of kinship which will yield us what we have demanded of it—that is, an indication of the facts for which to look in any given society. As the facts referred to in the first part of the above definition (the establishment of the existence of the family unit) are dealt with in the remaining chapters, it is necessary to discuss only the second part of the definition.

The influence upon kinship of the beliefs and ideas as to procreation appears quite plainly upon an analysis of the concept of consanguinity, and to this we may devote a few words.

Parental kinship is in our society conceived invariably and exclusively in terms of consanguinity,[519] or, speaking more explicitly, parental kinship is conceived as established by the tie of common blood, resulting from birth (maternal kinship) or procreation (paternal kinship). Of course the mere physiological fact does not establish kinship in its full extent, with all its personal, emotional, social and legal aspects. It is only when the physiological facts of procreation or birth are sanctioned by society, in other words when they are consummated in legal marriage, that the children are full kinsmen of both their parents. Society takes all facts which are of vital importance for itself under its own supervision; and consequently the important facts of propagation are subject to the control of society, which regulates them by a series of religious, legal, customary and conventional norms, all of which are also necessary conditions and essential features of full parental kinship. But this sanction once granted, the tie of common blood is conceived as the main source of all mutual duties and moral and legal obligations; and from this also outflow the feelings of love, attachment, reverence, and so forth, which are in our society the essential features of parental kinship. Once a man knows that a child, which he considered his own, is in reality not begotten by him, undoubtedly all his feelings for this child are affected, and, under certain conditions, its legal position may be modified. The two conditions for full parental kinship in our society are (1) that the child be the real physiological offspring of both presumed parents; (2) that it be legally begotten or its birth legalized.

In our society the line of distinction between physiological consanguinity and social consanguinity is quite clear; the one is a mere physiological fact,[520] the other the social acknowledgment of this fact and all its consequences, subject to certain norms, laid down by society.

There are two separate sets of circumstances in which we may speak of consanguinity: (1) the existence of social institutions, which allow us to trace the physiological blood ties (e. g. monogamy or harem institutions), in which case we can speak of the existence of physiological consanguinity as obtaining between the members of the individual family. (2) The existence of a social acknowledgment of the facts of procreation as creating ties of individual personal kinship, in which case we may speak of social consanguinity. If neither of these conditions are fulfilled, then it would be quite meaningless to speak of consanguinity.[521]

Now let us see whether these conditions are to be found in all human societies. That both are found in the majority of the more highly developed societies appears beyond doubt. But this seems not to be the case in the lower societies. Even a superficial glance at them is sufficient to prove it. Whereas, in some of the lowest peoples known conjugal fidelity seems to be the rule,[522] and consequently the physiological tie of blood between children and both their parents is secured, in other societies of low culture the sexual laxity is so great that there is no possibility at all of tracing the descent of a child from any individual man.[523] This applies in the first place to the majority of the Australian tribes, as is shown in the chapter on sexual matters. In consequence, it may be said that in many low societies, and especially in some of the Australian tribes, there is no possibility of speaking of physiological consanguinity as regards the father.

How does the case stand with the social importance attributed to the facts of procreation? Here the variation seems to be still greater. This can be very well exemplified by the Australian material. Over the greater part of the continent the father's share in procreation is not known. There cannot be any social acknowledgment of it. Consanguinity in its social sense does not exist. In some tribes of South-East Australia, on the other hand, the mother's share in procreation is under-rated; the father is considered to be the only consanguineous relative; the child is the father's offspring only, the mother being merely its nurse. Here the consanguineous relation between mother and child is considerably reduced in social importance, and consanguinity as it appears to the social mind is purely paternal. It may be said, therefore, that paternal kinship in the Centre and the North of the continent and maternal kinship in the South-Eastern tribes cannot be called consanguinity (in the social sense of this word), although in both cases very close kinship exists, as will appear from a detailed discussion hereafter.