Broadly speaking, the tribes of the whole of the known area of Australia, certain coast regions of comparatively small extent excepted, have a dichotomous kinship organisation. The accompanying map (Map II) shows how the various forms are distributed. Along most of the south coast, and up a belt broken perhaps in the northern portion, running through the centre of the continent in Lat. 137 deg., are found two phratries without intermarrying classes; for the area west of Lat. 130 deg. we have, it is true, only one datum, which gives no information as to the area to which it applies; this portion of the field therefore is assigned only provisionally to the two-phratry system. On the Bloomfield River, which runs into Weary Bay, associated with the name of Captain Cook, is an isolated two-phratry organisation, unless indeed we may assume that the class names have either been overlooked or have passed out of use.

The four-class system extends over the greater part of New South Wales, and Queensland; a narrow belt runs through the north of South Australia and broadens till it embraces the whole coastline of West Australia, the north-eastern area excluded. An isolated four-class system, which does not regulate marriage, is found in the Yorke Peninsula of South Australia.

The eight-class system forms a compact mass, between the Gulf of Carpentaria and Roebuck Bay, extending south as far as Lat. 25 deg. in the centre of Australia.

In reality the rule of the eight-class system extends considerably further south, but the classes are nameless or altogether non-existent. Thus, the southern Arunta have nominally four classes, but each of these has two sections, so that the final result is as though they were an eight-class tribe. In the same way the marriage regulations of the two-phratry Dieri are such that choice is limited among them precisely as it would be if they had eight classes. The same may be true of the remainder of the western branch of the four-class system, which is closely allied in name to the Arunta type; the boundary between the related sets of names is unknown.

Among the Narrinyeri and the Yuin the kinship organisation, which is confined to totemic groups, takes a local form; here the regulation of marriage depends on considerations of the residence of the pair. Local exogamy also prevails among the unorganised Kurnai. The Chepara appear to have had no organisation, and among the Narrangga ties of consanguinity constituted the sole bar to marriage. We are not however concerned with the problems presented by these aberrant types of organisation, to which no further reference is made in the present work.

The area covered by the dichotomous organisations is divided almost equally between matrilineal and patrilineal tribes. The latter occupy the region north of Lat. 30 deg. and west of an irregular line running from Long. 137 deg. to 140 deg. or thereabouts. In addition a portion of Victoria and the region west of Brisbane form isolated patrilineal groups. The problem presented by these anomalous areas has already been discussed in the chapter on the Rule of Descent. Where local exogamy is the rule, kinship is also virtually patrilineal.

In the remainder of Australia, non-organised tribes of course excepted, the rule of descent is matrilineal, save that in North Queensland a small tribe on the Annan River prefers paternal descent. The accompanying map shows the distribution of the two forms.



FOOTNOTES:

[37] Save in the Anula and Mara tribes.

[38] Vol. II.

[39] Vol. I, p. 38.

[40] Vocabulary, s.v. Kararu.

[41] Grey, Journals, II, 228.

[42] Descriptive Vocabulary, p. 3 etc.; Colonial Mag. V, 222.

[43] Australian Reminiscences, p. 212.

[44] Bunce, 23 Years Wanderings, p. 116.

[45] J.R.G.S. IV, 171, p. 88, Narrative of a Voyage round the World p. 88.

[46] Discoveries (1846), I, 393; cf. Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 64.

[47] Cf. the local groups of the Yuin, the Wiradjeri and other tribes, Howitt, passim.



CHAPTER IV.

TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.

In order to facilitate reference and to diminish the necessity for footnotes a survey of classes and phratries is here given. It will be well to explain how they are arranged.

In the two-phratry system the rule of intermarriage is clear; a man of phratry A marries a woman of phratry B and vice versa. The direct descent of the kinship name is obviously the rule.

The four classes are arranged according to the phratries; the normal rule is that a man A1 marries B1, A2 marries B2; their children are in matrilineal tribes A2 and B2, in patrilineal B2 and A2. In the patrilineal Mara and Anula, by exception, the rule of descent is direct; it will be remembered that a dichotomy of the classes prevails, so that they really belong to the eight-class system.

In the eight-class system and among the nominally four-class southern Arunta the intermarriage and descent is as follows, according to Spencer and Gillen;

A1 B1 ——— = A4, ——— = B3, B1 A1

A2 B2 ——— = A3, ——— = B4, B2 A2

A3 B3 ——— = A2, ——— = B1, B3 A3

A4 B4 ——— = B4, ——— = B2. B4 A4

In each case the male is the numerator, the woman the denominator, and the = shows the child.

Tribes with conterminous territories usually know what phratries and classes are equivalent in their systems. In the tables which follow the phratries and the classes of matrilineal tribes are arranged to show this correspondence so far as it is known. A * shows that no information on the point is to hand. A rearrangement of patrilineal classes is necessary to make them equivalent to the organisations of matrilineal tribes; this cannot be shown in the tables; but full details will be found in the works of Spencer and Gillen. A [+] indicates patrilineal descent.

Where the names of phratries and classes are translated, the meanings are shown in the tables; where the authorities do not give the translation but a word of the same form is in use in the tribe or group of tribes the meanings are given in round brackets; words in use in neighbouring tribes are put in square brackets.

TABLE I.

The Class Names.

Class names Feminine Meaning I. Muri (Bya)[48] Matha (Red kangaroo) Kubi Kubitha (Opossum) Kumbo (Wōmbee)[49] Butha Ipai Ipatha (Eaglehawk)

These class names are found in the following tribes:

Kamilaroi (Howitt, p. 107); Wiradjeri (ib. 107); Wonghi (ib. 108); Euahlayi (Mrs L. Parker, Euahlayi Tribe, p. 13); Ngeumba (Mathews in Eth. Notes, p. 5); Murawari (id. in Proc. R.G.S. Qu., 1906, 55); Moree (R.G.S. Qu. X, 20); Turribul (R.S. Vict. I, 102); Wollaroi (Howitt, 109); on Narran R. (Curr, I, 117); Pikumbul (ib.); Unghi (Howitt, 217); Peechera (Curr, III, 271); Wailwun (ib. I, 116); Wonnaruah (Sci. Man, I, 180); Geawegal (Howitt, 266).

Associated with these class names are the following phratry names:

(a) Kamilaroi, etc. Dilbi Kupathin (b) Wiradjeri to N. of Budthurung Mukula Lachlan (c) Wonghibon Ngielbumurra Mukumurra (Howitt) (d) " & Ngeumba {Ngumbun Ngurrawan (Mathews) {Numbun (e) Euahlayi Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen (f) Murawari Girrana Merugulli

Class names Feminine II. Kurbo Kooran Marro Kurgan Wombo Wirrikin Wirro Wongan

The proper arrangement of these names is unknown.

Tribe: Kombinegherry (J.A.I. XIII, 304; Howitt, 105).

Science of Man (IV, 8) gives:

Carribo Gooroona Maroongah Carrigan Womboongah Werrican Weiro Warganbah

For the Anaywan, Thangatty, etc., R.H. Mathews gives (J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXI, 169):

Irpoong Matyang Marroong Arrakan Imboong Irrakadena Irroong Palyang

Class name (Fem. termination, -an or -gan) Meaning III[+][50]. Parang (Moroon) (Black wallaby. Emu) Bunda [Kangaroo] Balgoin (Banjoor, (Red wallaby. Native Pandur) bear) Theirwain (Kangaroo)

Tribes: Maryborough tribes (Howitt, 117); Kabi (Curr, III, 163): Kiabara (J.A.I. XIII, 305); ? (Hodgson, 212; Mathew, Eaglehawk, 100); Wide Bay (Curr, I, 117).

For the Emon, Howitt (p. 109) gives:

Barah Bondan Bondurr Taran

With these classes are associated the phratries:

(a) The Maryborough tribes Dilbi Kupathin. and the Kiabara (b) Dippil Deeajee Karpeun

are the forms given by Mathews (Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. XXXVIII, 329).

Class names (Fem. termination, -an) Meaning IV. Karilbura Barrimundi Munal Hawk Kurpal Good water Kuialla (Koodala) Iguana

Tribes: Kuinmurbura (J.A.I. XIII, 341; Howitt, 111). The Taroombul have the form Koodala (Proc. R.S. Qu. XIII, 41).

For the Kangulu, Mathews (J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXIII, 111) gives:

Banniar[51] Banjoor Koorpal Kearra

With these may be compared Howitt's (p. 111):

Kairawa Bunjur Bunya Jarbain (? Tarbain)

The phratries associated with these are:

Tribe (a) Kuinmurbura Witteru Yungaru (b) Kangulu Wutthuru Yungnuru

Class names Fem. termination Meaning V. Wongo Kubaru (Ubur, Obu) -an (Gidea tree) Bunburi (Anbeir, Unburri, Bunbai) Koorgilla (Urgilla)

Tribes: Ungorri (Howitt, 109); Kogai (Curr, I, 117; J.A.I. XIII, 337); Yuipera etc. (Curr, III, 45, 64; J.A.I. XIII, 302); Akulbura, Bathalibura (Howitt, 113, 141); Wakelbura (Howitt, 112); on Belyando (Curr, III, 26); Dalebura (Howitt, 113), Buntamurra (Howitt, 113, 226); Purgoma (Roth, 66); Jouon (ib. 67); Pitta-Pitta, Goa, Miorli (Roth, 56-7); Ringa-Ringa (J.A.I. XIII, 337); Mittakoodi (Roth, 56-7); Woonamurra (ib.); Yerunthully (Mathews in R.G.S. Qu. X, 30); Badieri (id. ib. 1905, 55).

With these class names are associated the phratries

(a) Kogai, Wakelbura etc. Wuthera Mallera (b) Yuipera, Bathalibura Wootaroo Yungaroo (c) Purgoma Naka Tunna (d) Jouon Chepa Junna (e) Pitta-Pitta etc., Ootaroo Pakoota Mittakoodi, Woonamura (f) Badieri Wootaroo Yungo

Aberrant forms, probably inaccurate, are given by Curr (II, 424) for Halifax Bay: Korkoro, Korkeen, Wongo, Wotero; by Lumholtz (p. 199) for the Herbert R.: Gorilla, Gorgero, Gorgorilla, Otero, by Curr (II, 468) for the Yukkaburra: Utheroo, Multheroo, Yungaroo, Goorgilla.

On the Tully R. Roth (Ethn. Bull. V, 20) found the following:

Class names VI. Karavangi Chikun Kurongon Kurkilla

With these may be compared the names given by Mathews for the Warkeman (J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXII, 109, 251):

Karpungie Cheekungie Kellungie Koopungie

On the Annan R. we find (Howitt, 118) with male descent:

Class names Meaning VII. Wandi Eaglehawk Walar Bee Jorro Bee Kutchal Saltwater Eaglehawk

With these are associated the phratries:

(a) Walar Murla

VIII. Ranya (Arenia) Rara (Arara) Loora Awunga (Arawongo)

Tribes: Wollongurma (Roth, 68); Goothanto (Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXIII, 109).

Connected with these forms are:

Class names Barry (Ahjereena) Ararey (Arrenynung) Jury [? Loory] (Perrynung) Mungilly (Mahngal) [diamond snake][52]

Tribes: Koogobathy (J.A.I. XIII, 303); Koonjan etc. (Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXIII, 110, XXXIV, 135). Probably Perrynung and Ahjereenya should be transposed.

Class names Feminine IX. Jimmilingo Carburungo Badingo Ngarrangungo Maringo[53] Munjungo Youingo (Kapoodungo) Goothamungo

Tribes: Miappe (Roth, 56-7); Mycoolon (J.A.I. XIII, 302); Workoboongo (Roth, ib.).

For the Kalkadoon, Roth (ib.) gives:

Kunggilungo Patingo Toonbeungo Marinungo[53]

With these are associated the phratries:

(a) Kalkadoon Ootaroo Mullara (b) Miappe Woodaroo Pakutta

Class names X. Murungun Mumbali Purdal Kuial

Tribe: Mara (Northern Tribes, 119).

With these the phratry names:

(a) Urku Ua

In this tribe is male descent, and, as in the S. Arunta, the classes are themselves divided; for equivalence the numbers of the eight-class system are arranged (Nor. Tr. 123), 1, 4; 3, 2; 5, 7; 6, 8.

Leichardt (Journal, 447) reports from the Roper R., Gnangball, Odall, Nurumball, which from their form seem to be class names and identifiable with some of the Mara names.

Class names XI. Awukaria Roumburia Urtalia Wialia

Tribe: Anula (Nor. Tr. 119).

XII. For the eight-class system see Table I a; in which it is assumed that patrilineal descent prevails in all the tribes.

With these are associated the following phratries:

(a) Umbaia, Gnanji Illitchi Liaritchi (b) Warramunga, Walpari, Uluuru Kingilli Wulmala (c) Worgaia " Bimgaru (d) Bingongina Wiliuku Liaraku

Spencer and Gillen, Nor. Tr. pp. 100-102, 119. On p. 102 is a statement about the Bingongina inconsistent with that on the following page; according to the former the phratry names are Illitchi, Liaritchi, as among the Umbaia.

Class names XIII. Panunga Bulthara Purula Kumara

Tribe: S. Arunta (Nat. Tr. 90).

XIIIa. Deringara Gubilla Koomara Belthara

Tribe: Yoolanlanya etc. (R.G.S. Qu. XVI, 75).

The arrangement suggests that matrilineal descent prevails, but there is probably some error.

Class names XIIIb. Burong (Parungo) Ballieri (Parajerri; Butcharrie) Banaka (Boogarloo) Kymerra (Kaiamba)

Tribes: Gnamo, Gnalluma (Int. Arch. XVI, 12); Nickol Bay and Kimberley have the alternative forms of 1, 2, and 4 (Curr, I, 296; Kamilaroi, 36, Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXV, 220), Weedokarry (id. in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. XXXIX, 89) have third form of 2; at Murchison R. Boorgarloo comes into use (West Australian, Ap. 7, 1906).

Class names Meaning XIV. Tondarup (Namyungo) Fish hawk Didaruk Sea Ballaruk (Yangor) (Opossum) Naganok (Fish)

Tribes: S.W. Australia, Tarderick etc. (West. Aust., loc. cit.; Moore, Desc. Voc., Col. Mag. V, 422.

The phratries are

(a) Wartungmat Munichmat

The equivalence is unknown.

Class names XV. Langenam Namegor Packwicky Pamarung

Tribe: Joongoongie of N. Queensland (Mathews in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. XXXIX, 93).

Associated with them the phratries:

(a) Jamagunda Gamanutta

The equivalence is unknown.

Class names Meaning XVI. Kari Emu Waui Red kangaroo Wiltu Eaglehawk Wilthuthu Shark

Tribe: Narrangga of Yorke Peninsula (Howitt, p. 130).

FOOTNOTES:

[48] The Darkinung have Bya for Muri (J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXI, 170).

[49] Some of the Wiradjeri have Wōmbee for Kumbo (Gribble, 113).

[50] Male descent.

[51] Some of the names given by Howitt and Mathews seem to be identical with those of the Kiabara, but there is a difficulty about the arrangement, for Koorpal-Keeara=Yungnuru=Bunya-Jarbain; but Banniar, which seems to be the same as Bunya, falls in the other moiety.

[52] Curr, II, 478.

[53] Marinungo seems to be the same as Maringo but is not equivalent.

TABLE I a: XII. CLASS NAMES OF EIGHT-CLASS TRIBES.

- - - -- - - - Oolawunga Bingongina Umbaia[56] Yookala Binbinga Gnanji[59] [54] etc. [55] [57] etc. [58] - - Janna Thama } Tjinum Jinagoo Tjuanaku Uanuku Nanakoo Tchana} Ninum Niriuma Nuanakurna Nana Jimidya Tjimita Tjulum Joolanjegoo Tjulantjuka Tjulantjuka Namaja Namita Nulum Nurlum Nurlanjukurna Dhalyeree Thalirri Paliarinji Bullaranjee Paliarinji Paliarinji Nalirri Paliarina Paliarina Paliarina Dhongaree Thungarie Pungarinji Bungaranjee Pungarinji Pungarinji Nungari Pungarinia Pungarina Pungarinia Joolama Tjurla Tjurulum Jooralagoo Tjurulum Uralaku Nowala Nala Nurulum Nurulum Nuralakurna Jungalla Thungalla Thungallum Jungalagoo Thungallum Thungallaku Nungalla Nungallum Nungallum Nungallakurna Jeemara Tjimara Tjamerum Jameragoo Tjamerum Tjameraku Nunalla Niameragun Niamerum Niamaku Jambijana Tjambitjina Yakomari Yukamurra Yakomari Yakomari Nambean Nambitjina Yakomarin Yakomarina Yakomarina - -

+ + - + + -+ -+ -+ Worgaia[60] Yangarella Inchalachie Yungmunnie Tjingillie[64] [61] [62] [63] + + + -+ -+ Wairgu Narrabalangie {Narrabalangie Unwannee Thamininja Neonammer {Warkie Imbannee Namininja Blaingunjhu Bolangie Bolangie Eemitch Tjimininja Nolangmer Immadena Truminginja Biliarinthu Bulleringie Belyeringie Uwallaree Thalaringinja Nulyarammer Imballaree Nalaringinja Pungarinju Bongaringie Beneringie Uwungaree Thungaringinta Nongarimmer Imbongaree Namaringinta Warrithu Burralangie {Burralangie Urwalla Tjurulinginja Nurralammer {Narechie Imbawalla Nalinginja Kingelunju Kunuller Kungilla Yungalla Thungallininja Nungalermer Inkagalla Nalangininja Tjameramu Kommerangie {Kommerangie Unmarra Thamaringinja Nemurammer {Boonongoona Inganmarra Namaringinja Ikamaru Yakomari {Akamaroo Tabachin Tjapatjinginja Jumeyunyie {Thimmermill Tabadenna Nambitjinginja + + + -+ -+

-+ + -+ + -+ {Ilpirra[65] {Warramunga[66] Meening[67] Mayoo[68] Koorangie {Arunta {Walpari [69] etc. {Kaitish {Wulmala {Iliaura -+ + -+ + -+ Panunga Thapanunga Chowan Chinuma Janna Napanunga Nowana Nanagoo Nanakoo Uknaria Tjinguri Choongoora Choongoora Jamada Namigili Nangili Narbeeta {Bulthara Tjapeltjeri Chavalya Chavalya Dhalyeree {Kabidgi Naltjeri Nanajerry Nabajerry Appitchana Appungerta Thapungarti Chowarding Changary Dhungaree Napungerta Nabungati Nhermana Purula Tjupila Chooara Choolima Joolam Naralu Nooara Naola Ungalla Thungalla Changally Chungalla Jungalla Nungalla Nangally Nungalla Kumara Thakomara Chagarra Chapota Jameram Nakomara Nagarra Nemira Umbitchana Tjambin Chambeen Chambijana Jummiunga Nambin Nambeen Nambjana -+ + -+ + -+

FOOTNOTES:

[54] Mathews in Proc. R.G.S. Qu., X, 72.

[55] Northern Tribes, 101.

[56] Ib., 100, cf. J.R.S.N.S.W., XXXIV, 121; XXXIX, 105.

[57] Mathews in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., XXXVIII, 77.

[58] Northern Tribes, 111.

[59] Northern Tribes, 101.

[60] Northern Tribes, 101.

[61] Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W., XXXII, 251.

[62] Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W., XXXIII, 111.

[63] Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W., XXXIV, 130.

[64] Northern Tribes, 100; cf. Am. Anth., N.S. II, 495; Proc. R.G.S. Qu., XVI, 72, 73.

[65] Native Tribes, 90; cf. Proc. R.S. Vict., N.S. X, 19; T.R.S.S.A., XIV, 224; J.R.S.N.S.W., XXXII, 72.

[66] Northern Tribes, 100; cf. J.A.I., XVIII, 44; J.R.S.N.S.W., XXXII, 73.

[67] Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W., XXXIII, 112; XXXV, 217.

[68] Mathews in Proc. R.G.S. Qu., XVI, 70.

[69] Mathews in Am. Phil. Soc., XXXVIII, 78.

TABLE II.

Phratry Names.

Phratries Meanings Name of Tribe 1. [+]Waa(ng) Crow Wurunjerri[70] Bunjil or Wrepil Eaglehawk 2. Yuckembruk " Ngarrego[71] Merung 3. Umbe Crow Wolgal[72] etc. Malian or Multa Eaglehawk 4. Muquara " Berriait[73], Tatathi[74], Kilpara Wathi-Wathi[74], Keramin[75], Waimbio[76], Barkinji[77], Milpulko[78], Wilya[78], Itchumundi[79] 5. Kumit (Gamutch, Black cockatoo Kaputch, Kulitch) Kroki (Krokitch, White cockatoo Booandik[80], Wotjoballuk[81], Krokage) Gournditchmara[82] etc.

The feminine terminations are -egor, -gurk or -jarr.

For South-West Victoria Dawson (Aborigines, p. 26) gives two groups and an odd totem kin (?):

Phratries Meaning Name of Tribe

6. Kuurokeetch Longbilled cockatoo Kartpoerappa Pelican Kappatch Banksia cockatoo Kirtuuk Boa snake Kuunamit Quail 7. Kararu (Kiraru, Dieri[83], Parnkalla & Nauo[84], Kararawa) Yandairunga[85], Urabunna[86] Matteri 8. Tinewa Yandrawontha, Yowerawarika[87] Koolpuru (? Emu) 9. Yungo (? Kangaroo) Mattera Kurnandaburi[88] 10. Kookoojeeba Koocheebinga Geebera[89]

The equivalence is not known.

11. Koorabunna Kooragula Goonganji[90]

Phratry

12. Darboo* Bloomfield River[91] Tooar

*The equivalence is unknown.

Phratry names. Four-class system Meaning 20. Dilbi Kupathin Ia, IIIa[+] 21. Budthurung(1) Mukula Ib (1)=black duck 22. Gwaigullean Gwaimudthen Ie Light blood; dark blood 23. Ngielbumurra Mukumurra Ic 24. Ngumbun Ngurrawan Id 25. Girana Merugulli If 26. Deeajee Karpeun IIIb 27. Witteru Yungaru IVa, b; Vb (? Kangaroo; ? emu) 27a. " Yungo Vf 28. " Mallera Va, IXa 29. " Pakoota Ve, IXb 30. Naka Tunna Vc 31. Walar Murla* VIIa Bee; bee 32. Cheepa Junna Vd 33. Jamagunda Gamanutta* XIa 34. Wartungmat Munichmat* XIVa Crow; white cockatoo

Eight-class system[+] 40. Illitchi Liaritchi XIIa 41. Uluuru Biingaru XIIc (? Curlew) 42. " Kingilli XIIb (? Curlew) 43. Wiliuku Liaraku XIId 44. Urku Ua Xa

FOOTNOTES:

[70] Howitt, p. 126.

[71] Id. p. 101.

[72] Id. p. 102, Lang, Secret, p. 163.

[73] Curr, II, 165.

[74] J.A.I. XIII, 338; Howitt, p. 195.

[75] J.A.I. XIV, 349.

[76] Taplin, p. 17; Howitt, p. 100.

[77] J.A.I. XIV, 348; Curr, II, 188, 195.

[78] Howitt, p. 98.

[79] Id. p. 106 n. For the Kurnai, Bunjil and Ngarregal were perhaps phratry names (Howitt, p. 135).

[80] Curr, III, 461; Howitt, p. 123.

[81] Id. p. 121.

[82] Id. p. 124.

[83] Howitt, p. 91.

[84] Woods, p. 222.

[85] Howitt, p. 187.

[86] Nor. Tr. p. 60.

[87] Howitt, p. 97.

[88] Howitt, p. 92; Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXIII, 108.

[89] Mathews in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. XXXIX, 187.

[90] Sci. Man, I. 84; Mathews in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. XXXIX, 89; in J.R.S.N.S.W. he reports a third name in certain districts—Koorameenya.

[91] Mathews in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. XXXIX, 89.

TABLE III.

Allusion has been made in Chapter III to kinship organisations denominated "bloods" and "shades" by Mr R.H. Mathews. Whether it is that some observers have mistaken these for phratries or vice versa, it seems that the names of the two classes of organisation are at present inextricably intermingled, as the following table shows:

Tribe Phratry Blood Meaning Itchmundi[92] Kilpara-Muquara {Mukulo-Ngielpuru []Sluggish and " {Muggula-Ngipuru[] swift blood Wiradjeri[93] Mukula-Budthurung Wonghibon[94] Mukumura-Ngiel- bumura Wonghi- }[95] bon and } Ngumbun- Gwaigullimba- []Swift and sluggish Ngneumba} Ngurrawan Gwaimudhan[] blood Euahlayi[96] Gwaigullean- Light and dark Gwaimudthen blooded Murawari[97] Girrana-Merugulli Muggulu-BumbirraSec. Sec.Sluggish and swift blood

FOOTNOTES:

[92] Howitt, p. 106 n.; Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXIX, 118.

[93] Id. p. 107.

[94] Id. p. 108.

TABLE IV.

The areas covered by the different class and phratry names are not co-extensive, that is to say a class is associated with more than one phratry and vice versa. The Undekerebina[98] and Yelyuyendi[99] have phratries (No. 29) which are usually associated with classes but in their case none have been noted. On the other hand it is not uncommon to find classes without the corresponding phratry names; this is the case in the eight class area, among the tribes of N.S. Wales, S. Queensland, etc.; but no special significance attaches to it unless we are certain that it is not the negligence of the observer nor the disuse of the names which has produced this state of things. On the other hand the relation of phratry and class areas is of the highest importance, as is shown in Chapter V. The following table shows the anomalies:

Tribe Phratry Class Wiradjeri 21 I Euahlayi 22 I Ngeumba, Wonghi 23, or 24 I Murawari 25 I Kiabara, etc. 20 III Dippil 26 III Kuinmurbura, Kongulu 27 IV Yuipera, Badieri, Yambeena, etc. 27 V Kogai, Wakelbura, etc. 28 V Woonamura, Mittakoodi, Miorli, etc. 29 V Purgoma 30 V Jouon 32 V Miappe 29 VIII Kalkadoon 28 VIII

FOOTNOTES:

[95] Mathews in J.R.S.N.S.W. xxxix, 116. Eth. Notes, p. 5.

[96] Mrs Langloh Parker, Euahlayi Tribe, p. 11.

[97] Mathews in Proc. R.G.S. Qu., 1905, 52.

[98] Rota, p. 56.

[99] Howitt, p. 192.



CHAPTER V.

PHRATRY NAMES.

The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts. Intercommunication. Tribal Migrations.

It has been shown in Chapter III that from the point of view of kinship organisations Australia falls into three main areas—occupied by the classless two-phratry, the four-class and the eight-class organisations. The total number of phratry names, thirty-three pairs in all, does not of course fall solely to the count of the two-phratry tribes, but is divided between the three kinds of organisation, the two-phratry having twelve pairs with one anomalous area, the four-class sixteen, and the eight-class five such sets. As regards the relative size of the areas thus organised, the largest seems to be that occupied by the Matteri-Kiraru system, though the Muquara-Kilpara (5) probably runs it close, especially if we take into account the names of like meaning (1-4) in the East Victorian area. The remainder of the two-phratry systems do not range over a wide extent of country, so far as is known; but 10, 11, and 33 are of unknown extent.

In the four-class area are two extensive systems, ranking next after those of South Australia and N.S. Wales; these are Mallera-Wuthera (27) and Pakoota-Wootaro (29); they have a single phratry name in common, which is also found in two other systems; if we add these together, as we may perhaps do on this evidence of a common basis, we have by far the largest phratric system in Australia as the result. Almost equal in extent to either of the two areas occupied by 27 and 29 is that claimed by the better known Kamilaroi system—Dilbi-Kupathin, which spreads over a long, comparatively narrow region, but had possibly at one time a wider field from which at the present time only the corresponding class names can be recovered. Of the remaining thirteen in the two-class region, only 28, one of the Wuthera systems already mentioned, has more than a restricted field of influence. Of moderate size are the four areas in the eight-class system proper, that of the Mara being small in comparison.

Taking now the native names, we find that, in addition to the Wuthera (Ootaroo) sets already mentioned, the Dieri and Kurnandaburi have Matteri (Mattera) in common, while the latter have in the Baddieri tribe a neighbour which shares the Yungo phratry name with them. The fact, if correct, that with the Badieri Yungo is associated with Wutheru, and takes the place of the more usual Yungaru, suggests that we may equate the latter with Yungo. In the eight-class area Uluuru is common to two systems, while a third has Wiliuku, and the fourth Illitchi, all of which seem to be allied, if we may take it that uru, uku, and tchi are suffixes; that they are is borne out by the corresponding names Liaritchi and Liaraku. Other possible equations are Mukula—Mukumurra, and Cheepa—Koocheebinga, but in the latter case, even if koo is a prefix, the distance of the two systems makes any such correspondence improbable. In Victoria the Malian-Multa equation is indisputable; it is interesting to note that the former is found in N.S. Wales as the name of the bird, while Multa belongs to Yorke Peninsula.

As regards the meaning of these names, we find that of the fifty-eight names which remain after deducting those which occur in more than one system, nineteen can be translated with certainty, and we can guess at the meaning of some half dozen more. Of translateable names the most widely spread are various titles of Eaglehawk and Crow, which appear in five different systems in Victoria and New South Wales[100]. Crow reappears in West Australia under the name of Wartung, with white cockatoo, also a Victorian phratry name, as its fellow. In North Queensland, as a parallel to the black and white cockatoo of the south, we find on the Annan River two species of bee giving their names to phratries; and the Black Duck phratry of the Waradjeri suggests that here too might be found another contrasting pair, if we could translate the other name. For the Euahlayi phratry names, on which more will be said in discussing the "blood" organisations, Mrs Parker gives the translation "Light-blooded" and "Dark-blooded," which comes near that suggested by Mr Mathews—slow and quick blooded. In the Ulu, Illi, and Wili of Northern Territory we seem to recognise Welu (curlew). Koolpuru (emu), Yungaru and Yungo (kangaroo), and Wutheroo (emu) are also possible meanings.

The problems raised by the phratriac nomenclature are complex and probably insoluble. They are in part bound up with the problem of the origin of the organisation itself; of this nature, for example, is the question whether the names correspond to anything existing in the pre-phratriac stage, or whether the organisation was borrowed and the names taken over translated or untranslated into the idiom of the borrowers. If the latter be the solution, we have a simple explanation of the wide-spread Eaglehawk-Crow system as well as of other facts, to which reference is made below.

If on the other hand the names have not been much spread by borrowing,—and the increasing number of small phratry areas known to us tells in favour of this, though it also suggests that the widely-found systems have gained ground at the expense of their neighbours,—then we obviously need some theory as to the origin of the organisation, before we can frame any hypothesis as to the origin of the names.

The prominent part, however, played by the Eaglehawk among phratry names raises some questions which can be discussed on their merits. One of these is the age of phratry names. Some of the earliest records of initiation ceremonies in New South Wales mention that the eaglehawk figured in them[101]. In West Australia this bird is the demiurge, and the progenitors of the phratries, of which crow is one, are his nephews. This is not the only case in which these birds figure in mythology.

As the Rev. John Mathew has pointed out in his work, Eaglehawk and Crow, there are found in Australia, especially in the south-eastern portion, a number of myths relating to the conflicts of these birds. These myths he interprets as echoes of a long-past conflict between the aboriginal Negrito race and the invading Papuans, and traces the origin of the phratries to the same racial strife. As an explanation of exogamy the hypothesis is clearly insufficient, but it is evident that no theory of the origin of the phratries can leave exogamy out of the question. The point, however, with which we are immediately concerned is the myth on which in the main Mr Mathew based his theory. Unfortunately, he did not think it necessary to attempt to define either the area covered by the different phratry names—an omission which is remedied by the present work—nor yet the limits within which the myth in question or its analogues are part of the native mythology. These analogues to the story of the battle of Eaglehawk and Crow, ended in the Darling area according to tradition by a treaty between the contending birds, are myths in which birds are said to have destroyed the human race, or a large portion of it, to have contended with Baiame, or one of the other gods, or to have figured in some other conflict[102]. The bird of this myth—the bird conflict myth, as it may be termed—is the Eaglehawk. Possibly, as I have pointed out in the note in Man, both bird conflict myths and Eaglehawk-Crow myths—they may be termed collectively bird myths—may go back to a common origin. So far as Mr Mathew's evidence goes, bird myths do not seem to be told outside the colony of Victoria and the Darling area of New South Wales.

A little research, however, shows that this idea is altogether erroneous. There are unfortunately large areas in Australia, as to the mythology of which we know absolutely nothing. Therefore it must not be supposed that the bird conflict myth is confined to the districts in which we have evidence of its existence. We may rather infer that a myth so widely distributed—it ranges from the head of the Bight, 129 deg. E., to the coast north of Sydney, and probably as far as Moreton Bay; to the north it is found among the Urabunna, and probably elsewhere—is common property of the Australian Tribes.

A glance at the map will show that the eaglehawk and crow myth covers but a small portion of the area in which the bird conflict myth is found. On the other hand we find within the eaglehawk-crow myth district the phratry names Cockatoo, three names of unknown meaning, and the doubtful Kiraru—Kirarawa. Now if a racial conflict is indicated by the names eaglehawk and crow, this must be either because the contending races were already known by these names, or because the two birds in question are proverbially hostile to each other. In either case we are left without any explanation of the two cockatoo phratries. It may indeed be argued that the locality in which the eaglehawk-crow phratry names are found tells strongly in favour of the racial conflict hypothesis; for it is precisely in this area that the last stand of the aborigines against the invaders may, on the theory put forward by Mr Mathew and accepted by some anthropologists[103], be supposed to have taken place. But against this must be set the fact that in this area also we find two cockatoos, and on the Annan River two bees, arrayed against one another; unless it can be shown that these two birds are also proverbial foes, or that the Australian native had reached a point in his biological investigations at which he recognised that the presence of two closely allied species in a district involves a particularly keen struggle for existence (which they would, however, regard in such an advanced stage of knowledge as appropriate to the designation of intra-racial rather than inter-racial feuds), the two sets of facts balance one another, and leave us still engaged in a vain quest for a conclusion.

Putting theories as to racial conflicts aside, and dealing with the facts as we find them, we seem to have a choice of two hypotheses. Either the eaglehawk-crow myths were told before the phratry names came into existence, or they were invented to explain the existence of the phratry names. Let us assume that none of the unknown names mean eaglehawk or crow, and that the eaglehawk-crow area has remained approximately the same size, or has, at any rate, not diminished (excluding, of course, those cases where it seems to have lost ground owing to the disappearance of phratry names altogether, as among the Kurnai); we must then, on the second theory, assume that the story of the combat spread to tribes with completely different phratry names like the Urabunna, and got mixed up with their ceremonies of initiation (the most sacred part of the mythology of the Australian natives, and one not likely to be much influenced by chance intruders); and that it came even in some cases to be told of Baiame, the creator and institutor of the rites of initiation, who is represented as himself taking part in the conflict and gaining a victory over the foes of mankind[104]. On the whole, therefore, this view of the case appears improbable.

To the theory that the Eaglehawk-Crow story was originally independent of the phratry names no such objections apply. We are indefinitely remote from the period at which the anthropologist will be able to do for Australia what Franz Boas has done for the North-West of America—draw up a table showing the resemblances and differences between the stock of folktales of the different tribes, or, which is more important for our present purpose, of the main divisions, eastern, central, and western, which the analysis of initiation ceremonies gives us—a tripartite division which Curr also makes on the linguistic side, though Mathew's map shows considerable intermixture in this respect. Until we know to what extent the Urabunna or the Ikula have folktales in common with the Victorian area, or,—which is perhaps more important, though we do not seem to hear of any communication on this line,—how far there is a stock of folktales common to the Darling district and the central area, it is obviously idle to speculate as to how it comes that an Eaglehawk myth is told in both areas. The physical anthropology of the Australian natives is at present a little-worked field, in which, singularly enough, the French have done more than the English, to our shame be it said. Possibly a somatological survey might disclose to what extent the central tribes are distinct from the eastern group, and how far we may assume movements of population, subsequent to the original peopling of the country by the stocks in question, in either or both directions. In the absence of such data, and until an Australian Grimm has arisen to bring order into the present linguistic chaos, the evidence from folktales seems to promise most light on the question of migrations.

We are, of course, confronted by the difficulty that this evidence may simply disclose the lines along which tribal intercommunication has been most easy, whether in the way of simple interchange of commodities, evidence of which we have over considerable areas in Australia, or in the way of intermarriage, which, as we see by the example of the Urabunna and the Arunta, is found in spite of fundamental differences of tribal organisation. A common stock of folktales due to this cause would leave unexplained the prominence of the bird myth in the sacred rites, and leave the present hypothesis, in this regard, on a par with that of post-phratriac dissemination, in respect of probability. On the other hand we have the Scylla of tribal property in land, an idea so firmly rooted in our own day in the minds of the Australians as to make wars of conquest unthinkable to them, and to transform the practical part of their intertribal feuds into mere raids. If, therefore, investigation showed that the central and eastern tribes are in possession of a stock of folktales with many items in common, we should always have to take into consideration the possibility that these tales antedate the complete occupation of Australia, and go back to a period when the eastern and central divisions were in close relation. The probability of this view would, of course, depend on the extent of the resemblance between the two stocks of tales, or, perhaps, rather on the extent of the resemblance between those tales which they have in common; for it is clear that a close resemblance between comparatively few items would be more effective proof of intercommunication than a less marked general resemblance between the tale-stocks as a whole.

In spite of the deficiencies of our evidence we may perhaps incline to the view that the bird myth dates back to a very early period. Until it has been shown that intrusive elements are not only taken up into the tribal stock of tales, but also incorporated in the more sacred portion of those tales, which are told at the tribal mysteries, it will always remain more probable that the myth belongs to the two divisions as a result of lineal and not lateral transmission. If this is so the differences between the initiation ceremonies, no less than the anthropomorphic form of the myth in the eastern division, as compared with the purely theriomorphic story of the central division and the mixed form of the Ikula, will enable us to say that the period when the separation of the divisions took place must be very remote.

There is, therefore, no inherent improbability in supposing that the bird myth was told before the phratry names were invented or adopted, and that the latter were in some cases taken from the principal characters in the myth. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the phratry names seem to be subsequent to the present grouping, if we may take as our guide the fact that the frontiers of the phratry names correspond with the boundaries between the central and eastern divisions. The fact that there is a cross division, if we base our reasoning on the class organisation, need not of course be taken into account, for we have every reason to believe that the classes are subsequent to the phratries.

In favour of the derivation of the phratry names from the myth tells also the five-fold division of the eaglehawk-crow groups into Muquara and Kilpara, Bunjil and Waa, Merung and Yuckembruk, Multa or Malian and Umbe. For it is clearly more probable that the names should have been taken from a common object than that they should have been in their origin identical in form and subsequently differentiated, as the languages changed; we have in fact direct evidence of a tendency to preserve the old names, which we may perhaps regard as the sacred names, after the bird has been rebaptised in the terminology of daily life. Over and above this we have of course the fact that the sacred language has, generally speaking, both in Australia and elsewhere, this unchanging character. But this simple name-borrowing theory, it is clear, is equally valid as an explanation of the facts.

Although we cannot determine the meaning of the names the quadripartite division of the Mallera-Wuthera[105] and allied phratries in the north is evidence of a similar tendency. It is by no means impossible that Mallera, Yungaroo, and Pakoota all mean the same thing. (This ignorance of the meaning of the phratry and class names is prima facie evidence of their high antiquity.) In the newly-discovered phratry names of the eight-class tribes we have yet another instance of tripartite division. If we may assume that Illitchi, Uluuru, and Wiliuku are from the same root (which, as we have seen, is probably welu, the terminations -uku, -itchi, and -uru (=-aree) being formative suffixes), we have here too a single phratry name on the one side and three sister names on the other. While it is clear that the names cannot be in any sense of the term recent, from the fact that linguistic differentiation had already gone some distance in what we may call, for want of a better term, groups speaking a stock language (in proof of which we have only to look at the formative suffixes), it seems equally clear that the present phratry names must be considerably later than the final settlement of the country. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the existence of numerous small phratries, the number of which may yet be largely increased by more exact research, is prima facie a proof that the groups which adopted them had not reached the stage at which anything like that tribal (still less national) organisation was known, which is at the present day characteristic of the Arunta, and, perhaps, we may say, of all groups organised on a class system with class names known and used over an area far beyond that over which the (in a restricted sense) tribal language extends.

The recurrence of crow in the phratry name of the far west lends further support to the view that the phratry names were selected in some way, and were not due to some accident of savage wit. The view has been taken that the phratry animals were originally totems, or animals that became totems at a later stage. In view of the large number of totems found in many tribes, or even restricting their number to six or eight in each phratry, it is not difficult to estimate the probability that cockatoo and crow would recur in different areas, and that an opposition of characters should be found in other cases. The hypothesis needs at any rate to be combined with a theory, firstly, of borrowing of phratry names, a process which must indeed have played a large part in the development of the present system, but which does not necessarily involve the supposition that the borrowed names replaced previously existing home-made names; and, secondly, of selection of such names as were not borrowed.

It has been mentioned that the principle of tribal property in land or, to be strictly accurate, in hunting grounds, is, at the present day, a fundamental one in native Australian jurisprudence. But, as is shown by the map, in some cases the phratries are split into two or more segments[106], more or less remote from one another, geographically speaking. Now this apparent segmentation must be due to migration; it can hardly arise from the chance adoption of identical names; for the groups in which the names occur are, though separated by a considerable distance, not so remote as, on the theory of chance selection, we should expect them to be, in other words the probability is in favour of the segmentation of an original group or its cleavage by an intrusive element. Of the causes of this drift of population, which on a large scale, and under pressure of any kind, might well overrule even the rights of property, we have naturally no idea. In a homogeneous mass like the population of Australia, and especially in a mass whose level of culture is so low as to leave no remains behind which we could use for the purposes of chronology, it is hopeless to expect any solution of any of the problems connected with drift of population. One thing only seems clear, and on this point we may hope for some light from the data of philology, namely that the migration was long subsequent to the original Volkerwanderung; for this must have preceded the rise of phratry names, which again must have preceded the migration of which the segmentation of groups, evidenced by the names themselves, is at present, and in default of the aid of philology, our only proof.

The migrations of which we are speaking must, if the possession of one phratry name in common be worth anything as evidence of a closer connection between the groups, have been internal to a group or, if the term be preferred, to a nation occupying the south of Queensland. For in the absence of evidence that phratry names are to be found outside their own linguistic groups, we cannot but infer from the quadripartite division of the Wuthera phratries both the linguistic unity (and language must be in Australia the ultimate test of racial relationship on a large scale) and the internal movements of the group in which they occur.

In favour of the primitive unity of the Wuthera groups, is the fact that with small exceptions, and those on the outskirts of the district, the area occupied by the assumed homogeneous pre-phratry group has the same class names throughout—which is at the same time a proof that the class names are posterior to the phratry names; for the later the date, the more extensive the group, may be taken to be the rule in savage communities; if the phratry names came later than the class names we should expect them to be identical, and the class names different instead of the reverse. But to the relative age of classes and phratries we return at another point of our argument.

The available data being few, it could hardly be expected that a discussion of them would be very fruitful. In the present chapter we have, however, shown that the phratry names and organisation are probably of very early date, that considerable movements of population took place within the linguistic groups subsequent to the adoption of the phratry names, and that these names have been selected for some explicit reason and not adopted at haphazard.

FOOTNOTES:

[100] For references, meanings, etc. see chap. IV.

[101] See Man 1905, no. 28.

[102] Cf. Man, 1905, no. 28.

[103] But see J.R.S. Vict. XVII, 120.

[104] See Man, 1905, no. 28, where I show that in the Wellington Valley was current a myth of the conflict between Baiame and Mudgegong (=Eaglehawk).

[105] Chap. IV, phratries, nos. 27-29.

[106] See Map III, phratry no. 28.



CHAPTER VI.

ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.

Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split groups. The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory of phratriac origin.

If a pre-phratry organisation developed into the system as we find it, it is a little difficult to see how selection can have operated, unless, indeed, as Mr Lang suggests, the phratries are transformed connubial groups, in which case they may have received new names. It is perhaps simpler to suppose that the cases of selection of phratry names cited above are those in which the organisation has been borrowed with full knowledge of its meaning. If this view is correct, no criticism of theories of the origin of phratries is possible from the point of view of the names actually existing, for we cannot say which, if any, are those which were evolved in the organisation which served as a model to the remainder.

Broadly speaking the theories of origin at present in the field may be reduced to two: in the first place, the conscious reformation theory, which supposes that man discovered the evils of in-and-in breeding, a point on which some discussion will be found in a later portion of this work. In the second place, there is the unconscious evolution theory put forward by Mr Lang, whose criticism of the opposing view makes it unnecessary to deal with the objections here[107].

Mr Lang's original theory took for its basis the hypothesis, put forward by the late Mr J.J. Atkinson, in Primal Law, of the origin of exogamy. His starting-point was mankind in the brute stage. At the point in the evolution of the human race at which Mr Atkinson takes up his tale, man, or rather Eoanthropos, was, according to his conjecture, organised, if that term can be applied to the grouping of the lower animals, in bodies consisting of one adult male, an attendant horde of adult females, including, probably, at any rate after a certain lapse of time, his own progeny, together with the immature offspring of both sexes. As the young males came to maturity, they would be expelled from the herd, as is actually the case with cattle and other mammals, by their sire, now become their foe. They probably wandered about, as do the young males of some existing species, in droves of a dozen or more, and at certain seasons of the year, one or more of them would, as they felt their powers mature, engage the lord of their own or of another herd in single combat, until with the lapse of time the latter either succumbed or was driven from the herd to end his days in solitary ferocity, his hand against everyone, just as we see the rogue elephant wage war indiscriminately on all who approach him.

In process of time, so Mr Atkinson suggests, with the lengthening childhood conditioned by the progress of the race, maternal love of a more enduring kind developed, than is found among the non-human species of the present day. This led eventually to the presence of a young male, perhaps the youngest born of a given mother, being permitted to remain, on conditions, in the herd after he had attained maturity. The original lord and master of the herd retained, Mr Atkinson supposes, his full sovereignty over the females born in the herd as well as over those whom his prowess had perhaps added to it from time to time. The young male on the other hand was not condemned to a life of celibacy as a condition of his non-enforcement of the traditional decree of banishment. He was permitted to find a mate, but she must be a mate not born in the herd, nor one of the harem of his sire; he had, if he wished to wed, to capture a spouse for himself from another herd. For the detailed working out of this ingenious theory we must refer our readers to Mr Atkinson's work, Primal Law. Here it suffices to state the primal law which resulted from the process sketched above. This primal law was "thou shalt not marry within the group." This law, at first enforced by the superior strength of the sire, came in the process of time to be a traditional rule of conduct, almost an instinct. And with this we reach the theory put forward in Social Origins by Mr Andrew Lang, according to which local groups received animal names, perhaps from their neighbours. These local groups being exogamous for the reason just given, and the group name being eventually[108] given, not only to the actual members of the group, but also to the women, captured or otherwise, who became the mates of the men of the adjoining groups, it necessarily resulted that the men of a group, so long as the mother's group name did not descend to her children, were of one name, while their wives were of another, or more probably of many other names. The group became definitely heterogeneous when the maternal group name descended to the children born in the alien group, and in process of time these maternal group names became totem names.

Meanwhile the original group names had been retained and applied, along with the totem or quasi-totem names, to the members of the group; the name being probably, in the first place, that of the group in which they were born, but, with the rise of the matrilineal descent, which has been discussed above, eventually taken from the group to which the mother belonged.

During these processes the custom had sprung up to select a wife, not at random from any of the probably more or less hostile surrounding groups, but from one particular group with which the group of the candidate for matrimony had in the course of time come to be on friendly terms.

The names of these two groups, which drew in other smaller groups, became the phratry names of the newly-formed aggregate, the largest unit known to primitive society at that stage of its evolution, and corresponding roughly to what we have defined as a tribe; for it was united by bonds of friendship, and in the course of time the language, originally very different no doubt, how different we can, indeed, hardly say, must have so far coalesced, owing to the interchange of wives (in so far as a distinct woman's language, traces of which are found among some savage tribes, was not developed), as to produce a single tongue.

This theory Mr Lang has now fortified and elaborated in The Secret of the Totem, the most important new point being the demonstration of the fact that totem kins which bear names of the same significance as the phratry names are almost invariably in the eponymous phratries—a clear proof that law and not chance has determined their position.

As an explanation of the distribution of phratry names Mr Lang adopts a theory which combines the hypotheses of evolution and borrowing, and thus explains both the wide area covered by some systems, and the increasing multitude of organisations confined to small districts, which more minute research reveals. This does not, it is true, explain the geographical remoteness of different parts of the same system or of allied systems, shown to be so by the identity of phratry animal or name. Not only is Wuthera-Mallera split into two sections; but a portion of Wuthera-Yungaru seems to be in the same position; if we may take the Badieri Yungo as equivalent to Yungaru, dispersion alone suffices to explain the case; but if Yungo is derived from the Kurnandaburi, who have Mattera as the sister phratry, then we have the Badieri phratry names borrowed each from a different tribe, at any rate in appearance.

In reality this state of things affords the strongest possible support to Mr Lang's hypothesis, if only we can suppose that the formation of tribes is subsequent to the elaboration of the phratriac system. For it might well happen that an original Yungo local group divided, from economic causes, but that each half retained its original name. Under these circumstances the two portions formed connubial alliances with other groups; and in the tribes as we see the names of these split groups are found as phratry names, combined in each case with a different sister phratry name. We find for example Wuthera-Yungo, Yungo-Mattera, Matteri-Kiraru in the central area. The same theory will explain the appearance of Wuthera beside three other sister names, though here we must call in the borrowing and migration theories as well, to explain the wide area over which the names are found. We have seen that in the northern tribes one of the phratry names appears to be in each case from the same root; if this is so, we can apply to them too the split-group hypothesis.

The case of Eaglehawk-Crow is less simple. Separated from the Darling area by a considerable space lie four systems of the same name in the east of Victoria. Here it is hardly possible to assume that the latter systems have migrated; on the other hand the area covered by the Darling group suggests that it is unlikely to have been forced from its original home by pressure from outside. Perhaps it is simplest to suppose that the Wiradjeri have gradually forced their way in, wedge fashion, between the different sections, and either swallowed up the intervening members or driven them before them; this would account for the existence of the anomalous groups to the south-west.

In this area, too, we seem to have a case of the split group; but the identity of meaning of the other phratry names (Malian and Multa both mean Eaglehawk) makes it clear that it is simply a case of translation—a possibility which must be kept in mind in the other cases also. It is a common phenomenon for two tribes to have the name of one animal in common, while for that of another entirely different words are in use. The four Victorian groups appear to have borrowed the phratry names, but the centre from which they took them must remain uncertain.

It may be noted in passing that the view of Prof. Gregory, who holds that the occupation of Victoria by the blacks dates back no more than 300 years, is hardly borne out by the distribution of the phratriac systems. It is clearly improbable that they were developed in situ, for this would make the organisation of very much more recent date than we have any warrant for supposing. On the other hand it is improbable that four tribes, all with the same phratriac names, should have taken their course in the same direction, and settled in proximity to one another, at any rate, unless the natural features of the country made this course the only possible one.

To return to Mr Lang's theory, it obviously suggests, if it does not demand, that such phratries as are spread over wide areas should in the main follow the lines of linguistic or cultural areas. Our knowledge of these is hardly sufficient to enable us to say at present how far the presumption of coincidence is fulfilled; but it is certain that in more than one large area the facts are as Mr Lang's theory requires them to be.

On the other hand in New South Wales we find an area in which we fail to discern the lines on which the phratriac systems are distributed. Here, however, we are at a disadvantage in consequence of the uncertainty introduced by the unsettled question of "blood" organisations[109]. Further research may show that the supposed phratriac areas, which are apparently only portions of the Wiradjeri territory, are in reality to be assigned to the "blood" organisations, which we may probably assign to a later date than the phratries and classes.

Perhaps Mr Lang's theory hardly accounts for the fact that eaglehawk and crow figure not only as phratry names but also in the myths and rites. It is not apparent why eaglehawk and crow groups should take the lead and give their names to the phratries unless it was as contrasted colours; on the other hand, if they were selected as the names from among a number of others this difficulty vanishes, but then we do not see why these names are not more widely found, unless indeed the untranslated names mean eaglehawk and crow; but possibly all express a contrast of some sort.

On the whole, however, it may be said that Mr Lang's theory holds the field. Not only is it internally consistent, which cannot be affirmed of the reformation theory, but it colligates the facts far better. This may be illustrated by a single point.

On the reformation theory, unaccompanied, as it is, by any hypothesis of borrowing of phratry names, we should prima facie find the latter, where they are translateable, to be those of the animals which are most frequently found as totems. Now in the area covered by Dr Howitt's recent work, omitting those tribes for which our lists of totems are admittedly not complete, we find that emu, kangaroo, snake, eaglehawk, and iguana are found as totems in about two-thirds of the cases; then, after a long interval, come wallaby and crow, less than half as often, with opossum rather more frequently, in half the total number. But it is clearly outside the bounds of probability that four of the commonest totems should not give their names, so far as is known, to phratries, while eaglehawk recurs five, crow six, and cockatoo three times, the two latter in one case in a remote area. Not only so, but the opposition between the phratry names—black and white or the like—is unintelligible, if, as on Dr Durkheim's theory, the phratries are simply the elementary totem groups which intermarried and threw off secondary totem kins. But criticism of other theories opens a wide field, into which it is best not to diverge.

On the development theory the phratries came into existence perhaps as the result of the persistence of an old custom of exogamy, non-moral in its inception, or, it may be, as a result of the rise of totemic tabus. The reformation theory, on the other hand, makes the conscious attainment of a better state of society the object of the institution of a dichotomous organisation. It will therefore be well to see what results in practice from the phratriac organisation.

In the two-phratry area (other rules, which usually exist, apart) it is impossible for children of the same mother or father, or of sisters or of brothers, to marry, nor can one of the parents, either mother or father, according to the rule of descent, take her or his own child in marriage. Now if the object of the reformation was to prevent parents from marrying children, it was clearly not attained. If, on the other hand, it was intended to prevent children of the same mother or father from intermarrying, the result could have been attained far more simply, either by direct prohibition, such as is found in other cases, or by the institution of totemic exogamy, which, in the view of some authorities, already existed, and consequently made the phratry superfluous.

According to Dr Frazer's 1905 theory, phratries were introduced to prevent brother and sister marriage and exogamous bars began in the female line[110]. Against this hypothesis may be urged not only the objections first stated but also the fact that for Dr Frazer the Arunta are primitive and yet reckon descent (of the class) in the male line. If, as he conceives, conceptional totemism was transformed in the central tribes into patrilineal totemism, I fail to see why the phratries or classes should descend in the female line.

If in the third place, it was proposed to prevent children of sisters or of brothers from intermarrying, it is completely mysterious why children of brothers and sisters should not only not have been prevented in the same way, but absolutely be regarded as the proper mates for each other. Even if a single community reformed itself on these lines, it is hardly conceivable that many should have done so, even if we suppose that the advantages of prohibition were preached from tribe to tribe by missionaries of the new order of things. Ex hypothesi, cousin marriage was not regarded as harmful; and it is highly improbable that any people in the lower stages of culture should have discovered that in-and-in breeding is harmful, for the results, especially in a people which contained no degenerates, would not appear at once, even if they appeared at all.

On this point therefore the probabilities are wholly on the side of development as against reformation.

An additional reason against the reformation theory is found in the fact that phratries, on this theory, would never exceed two in number, but in practice there are, as shown in Chapter II, wide variations.

FOOTNOTES:

[107] Secret of the Totem, pp. 31, 91 sq.

[108] Mr Lang's view is that the women from the first retained their original group names wherever they went. Letter of July 27th, 1906.

[109] See pp. 31, 50.

[110] Fortn. Rev. LXXVIII, 459.



CHAPTER VII.

CLASS NAMES.

Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the Names: Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names.

The priority of phratries over classes is commonly admitted and it is unnecessary to argue the question at length. The main grounds for the assumption are: (1) that it is a priori probable that the fourfold division succeeded the twofold division, exactly as the eightfold division has succeeded, and apparently is still gaining ground, at the expense of the four-class system. (2) Over a considerable and compact area phratries alone are found without a trace of named classes, if we except the anomalous organisation recorded by Dawson in S.W. Victoria. On the other hand, while we find certain tribes among whom no phratry names have yet been discovered, it is inherently probable that this is due to their having been forgotten and not to their never having existed. It is possible that the encroachments of an alien class system have in some cases helped on the extinction of the phratry names. (3) We find classes without phratry names, not in a compact group, but scattered up and down more or less at random, suggesting that chance and not law has been at work to produce this result. (4) Where class names are found without corresponding phratry names, they are invariably arranged in what may be termed anonymous phratries; that is to say, in pairs or fours, so that the member of one class is under normal circumstances not at liberty to select a wife at will from the other three, but is usually limited to one of the other classes. This state of things clearly points to a time when the phratries were recognised by the tribes in question.

(5) While the classes are arranged in pairs or fours, according to whether the system is four- or eight-class, the totems, on the other hand, are distributed phratry fashion; in other words, one group of totems belongs to each pair or quadruplet of classes. This divergent organisation of the classes (four or eight for the whole tribe) and totems (two groups for the whole tribe) can only be explained on the supposition that the phratry everywhere preceded the class organisation.

The spatial relations of the phratries and classes are sufficiently clear from the map; and a table shows how far cross divisions are found.

The main area of disturbance of the normal relations is, as shown in Table IV (p. 51), the district occupied by the Koorgilla class-system and its immediate neighbourhood. The Yungaroo-Witteru group has three representatives in the Koorgilla class and one in the Kurpal class. The Pakoota-Wootaroo phratry has likewise three in the Koorgilla class, a fourth being in the Yowingo organisation. A large area is occupied by the Mallera-Witteru phratry in the Koorgilla class, and one tribe is again found in the Yowingo group. No class names are recorded for the Undekerebina in the Pakoota group, and no phratry names for the Mycoolon and Workobongo in the Yowingo group, nor for the Yerunthully in the Koorgilla group, which in addition to tribes belonging to the three Wuthera phratries also embraces within its limits the small Purgoma and Jouon tribes.

The only other anomaly recorded in addition to those mentioned is among the tribes on the south and south-east of the area just dealt with, which have the Barang class names with the Kamilaroi phratry names, or the Kamilaroi class names with tribal phratry names. In four cases therefore the phratry is found outside the limits of the class usually associated with it, or, in other words, it is associated with a strange class system. In one case, that of the Kalkadoon, this is sufficiently explained by the fact that the tribe is itself now remote geographically speaking from its fellows, owing to the interposition of Pitta-Pitta and allied tribes. In the other three cases the facts seem to point to a change in the intertribal relationships in the period intervening between the adoption of phratry names and the introduction of the class system. If the lines of intercourse and intermarriage had suffered a revolution in the interval, the names, the origin of which we have yet to consider, would naturally show a different grouping of the tribes; for it is on the grouping of the tribes that the spread of the names, whether of phratries or classes, must have depended.

The main mass of the tribes organised on the four-class system lies in Queensland and New South Wales, and whereas only two sets of names are found in the latter colony, no less than fifteen (some of which are, however, of more than doubtful authenticity) are reported from various parts of Queensland. From Northern Territory two (Anula and Mara) of small extent are reported[111]; a considerable area of this colony, as well as of South and West Australia, is occupied by the Arunta system, and the closely allied classes to the north-west of them. The only other four-class system in West Australia of which we have definite information is that west and north of King George's Sound and eastwards for an unknown distance.

Covering nearly the whole of New South Wales outside the area occupied by the two-phratry tribes of the Darling country, and extending far up into Queensland, we find the well-known Muri-Kubbi, Ippai-Kumbo classes (1) of the Kamilaroi nation[112]. The Kamilaroi system appears to have touched the sea in the neighbourhood of Sydney. According to Mr Mathews, the Darkinung, who inhabited this part of New South Wales, substituted Bya for Muri. (1a) In like manner the Wiradjeri are stated by Gribble to have replaced Kumbo by Wombee; this may however be no more than a dialectical variant.

Lying along the sea coast north-east of the Darkinung and east of the main mass of Kamilaroi tribe were the Kombinegherry and other tribes, whom Mr Mathews denominates the Anaywan. Their classes are given by him as Irrpoong, Marroong, Imboong, and Irrong; but an earlier authority gives the forms Kurbo, Marro, Wombo, and Wirro (2); at Wide Bay we find Baran, Balkun, Derwen, and Bundar (3) with an alternative form Banjoor.

North of them, still on the coast, we find the Kuinmurbura with Kurpal, Kuialla, Karilbura, and Munal (4); for the Taroombul, which I am unable to locate, Mr Mathews gives Koodala in place of Kuialla and Karalbara for Karilbura. For the Kangoollo, lying inland from this group, Mr Mathews gives Kearra, Banjoor, Banniar, and Koorpal. This suggests that there is some confusion, for the names include two from 4, and one or two from 3.

A very large area is occupied by tribes with the classes (5) Koorgila, Bunburi, Wunggo, and Obur (and variants). They include the Yuipera and allied tribes, the Kogai, the Wakelbura and allied tribes, the Yambeena, the Yerunthully, the Woonamurra, the Mittakoodi, the Pitta-Pitta, etc., together with the Purgoma of the Palm Islands and the neighbouring Jouon, whose headquarters are at Cooktown. In the southern portion of this group a correspondent of Curr's has reported the classes Nullum, Yoolgo, Bungumbura, and Teilling. We have class names analogous in form to the third of these names, it is true, but it resembles tribal names so closely as to suggest that the observer in question was really referring to a tribe and not to a class. If this is so we may perhaps identify Teilling with the Toolginbura. There seems to be no reason for admitting these four names to a place among the other groups of class names. In like manner we may dismiss the class names assigned to the Yukkaburra by an inaccurate correspondent of Curr's, who gives Utheroo, Multheroo, Yungaroo, and Goorgilla. It seems clear that the first and third of these are really phratry names; possibly the second is a dialectical form for Utheroo.

From Halifax Bay and Hinchinbrook Island are reported the names Korkoro, Korkeen, Wongo, and Wotero (with variants). Among the Joongoongie of North Queensland we find Langenam, Namegoor, Packewicky, and Pamarung (15); and among the Karandee Curr gives an anomalous and probably defective set, Moorob, Heyanbo, Lenai, Roanga, and Yelet.

The Goothanto and Wollungurma have Ranya, Rara, Loora, and Awunga (8); allied to these perhaps are the Jury, Ararey, Barry, and Mungilly of the Koogobathy; the Ahjeerena, Arrenynung, Perrynung, and Mahngal of the Koonjan are clearly variants of the latter set. East of the Koogobathy lie the Warkeman with Koopungie, Kellungie, Chukungie, and Karpungie (6), with an allied tribe on the Tully River with classes, Kurongon, Kurkulla, Chikun, Karavangie, the two latter obviously corresponding to Warkeman classes, the second to Koorgilla.

The Miappe, Mycoolon, Kalkadoon, and Workoboongo have Youingo, Maringo, Badingo, and Jimmilingo (9), with alternatives Kapoodingo, Kungilingo, and Toonbeungo.

The Yoolanlanya and others have Deringara, Gubilla, Koomara, and Belthara, possibly a defective list, for Mr Mathews adds to these for the Ullayilinya Lookwara and Ungella (probably a defective set) in another communication. Two of these are obviously identical with the Arunta Koomara and Bulthara, with which are associated Purula and Panungka (13), while Ungilla and Gubilla are taken from the eight-class system to which we may probably assign the tribe. North-west of the Arunta, outside the eight-class area, the class names are almost identical with, though they differ widely in form from the Arunta names. They are Burong, Ballieri, Baniker, and Caiemurra (13). The form Boorgarloo is given as a variant. Mrs Bates has found a system (14) in S.W. Australia.

On the western shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria we find the Mara with Purdal, Murungun, Mumbali, and Kuial (10); and the Anula with Awukaria, Roumburia, Urtalia, and Wialia (11).

The only two remaining four-class systems of which the names are known are on the Annan River with Wandi, Walar, Jorro, and Kutchal (7)—the Ngarranga of Yorke Peninsula, with Kari, Wani, Wilthi, and Wilthuthu.

Attention has been called in the course of the above exposition to various cases in which the class names found among one group of tribes are in part if not entirely identical with those found among their neighbours. A close examination discloses other possible though hardly probable points of contact besides those already enumerated. The variant form Banjoora in 3 seems to be the same as the Banjoor of the Kangulu, which again has Koorpal in common with 4, and also Kearra, if we may equate the latter with Kuialla. This again is perhaps the Kuial of the Mara tribe (9).

The Marroong of 2 seems to be the Maringo of 9, and we may perhaps also equate the Kurbo of this group with the Kurpal of 4. Irroong resembles the roanga of the Karandee which is probably the Arawongo of the Goothanto.

In 5 Wongo suggests the Youingo of 9; it reappears in the Halifax Bay list, as also does Koorgilla in one of the variants. Again Kubi (1) corresponds to Koobaroo (5), and Kumbo (Wombee) to Bunburi (Unburi), but we can hardly regard them as the same words. Koodalla and Koorpal (4) may be the same as Kellungie and Koopungie (6); the other pair shows no resemblance.

Possibly the Wiradjeri Wombee is the Kombinegherry Wombo; it is at any rate significant that the name is found in the portion of the tribe nearest the Kombinegherry.

We have seen that the Arunta and their north-western neighbours have a four-class system, the component names of which are found with little variation over a range of nearly 25 deg. of longitude. In the forms Kiemarra, Palyeri, Burong, and Baniker, the class names in vogue among the southern Arunta meet us again near the North-West Cape, thus covering a larger area than even the widespread Koorgila-Bunburi class names of Queensland, and forming a striking contrast to the narrow limits of the majority of the four-class system. This peculiarity is reproduced in the compact area of the central eight-class tribes, north and north-east of the Koomara four-class area, though with much greater variations in the names. Bulthara however in the form Palyeri is found in more or less disguised shapes in the whole of the eighteen tribes, whose class names are shown in Table I a; Koomara is found in shapes which are on the whole harder to recognise, and Panunga and Purula in two or three cases, either replaced by another word or so changed as to be unrecognisable. Of the supplementary names belonging to the eight-class Arunta, Uknaria, Ungalla, Appungerta, Umbitchana, Ungalla is found in the whole of the tribes under consideration, and Appungerta undergoes on the whole but little change; Uknaria is practically not found outside the Arunta area, and Umbitchana is in six cases replaced by Yacomary, which seems to be a form of Koomara (to this point we recur later).

Although this suggests that the names were in the first case taken from the Arunta a comparison of them shows that it is not among this tribe that the greatest number of forms common to the whole group and the greatest general resemblance of the names is to be found, as is shown by the comparative tables below. Judged by the standard of resemblance the Oolawunga of the north-west, on the Victoria River, have preserved the names nearest their original forms. Judged by the standard of least deviation from the common stock of names and basing the comparison, not on resemblances but on differences, the Koorangie of the upper waters of the same river take the first place, with the Oolawunga not far behind. In each case the Inchalachee, the most easterly of the group, take the last place, followed in the table of resemblances by the Walpari and the Worgaia; and in the table of differences by the Worgaia and, though at a considerable distance, the Mayoo and the Walpari.

Figure of Resemblance[113].

Oolawunga 55 Bingongina 54 Umbaia 51 Koorangie 50 Yookala, Binbinga 48 Gnanji 47 Meening 43 Warramunga, Yungmunni 41 Arunta, Mayoo 40 Kaitish, Yungarella, Tjingilli 39 Worgaia 37 Walpari 31 Inchalachee 28

Figure of Difference[114].

Koorangie 31 Oolawunga 33 Umbaia 35 Bingongina 37 Yungmunni 42 Gnanji, Tjingilli 44 Warramunga 45 Arunta 46 Binbinga 49 Yookala 50 Meening 52 Kaitish 54 Yungarella, Walpari 56 Mayoo 57 Worgaia 69 Inchalachee 84

Attention has already been drawn to the resemblance between the Arunta four-class names and the names of the eight-class group. It is clearly of high importance to determine whether the resemblance is on the whole between the names of the western group and the eight-class names, or whether the latter can more readily be derived from those of the Arunta. In the latter case it is obvious that the position of the Oolawunga and Koorangie in the comparative tables is due, not to their having been the tribes from which all the others derived their names, but rather to movements of population subsequent to the adoption of the class names. If on the other hand it appears that the names came in the first instance from the more western portion of the Koomara group, we have some grounds for supposing that the names and the system reached the eight-class area from the west and not from the south.

We have already seen that in the case of Palyeri-Bulthara all the evidence points to the name having come from the west. In the case of Panunga the evidence is weaker, certain of the forms being derivable from either Baniker or Panunga, but with the exception of the Warramunga, and possibly the Tjingili, there are no tribes of whom we can definitely say that they took the name from the Arunta, whereas there are at least four cases where the resemblance is distinctly with the western class names, and several more in which it can more readily be derived from them. The resemblance between Koomarra and Kiemarra or Kiamba is already considerable, and makes it difficult to estimate the probabilities in most cases; the problem is complicated by the question of prefixes, which will come up for discussion later, and on the whole there appears to be no certain solution of the problem, though the Mayoo seem to have taken over and varied the western form. In the case of Purula-Burong there appear to be indeterminate cases; six seem to tell in favour of a southern origin; three suggest a western origin; and one word Chupil (f. Namilpa) seems to be from a different root.

The problem is further complicated by the anomalous class name Yakomari, to which allusion has already been made. As will be seen later, cha or ja seem to be prefixes, and if that is so we can hardly avoid the conclusion that Yakomari is Koomara or Kiemara. But in the table it takes the place of Umbitchana, with which it is not even remotely connected philologically; Jamara and its various forms take the place in the table occupied by Koomara among the Arunta when Yakomari holds the eighth place as well as in other cases. If therefore ku, ja, and ya are simply prefixes, as seems to be the case, we have this class name duplicated among five of the tribe—the Umbaia, Yookala, Binbinga, Worgaia, Yangarella, and Inchalachee, of which one comes near the top, and two fairly high in the comparative table. It is however worthy of notice that these six tribes form the eastern group, and are consequently precisely those among which we should, on the hypothesis that the class names originated in the western portion of the area, expect to find the greatest amount of variation and the most numerous anomalies. Dividing the six tribes into two groups, western and eastern, each of three tribes, we find that the cumulative resemblance of the western group to the Arunta is 132, to the Oolawunga 186; the same figures for the eastern group, more remote from the Oolawunga, but practically equidistant with the western group from the Arunta, are 91 and 112. This again seems to lend support to the hypothesis of a western origin. It is perhaps simplest to suppose that the majority of the names came from the west; but that Yakomari, travelling upwards from the south-west, displaced the more usual eighth class name, or perhaps we should say, replaced it, when the eight-class system was adopted, for a name is not likely to have gone out of use when it had once been applied as a designation.

Attention has been called in connection with the phratries to the suffixes such as um, itch, aku[115], etc. Their precise meaning is usually uncertain. An attentive consideration of the class names seems to show that similar suffixes have been used in forming them. If we compare Panunga and Baniker, it seems a fair conclusion that the ban or pan is compounded with iker (aku) or unga, for among the Yookala, the nearest neighbours of the Bingongina, who have it as a phratriac suffix, the -agoo of the class names is unmistakeably independent of the root word, whatever that may be. In addition to unga we find inginja, angie, inja, itch (recalling the itji of the phratries), itchana, and the form anjegoo which seems to have a double suffix. Ara, yeri, aree, um, ana, ula (as we see by comparing Purula with Burong), ta, and the possibly double form tjuka, seem to be further examples.

The feminine forms Nalyirri for Thalirri (=Palyeri), Nala for Chula, Ninum for Tjinum, Nana for Tjana or Thama, etc. suggest that prefixes are also to be distinguished. They seem to be choo, joo, ja, ya, n-, yun, u-, ku, pu, bu, nu, etc. We are however on very uncertain ground here, for the feminine forms may be deliberate creations. Allowance has to be made too for the personal equation of the observer, which is by no means inconsiderable. Possibly this factor, together with ordinary laws of phonetic change, the most elementary principles of which have yet to be established for the Australian languages, will suffice to account for the variations in the names as recorded. Otherwise the words are in most cases reduced to monosyllabic roots from which it seems hopeless to attempt to extract a meaning.

These questions of suffixes and prefixes are intimately connected with the very difficult problem of the origin of the classes. The languages of these tribes are at present, if not distinct linguistic stocks, at any rate very far from being mere dialectical variations of a common tongue, for the members of two tribes appear to be mutually unintelligible, unless, contrary to the custom of the American Indians, they are bilingual. But if each tribe added a suffix, and thus adopted into their own language words which, from the general agreement among the class names of this group, seem to have come to them from outside, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the word which they adopted had some meaning for them. Of course we may suppose that the class names were all adopted in the far off time when all spoke a common language. But apart from the difficulty that this presupposes the existence of an eight-class system at that early period, it is clear from the Queensland evidence that class names have been handed on from tribe to tribe, and it is reasonable to suppose this to have been the case with the northern tribes. This conclusion is borne out by the forms of the suffixes, which do not appear to have been developed from one root determinative, as must have been the case if we suppose that the names originated when the language spoken by these tribes was undifferentiated; and by the facts as to the apparent duplication of Koomara, to which allusion has already been made.

The important point about the class, as distinguished from the phratry systems, is the great extent covered by the former. The north-west area of male descent is virtually one from the point of view of class names; two other areas are very large, six are of medium size, three are small, and the remaining one is probably medium.

Although the question of the meaning of the class names is closely bound up with that of their origin, the problem is closely bound up with some of the points discussed in this chapter. The meaning of the eight-class names is connected with the area of origin of the system, and linguistic questions, such as those relating to suffixes, come in. We may therefore briefly discuss at this point the meaning of the class names.

On the whole it may be said that we know the meaning of the class names only in exceptional cases. The Kiabara, Kamilaroi, Annan River, Kuinmurbura, Narrang-ga, and two of the West Australian names can be translated (see Table I). But with these exceptions we have no certain knowledge of the meaning of the single class names.

Conjectures are of comparatively little value. For in the first place the number of words recorded from any given tribe is as a rule very small, and little or no indication of the pronunciation is given even in the latest works on Australian ethnography. The variations, evidently purely arbitrary and due to the want of training in phonetics, are frequently very considerable. And finally the area over which the names prevail is sufficiently great to give us our choice from half a dozen or more different tribal languages, which combined with the variation in the form of the words, adds very considerably to the probability that there will be found somewhere within the area a word or words bearing a deceptively close resemblance to the class names. How far this is the case may be made clear by one or two instances of chance resemblances between animal names (it seems on the whole probable that if the names are translateable they will turn out to be animal names) in the same or neighbouring tribes. The meaning of Arunta seems to be white cockatoo[116], but we also find a word almost indistinguishable from it in sound—eranta—with the meaning of pelican[117]. Kulbara means emu and koolbirra kangaroo[118]. Malu (=kangaroo), mala (=mouse), and male (=swan) are found in tribes of West Australia, though not of tribes living in immediate proximity one to another[119]. But perhaps the best example is that of Derroein, which, as we have seen, means kangaroo. In addition to durween (young male kangaroo) we find at no great distance the words dirrawong (=iguana) and deerooyn (=whip snake), either of which bears a sufficiently close resemblance to the class name to be accepted as a translation for it in the absence of other competitors[120].