 |
In connection with this form of marriage there are two points of importance to be noted. The first is that whereas a man may have as many tippa-malku wives as he can get, a woman cannot have more than one tippa-malku husband, at any rate not at the same time. After the husband's death she may again enter into the tippa-malku relation. The second point is that the tippa-malku relation must precede the pirrauru relation, of which I shall speak in a moment, and cannot succeed it[157].
There are unfortunately many points in Dr Howitt's narrative which demand elucidation. He says, for example, that noa individuals become "tippa-malku for the time being[158]." This suggests, probably erroneously, that the tippa-malku relation is merely temporary; but I am unable to say whether it in reality means that the tippa-malku relation is terminated by the capture of the woman, or that divorce is practised and may terminate the relationship at the will of the man only or of both parties.
Another point on which we have no information is the position of the unmarried girls and widows. Free love is permitted, the only limitation[159] given by Dr Howitt being that the man (who must of course have passed through the Mindari ceremony) must not be tippa-malku to the girl, but must be noa-mara. It would be interesting to know whether girls in the tippa-malku relation before actual marriage are at liberty to have sexual relations with any men of the right status or only with unmarried men, or whether the privilege is restricted to those who are not yet tippa-malku to any one, and how far the same restriction applies to the men.
Any man who has been duly initiated, whether he is married to a tippa-malku wife or not, and any woman who has a tippa-malku husband[160], can enter or be put into a relation termed pirrauru with one or more persons of the opposite sex. The effect of the ceremony—termed kandri—is to give to the pirrauru spouses the position of subsidiary husbands and wives, whose rights take precedence of the tippa-malku rights at tribal gatherings, but at other times can only be exercised in the absence of the tippa-malku spouse, or, when the male is unmarried, with the permission of the tippa-malku husband of the pirrauru spouse.
The pirrauru relation is, for the woman, a modification of a previously existing tippa-malku marriage; that being so, it cannot be quoted as evidence of a more pristine state of things in which she was by birth the legal and actual spouse of all men of a certain tribal status.
The pirrauru relation falls under two heads of the classification I have given above, according as the man has or has not a tippa-malku wife. In the first case, it is, taken in combination with the tippa-malku marriage, a case of bi-lateral adelphic dissimilar (M. and F.) polygamy. In the latter it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal) polyandry, adelphic being taken here, be it noted, in the sense of tribal, and possibly, but not necessarily, own brother.
Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes contradictory. We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a pirrauru is always a brother's wife or a wife's sister (they are usually the same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their wives[161]. But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can also become pirraurus. It appears further that a woman may ask for a pirrauru, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear. It is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the arrangement. Further we find that important men have many pirrauru wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention. Then again we are told that when two new pirrauru pairs are allotted to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted. Are we to understand from this that the allocation of new pirraurus is a rare event or that the pirrauru relationship is a very temporary affair? Or does re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over? If the latter, the terminology is very unfortunate. Gason's statement is perfectly clear: once a pirrauru, always a pirrauru[162]. Again does it imply that the wishes[163] of the already existing pirraurus are consulted in the matter or not? If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy between pirraurus, especially when one of them (the male) is unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one another. Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother's wife as his pirrauru, giving presents to his brother. Does this imply that the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse it, or that it is purchased? Again we read "a man is privileged to obtain a number of wives from his noas in common with the other men of his group, while a woman's wish can only be carried out with the consent of her tippa-malku husband." This latter statement clearly implies that a man can obtain a pirrauru without the consent of the tippa-malku husband, but this contradicts what has already been told us about the exchange by brothers of their wives. Exchange is clearly not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the matter, it is rather a transfer. These are by no means all the unsettled questions on which light is needed. What, for example, is the position of a pirrauru wife whose tippa-malku husband dies? Does she pass to a new tippa-malku husband? If so, must he be an ex-pirrauru? Does she continue in the pirrauru relation to her former pirraurus, regardless of her new husband's wishes? Can the pirrauru relationship be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?
With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special ceremony is necessary to make the pirrauru relation legal; this is performed by the head or heads of the men's totems, and need not be described here.
With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the tippa-malku spouse always takes precedence of the pirrauru spouse. Where two men are pirrauru to the same woman, the tippa-malku husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share his rights and duties with the younger. It is the duty of the pirrauru husband to protect a woman during the absence of her tippa-malku husband.
A woman cannot refuse to take a pirrauru who has been regularly allotted to her. In her tippa-malku husband's absence the pirrauru husband takes his place as a matter of right. He cannot however take her away from the tippa-malku husband without his consent except at certain ceremonial times[164]. One other fact may be noted. An influential man hires out his pirraurus to those who have none.
Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well to mention the analogous customs of the only two tribes outside the Dieri nation where the same relation is asserted to exist, and certain cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all probability, as on the same level as the pirrauru custom. In the Kurnandaburi, according to an informant of Dr Howitt's, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united, apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe assembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other times[165].
Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with his sister-in-law (wife's sister or brother's wife), although they are in the relation of Kodi-molli and practise a modified avoidance. This he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage. It is not however clear that it is more than what we have called a liaison. Our authority does not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet that any ceremony initiates the relations[166]. In the absence of these details we cannot regard his view as probable. It may however be noted that the widow in this tribe passes to the brother.
The only other case of "group marriage" which Dr Howitt gives[167] is in the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland. Here however, so far from being group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic polyandry. A man's unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties, the child is said to term them its father. It may however be pointed out that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any other man besides the primary husband.
It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we have is neither precise nor free from contradiction. A most essential point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the pirrauru relationship. Among the Dieri the men may be of different totems. Is this the case among the Wakelbura? Was it always the case among the Dieri?
Before we leave Dr Howitt's work it is necessary to refer again to the Kurnai. The most important point in connection with the Kurnai, so far as the present work is concerned, is that, contradictory to Bulmer's statement[168] that unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives, and sometimes even married men, Dr Howitt mentions[169] as a singular fact that he recalls one instance of a wife being lent in that tribe.
Dr Howitt however holds that there are traces of group marriage in the tribe, and refers to the fact that the term maian[170] is applied to a wife by her husband and by his brother, whose "official wife[171]" she is thus declared to be, and that a brother takes his deceased brother's widow. He regards this rather unfortunately named custom of the levirate as having its root in group marriage. Now maian is applied, not only by a husband to a wife, but by a wife to her husband's sister, and by a sister to her brother's wife. If therefore the use of the term proves anything, it proves, not group marriage, as Dr Howitt understands it, but promiscuity, the prior existence of the undivided commune, and this, as we have seen, Dr Howitt declines to accept on the strength of the philological argument.
We are therefore reduced to the levirate as a proof of the former existence of group marriage. But there is nothing whatever to show that it is not a case of inheritance of property. For the Australians, as for many other savage peoples, the married state is the only thinkable one for the adult, and that being so it is natural for the widow to remarry. She has however been purchased by the exchange of a woman in the relation of sister to the deceased, and if the widow were allowed to pass to another group, the property thus acquired would be alienated. Moreover the marriage regulations require the woman to marry only a tribal brother of the deceased. It is therefore in every way natural for a brother to succeed to a brother. No arguments for the prior existence of group marriage can be founded on the levirate, any more than an argument for primitive communism can be founded on other laws of inheritance. At most the maian relationship is evidence of adelphic polygyny[172].
For the Urabunna we depend on the information gained by Spencer and Gillen on their first expedition. Here the circle from which a man takes his wife is much more restricted than among the Dieri. Not only is he bound to choose a woman of the other moiety of the tribe, but he is restricted to a certain totem[173] in that moiety, and to the daughters of his mother's elder brothers (tribal) in that totem. Hence although the kami relationship of the Dieri is unknown among the Urabunna, the choice among the latter is more limited.
The marriageable group is termed nupa by both men and women; in addition to the nupa relationship and the unnamed individual marriage, into which a man enters with one or more of his nupa, there is the piraungaru relationship, corresponding to the pirrauru of the Dieri. In each case the elder brothers of the woman decide who are to have the primary and who the secondary right to the female. In the case of the piraungaru however the matter requires confirmation by the old men of the tribe. The circumstances under which the piraungaru claims take the first rank are not stated by Messrs Spencer and Gillen; the statement that a man lends his piraungaru need not, of course, refer to times at which he himself cannot claim the right of access[174].
We may now turn to a discussion of the bearing of the facts just cited on the question of "group marriage." The first point is naturally that of nomenclature, and we at once recognise that among the Dieri the relations of the pirrauru are not marriage, either on the definition suggested by Dr Westermarck or on that given in Chapter XI of the present work. If two tippa-malku pairs are reciprocally in pirrauru, the only relations between them, unless the tippa-malku husbands absent themselves or are complaisant, are, strictly speaking, those of temporary regulated polygamy or promiscuity, and rather a restriction than an extension of similar customs in other tribes, as I shall show below.
A second point of a similar nature is that the parties to a pirrauru union are in no sense a group[175]. They are not united by any bond, local, totemistic, tribal, or otherwise. The theoretical "group marriage"—the union of all the noa—does, in a sense, refer to a group, though this term properly refers rather to a body of people distinguished by residence or some other local differentia from other persons or groups. But no distinction of this kind can in any sense be affirmed of the pirrauru spouses; it cannot be said of them that they are in any way distinguished from the remainder of their tribe, phratry, class or totem-kin. From this it follows that the term class-marriage cannot be applied to the relation between the pirrauru, nor yet class promiscuity; the pirrauru, though members of a certain class, do not include all members of that class.
Turning now to the custom itself, let us examine how far it presents any marks of being a survival of a previous state of class promiscuity. Pirrauru relations are regarded by Dr Howitt and others as survivals from a previous stage of "group," by which we must, presumably, understand class or status marriage, or promiscuity. So far as they are evidence of this, the pirrauru customs are certainly important. If however it cannot be shown that they probably point to some form of promiscuity, they have but little importance except as a freak or exceptional development of polyandry and polygyny.
Let us recall the distinguishing features of the pirrauru union. They are (1) consent of the husband (?); (2) recognition by the totem-kin through its head-man; (3) temporary character[176]; (4) priority of the tippa-malku union in the case of the woman; (5) purchase of pirrauru rights by (a) the brother who becomes a widower, and (b) visitors or others without pirraurus of their own, the rights being in the latter case for a very short period and not dependent on recognition by the totem-kin, so far as Dr Howitt's narrative is a guide. Now unless "group marriage" was very different from what it is commonly represented to be, the essence of it was that all the men of one class had sexual rights over the women of another class. How far does this picture coincide with the features of the pirrauru, which is regarded as a survival of it? In the first place pirrauru is created by a ceremony, which is performed, not by the head, nor even in the Wakelbura tribe, by a member of the supposed intermarried classes of the earlier period; but by the heads of the totem-kins of the individual men concerned. Now it is quite unthinkable that the right of class promiscuity, to use the correct term, should ever have been exercised subject to any such restriction; even were it otherwise the performance of the ceremony would more naturally fall into the hands of tribal, phratriac, or class authorities than of the heads of totem-kins. Then too if pirrauru is a survival of group marriage we should expect the ceremony to be performed for the tippa-malku union and not for the pirrauru.
Again if tippa-malku is later and pirrauru earlier, what is the meaning of the regulation that the woman must first be united in tippa-malku marriage before she can enter into the pirrauru relationship? On the "group marriage" theory this fact demands to be explained, no less than the different position of men and women in this respect. We have seen that freedom in sexual matters is accorded to both bachelors and spinsters. It is therefore from no sense of the value of chastity, from no jealousy of the future tippa-malku husband's rights, that the female is excluded from the pirrauru relation until she has a husband.
Again, if pirrauru is a relic of former rights, now restricted to a few of the group which formerly exercised them, why is the husband's consent needed before the pirrauru relation is set up, and why is the pirrauru relation, once established, not permanent (assuming that my reading of Dr Howitt is right)?
Once more, if pirrauru is a right, how comes it that a brother has to purchase the right, when he becomes a widower[177]? What too is the meaning of the transference of pirrauru women to strangers in return for gifts?
All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival theory, and we may add to them the fact that the tippa-malku husband, so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother's brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the introduction of individual marriage. When we consider that the jus primae noctis is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the position of the tippa-malku husband and the method in which he obtains his wife are exceedingly instructive.
Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what other way the facts can be explained. The unfortunate lack of detail to which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from the facts already at our disposal. We have seen that in the Wakelbura tribe, so far from the condition being one of "group marriage," it is one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry. Now it is by no means easy to see how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which, according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity. On the other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other regions, the result of a scarcity of women[178], or, what is the same thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28 or 30.
With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is required to purchase his pirrauru rights, that the young man without pirrauru wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one of his pirrauru spouses, and that the tippa-malku marriage always precedes the pirrauru relation in the female. It may indeed be urged against the view that the purchase of a temporary pirrauru is in fact not a case of pirrauru at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of hospitality among savage nations. This is no doubt the case and we might merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of sexual rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia. Looked at from another point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive. So far as Dr Howitt's statements go, the husband of the pirrauru who is thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter. The pirrauru husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she were a slave. On the theory of group marriage the tippa-malku husband has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the pirrauru husband. In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the transaction. It is true that in the case we are considering the pirrauru husband seems to have exceptional privileges, for we have seen that under ordinary circumstances the tippa-malku husband has exclusive rights at ordinary times. But we must probably understand the passage to mean that the lending of pirraurus takes place at tribal meetings[179] or on other occasions when the right of the husband is in abeyance. In either case, the facts tell far more strongly in favour of the view suggested here than in favour of group marriage.
There is another factor to be considered. Abductions and elopements are merely ordinary amenities of married life among the aborigines of Australia. We have seen that it is the duty of the pirrauru husband to protect the wife during the absence of the tippa-malku husband. Clearly this is a sort of insurance against the too bold suitor or the too fickle wife, unless indeed the pirrauru himself is the offender, a point on which Dr Howitt has nothing to say, though Mr Siebert's evidence may be fairly interpreted to mean that such occurrences are not known.
We shall see below in connection with the question of the jus primae noctis that special privileges are sometimes accorded to men of the husband's totem or class in return for assistance in capturing the wife. Now assuming that a wife is abducted or elopes, it is, I think, on the same persons that the duty of aiding the injured husband would fall. Whether this is so or not, the men of his own totem are those with whom a man's relations are, in most tribes, the closest. We have seen that the heads of the totem-kins play an important part in assigning pirraurus. Now although it is actually the practice for men of different totems to exchange wives, it by no means follows that it was always the case. The element of adelphic polyandry, for example, may well have upset the original relations and brought about a practice of exchange between men of different totems. At any rate the theory here suggested affords an explanation of the part played by the totem headmen, and on the theory of group marriage their share in the transaction remains absolutely mysterious.
In connection with these possible explanations of the pirrauru custom, it is important to observe that there are duties in regard to food owed by the pirrauru wife to her spouse, when her husband is absent. Now it is hardly conceivable that in a state of "group marriage" any such practice should have obtained. A woman would doubtless have collected food for the man with whom she was actually cohabiting; but in the case of the pirrauru relation, the absence of the tippa-malku wife of her pirrauru spouse must coincide with the absence of her own tippa-malku husband before this position is reached. So long as only one tippa-malku partner is absent, the pirrauru spouse is under the obligation of lightening the labours of the woman whose place she sometimes occupies, and this is very far from what we should expect in the "group marriage" stage.
On the whole therefore I conclude that the pirrauru relation affords absolutely no evidence of a prior stage of group marriage. So far from the quantity of evidence for group marriage having been increased by Dr Howitt's recent book, it has undergone a diminution. Gason had stated[180] that tribal brothers had the right of access in the absence of the husband without first being made pirrauru. This, if correct, would have been much nearer group marriage than the actual facts; the statement however appears to be incorrect, if we may judge by the fact that Dr Howitt has silently dropped it.
Of the piraungaru relation but little can be said, mainly for the reason that our information is so scanty. We do not learn, for example, if it is temporary or permanent, if the consent of the woman is needed, if she ever asks her husband for a certain piraungaru, or if she applies rather to her elder brothers. We do not know what becomes of the piraungaru when the primary spouse dies, whether the brother can claim a right to his brother's wife as piraungaru on giving presents, whether married and unmarried alike enter into the relationship, whether a woman can become piraungaru before she has a special husband, whether relations of free love are barred between a man and his prospective wife and permitted with other nupa women, and a host of other questions. We do not even learn when access is permitted to a piraungaru spouse. We have, it is clear, far too few data to be able to estimate the value of the dictum of Messrs Spencer and Gillen that "individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice in the Urabunna tribe." If their views are based only on the facts they have given us, they have clearly overlooked a number of essential points; if, on the other hand, they took other facts into consideration, we may reasonably ask to be put in possession of the whole case.
FOOTNOTES:
[152] Aust. Ass. IV, 689.
[153] Ib. p. 717.
[154] Ausland, 1891, p. 843.
[155] Zts. Vgl. Rechtsw. XII, 268.
[156] The statement, Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 55, that a man and woman become noa by betrothal is clearly erroneous.
[157] Nat. Tribes, p. 181. This was not brought out by Dr Howitt's paper of 1890 in Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, and is denied in Folklore XVII, 174 sq. by Dr Howitt himself; see my criticism, ib. 294 sq.
[158] p. 179.
[159] p. 187. Subject to the girl having passed the wilpadrina ceremony. Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 56.
[160] But see p. 129, n. 2.
[161] This is in contradiction with the statement (Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 56) that the various couples are not consulted. We also learn (loc. cit. p. 62) that the exercise of marital rights by own tribal brothers is independent of their pirrauru relation. The order of precedence is (1) tippa-malku, (2) pirrauru, (3) brothers.
[162] Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 57.
[163] Howitt says (p. 182) that each of a pair of pirrauru watch each other carefully to prevent more pirrauru relations arising.
[164] In the Urabunna tribe a woman is lent irrespective of piraungaru to all nupa, Nor. Tr. p. 63. It is therefore a matter of no moment even if the consent of the primary husband is never refused at non-ceremonial times.
[165] It appears, however (Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 62), to be only on ceremonial (Muni) occasions that anything like general intercourse occurs, termed Wira-jinka, then it is promiscuous. The Dippa-malli relation is not permanent (Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 61), and the mebaia husband receives a present. If the Dippa-malli "group" is not permanent, it does not appear why Dr Howitt speaks of a "group" at all.
[166] In the absence of these there is nothing to distinguish the practice from the adultery which prevails among the Dieri (p. 187), in which Dr Howitt does not see a survival of group marriage or promiscuity.
[167] He mentions the pira marriage of the Yandairunga in Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 60, but drops it in Native Tribes. It is unfortunate that we never learn why Dr Howitt omits to mention facts which he has previously published. Are we to infer that the previous statements are erroneous in every case? If so, pirrauru must be a temporary relationship.
[168] Curr, III.
[169] Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 61, n. 2.
[170] Dr Howitt's argument from the use of maian raises a difficulty. Twenty-five years ago he stated (Brough Smyth, II, 323) that among the Brabrolung a wife was termed wrūkŭt, and this seems to be the ordinary term.
[171] Titular maian is Dr Howitt's phrase.
[172] Dr Howitt's statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably passes to the brother is contradicted by passages on pp. 227 and 248.
[173] Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but cf. his attitude on p. 188.
[174] But cf. Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 58 n.; this may, however, have been regarded as a ceremonial occasion, though there is no other evidence of such being the case.
[175] Properly speaking group marriage should mean that all persons in a local group live in polygamy, a state not far removed indeed from promiscuity, the boundary between which and polygamy I cannot undertake to discuss here, or else that the whole of one group is united in marriage to those of the opposite sex in another group.
[176] This is uncertain, as I have already intimated.
[177] This tells strongly in favour of my theory. The unmarried youth gets his pirrauru free, for he will reciprocate the attention later. The man who has lost his wife and can make no return purchases the right.
[178] Cf. Curr, III, 546.
[179] Cf. Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 73.
[180] Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 56.
CHAPTER XIV.
TEMPORARY UNIONS.
Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. Jus primae noctis. Punishment for adultery. Ariltha of central tribes. Group marriage unproven.
It has been mentioned above that the pirrauru custom, so far from being an extension of the recognised practice of Australian tribes, is in some respects a limitation of it. We may now proceed to illustrate this. Even among the Dieri the tribal festival on the occasion of an inter-tribal marriage is marked by free intercourse between the sexes without regard to existing sexual unions[181] (? either tippa-malku or pirrauru). In the same way the Wiimbaio tribal gatherings were accompanied by regulated promiscuity, the class rules being the only limitation. At others wives could be lent or temporarily exchanged by the husbands[182]. The Geawe-gal held festivals at which wives were lent to young men, subject to class laws[183]. In other cases the exchange was limited to brothers or men of the same totem[184]. Among the Kamilaroi a wife was lent to friendly visitors but only with her consent. In all these cases we see a state of things similar to or not unlike the relations of the Dieri pirrauru spouses, and it should be noted that it is at tribal gatherings that the latter can claim to exercise their rights. From this it appears that the Dieri custom amounts to an ear-marking of certain women for the use of certain men, and is consequently a limitation of the common custom; in consideration of the fact that the pirrauru men protect them in the absence of their husbands, they are permitted at the same time to exercise marital rights, provided their own primary spouses are absent.
Among the Wiimbaio, when sickness was believed to be coming down the Murray[185], and among the Kurnai, when the Aurora australis was seen[186], an exchange of wives was ordered by the old men to avert the threatened evil[187]. This is explained by Dr Howitt as a reversion to the ancient custom of group marriage. It is however not quite clear on what grounds it is necessary to treat it as a survival at all. If a day of prayer and fasting is ordered in order to avert national calamities, it does not follow that the nation in question was in the habit of perpetual prayer and fasting at some previous stage of its existence. Moreover, if the magical rite was formerly the universal practice we may well ask what induced the tribes which believe in its efficacy to adopt a new form of marriage. Ex hypothesi, it is pleasing to Mungan, or good against disease; knowing this, they have not hesitated to abolish group marriage, but apparently without incurring Mungan's wrath, or bringing any epidemic upon them.
Among the Narrinyeri[188], the old men have a right of access to the newly initiated girls, but apparently Dr Howitt does not regard this as a survival. On the other hand the narumbe (initiated youths), who may not at this period take wives, had unrestricted rights over the younger women, those "of his own class and totem not excepted," and this Dr Howitt regards as a survival from the days of the undivided commune, though if it is so it is hard to see why they should have rights only over the younger women. The practice does not appear to differ from the free love found among the Dieri except in the absence of class restrictions and its limitation to the period after initiation which is among many other peoples a period of sexual licence.
Another group of customs, also interpreted by Dr Howitt as a survival of group marriage and an "expiation for individual marriage," calls for some discussion. It is unnecessary to refer here to the explanation of the jus primae noctis suggested by Mr Crawley. It may be that the matter can also to some extent be explained as payment for services, in the same way as the pirrauru relation shows some signs of being a quid pro quo.
In certain tribes access to the bride is permitted to men of the group of the husband. Among the Kuinmurbura they are the men who have aided the husband to carry off the woman[189]; and the same is the case with the Kurnandaburi and Kamilaroi tribes[190]. It is very significant that among the Narrinyeri the right of access only accrues in case of elopement and precisely to those men who actually give assistance in the abduction, a fact hard to explain on the theory of expiation[191]. Among the Mukjarawaint the right seems to belong to those of the same totem, but apparently the young men only[192]; but here too their position as accessories is quite clear, as indeed it must be in any tribe where the right accrues to men of the same totem. By all the rules of savage justice a punishment may be inflicted in these cases either on the offender himself or on the men of his totem. It is therefore not strange that they require from the abductor some return for the danger to which he exposes them, especially if they actually take part in the abduction. An aberrant form of the custom is found among the Kurnai, among whom the jus primae noctis falls to men initiated at the same jeraeil as the bridegroom.
Among the Kurnandaburi there was a period of unrestricted licence after the exercise of the jus primae noctis, even the father of the bride being allowed access to her. This did not of course violate totem or phratry regulations. Dr Howitt does not comment on the case, but it would have been interesting to hear whether both these customs are to be regarded as survivals and if so what caused the duplication[193].
In estimating the value of the custom of jus primae noctis as evidence of a prior state of group marriage, a custom of the Yuin should not be overlooked. If a man elopes with another man's betrothed he is punished by having to fight the girl's father, brothers, and mother's brother; the girl was sometimes punished by being beaten; all the men who pursued her had a right of access provided they were of the right totem and locality. If however the eloping couple were not caught they were not liable to punishment after a child was born. There is no mention of any jus primae noctis where the marriage was the result of betrothal. In this case therefore the right of access is a punishment, so far as the girl is concerned; it is earned by taking part in the pursuit, a fact which confirms the suggested explanation of the right of access at marriage.
It should not be overlooked that this form of punishment is found among some tribes as the penalty for adultery[194], when it certainly cannot be interpreted as an expiation for individual marriage. This was the case among the Wotjoballuk, the Kamilaroi, and the Euahlayi.
We may now turn to the customs of the central and northern tribes visited by Messrs Spencer and Gillen. Except in the case of three of the north-eastern tribes the right of access accrues in connection with the ariltha ceremony. It may be said at once that there is among these tribes no trace of access as payment for services; for on the rare occasions when a wife is captured she is allotted to an individual and becomes his property at once, according to a statement in the first work of Spencer and Gillen[195]. In the same work, it is true, this statement is contradicted by the assertion that on such occasions only the men of the right class are allowed to have access[196]. But this statement does not seem to be based on any facts within the knowledge of the writers, for they make a definite statement to the contrary with regard to the Arunta customs, and it was with the Arunta that they were specially concerned, and in the later volume no further details are given, as they should have been, if the custom was found among any of the tribes visited on the second expedition.
The association of the right of access with the initiation ceremony is paralleled, as we have already seen, among other tribes. It hardly seems necessary to argue a state of primitive promiscuity from a custom of licence at the period of puberty, which does not in fact differ, except in degree, from the licence normally enjoyed by the unmarried, and is readily explicable on other grounds than those suggested by Spencer and Gillen. If we are not prepared to regard this licence at puberty, which may equally well have subsisted side by side with marriage or group promiscuity, as a mere expression of the newly attained sexual rights, we have as an alternative the magical theory of Mr Crawley. I do not propose to dwell on this but will pass at once to discuss some points which seem to have escaped the notice of Spencer and Gillen when they proposed their hypothesis of promiscuity.
The essential point in connection with these ceremonies is the fact that access is not limited, as in the case of the Dieri, to men who might lawfully marry the woman. The right is restricted to men of six classes out of the eight, including all four of the other moiety and the two of her own half of her own moiety. Now whatever else may be deduced from this, one thing is clear, and that is that the custom in its present form, at any rate, took its rise before the eight classes were introduced but after the four classes were already in existence and a fortiori after the phratries were known. Consequently no argument for promiscuity can be founded on the right of access at initiation. It cannot be a survival from a time when no marriage regulations were known, for the simple reason that the custom itself bears unmistakeable traces of regulations of a comparatively advanced type. It may of course be argued that these limitations are of late origin. How far this is so and why such limitations should have been introduced it is impossible to say; but it is impossible to base an argument for primitive promiscuity on a state of things which is admittedly not primitive unless we have good prima facie grounds for regarding the custom as a survival. There is nothing in the present case to show that it is not a magical rite.
At other times access is permitted in accordance with class regulations, the husband's consent being necessary, if indeed he does not actually take the preliminary steps himself. We have seen that a similar state of things exists in other tribes. It does not seem necessary to look for the explanation further than the ordinary customs of savage hospitality, the desire to do a favour to men who may be useful. It is difficult to see why Spencer and Gillen regard the fact that women are lent in this way only to their unawa as a proof of the former existence of group marriage. Clearly if intercourse is permitted only between certain persons before marriage and only certain persons are allowed to marry, we can hardly be surprised to find that these latter are restricted in the choice of men to whom they may lend their wives after marriage. The surprising thing would be if it were otherwise.
In addition, as in the tribes we have already considered, irregular access is practised for magical purposes in connection with the performance of ceremonies and the sending out of messengers. It has already been pointed out that we have no grounds for regarding such practices as survivals; for if we put on sackcloth and ashes as a penance for our misdeeds, it does not follow that this was ever the prevailing costume. It is even less possible to interpret the ritual lending of wives to messengers as a survival, for, ex hypothesi, the messengers were not of the group which "group-married," and messengers of any sort point to a stage when inter-tribal relations had made considerable advance and the tribes in question are hardly likely to have been still in the stage of the "undivided commune."
The survey of Australian customs and terms of relationship leads us to the conclusion that the former, so far from proving the present or even former existence of group marriage in that continent, do not even render it probable; on the latter no argument of any sort can be founded which assumes them to refer to consanguinity, kinship or affinity. It is therefore not rash to say that the case for group marriage, so far as Australia is concerned, falls to the ground. Even were it otherwise, even were group marriage proved for Australia or for any other part of the world, we should still be far from having established promiscuity and group marriage as a stage in the general history of mankind. For that at least a scheme of development is needed. Even were the arguments in favour of the group marriage hypothesis much stronger, its supporters might reasonably be asked to give us something more than assertion and reassertion without any attempt to show in detail the process of evolution. To take an example from another sphere, it may safely be said that the general theory of evolution would find few supporters if it were not possible to trace some existing species and genera back to some generalised type in the past. At present the position of a supporter of the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage is analogous to that of an evolutionist who can only point to a few more or less useless peculiarities in the anatomy of man without being able to show resemblances between them and the corresponding portions of fossil or actually existing anthropoids. He calls them "vestiges[197]" and insists that homo is descended from a generalised anthropoid. The mere assertion of the vestigial character of such bones or organs would hardly carry conviction unless they could be shown to exist in some anthropoid in a more fully developed state. Similarly the arguments for promiscuity and group marriage suffer from incurable weakness, and would so suffer, even were the basis far more reliable than I have shown to be the case, unless and until it has been shown by what process and for what reasons man took each upward step. So far only one writer has attempted, and that nearly thirty years ago, to trace the course of human development on the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity, and his scheme is a house of cards.
The student of sociology is at a disadvantage compared with the zoologist in not being able to unearth his fossils for comparison with living forms. He must therefore trace the relationship between living forms, and, in seeking to discover the earlier stages of human progress, rely in part on the sociology of the higher mammals, in part on the possibility of showing a logical scheme of human development. When he examines the living forms he is of course unable to say whether actually existing savage institutions are in the main line of human progress or merely bye-paths embryological or teratological. It may be possible to show that group marriage exists somewhere on the earth at the present time. Even if this is so, the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage as stages in the general history of mankind remain mere baseless guesses until we have a systematic account both of the causes which led to the various steps, and of the processes by which the various stages were reached.
FOOTNOTES:
[181] Howitt, p. 205.
[182] p. 214.
[183] p. 217.
[184] pp. 224, 260.
[185] p. 195.
[186] pp. 170, 277.
[187] Also among the Kurnandaburi, the Wonkamira, etc. Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 62. General circumcision was a remedy in Fiji when the chief was ill.
[188] And among the Dieri, according to Gason, Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 87.
[189] p. 219.
[190] pp. 205, 193. J.A.I. XII, 36.
[191] p. 245.
[192] p. 269.
[193] He also omits to mention the Muni ceremony, described in Journ. Anthr. Inst. XX, 62. If general licence is of magical efficacy in cases of sickness, it can hardly be argued that general licence at marriage has not, as Mr Crawley argues, a magical significance.
[194] p. 245.
[195] C.T. 556.
[196] C.T. 104.
[197] Commonly but erroneously termed "rudimentary organs." It is a natural and justifiable assumption for a zoologist that all vestigial organs have previously been more largely developed. It is also an assumption that a given custom is vestigial, but it is not a justifiable one.
APPENDIX.
ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods" and "Castes."
A certain number of Australian tribes have ceased to adhere strictly to the regulations of their class systems. Thus, in the Kamilaroi tribe a correspondent of Dr Howitt's found intra-class marriage, the totem only being different; in determining the class and totem of the children the ordinary rule held good[198]. The Wiradjeri on the Lachlan permit Ipai to marry Muri as well as Kumbo, the two classes both belonging to Kupathin; in each case certain totems only, viz. emu, opossum, snake and bandicoot, have the privilege[199]. The same anomaly is found in the Wonghibon tribe[200].
Among the Warramunga and other northern tribes Spencer and Gillen find that the division of the classes, explained in the last chapter, does not prevent marriages from taking place which this division ought to prevent, if the Arunta rule were followed[201]. A curious feature of these marriages is that the children of the anomalous union pass into the class which would have been theirs if their mother had wedded her normal spouse. It is not easy to say whether this should be regarded as a survival of matrilineal descent; it is, however, clear that only the existence of phratriac names enables us to say definitely that the descent in this tribe is in the male line.
According to the information printed by Mr R.H. Mathews this irregularity is by no means the sum total of anomalies. His information is far from being commonly accepted as accurate; but, as will be shown later, there are correspondences between his statements and those of other observers, which make it probable that his statements have some basis in fact. At any rate they deserve notice, if only that they may be contradicted by competent witnesses, if they are incorrect.
In the Inchalachee tribe, according to Mr Mathews, descent of the classes is reckoned through females. In the place of the arrangement shown in Table I a, he gives the order 3, 4, 8, 7; 6, 5, 1, 2[202]. Any man of the first moiety may marry any woman of the second, though certain marriages are normal and one of the remainder more usual than the others. The effect of these rules is to make it possible for a man to marry any woman of his own generation, even if she be of his own class. This is precisely the same as the case reported from the Kamilaroi by Dr Howitt, if we may take it that in the latter case the normal marriages are found side by side with the anomalous ones.
In the Inchalachee marriages the children, as in the Warramunga cases of Spencer and Gillen, take the class which they would have had if the woman had taken her normal spouse. On this Mr Mathews relies for the statement that descent is reckoned in the female line in this tribe. But, as we have seen, such a view is erroneous as regards the Warramunga, among whom anomalous marriages also occur; it is therefore by no means clear that the Inchalachee are matrilineal. We have even more reason to doubt his view as to the Binbinga, for whom we have the evidence of Spencer and Gillen.
Mr Mathews also reports among the Wiradjeri marriages resembling in many respects those mentioned above from the Wailwun tribe[203]. The table does not seem to be complete; it is therefore useless to enquire on what principle these marriages are arranged. There seems, however, no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the information.
More revolutionary is the statement that these cross-class marriages are based on an actual kinship organisation, to which Mr Mathews gives the name of "blood" (Table III, p. 50)[204].
Running across the phratries and classes are divisions known as Gwaigullean and Gwaimudthen, Muggulu and Bumbirra, etc., which have the meaning of "sluggish" and "swift" blood respectively. The bloods again are sometimes subdivided. In the Ngeumba tribe Gwaimudthen is divided into nhurai (butt) and wangue (middle), while Gwaigulir is equivalent to winggo (top). These names refer to different portions of the shadow of a tree and refer to the positions taken up in camping by the persons belonging to the different "bloods" and "castes." In this, it may be noted, these organisations follow the parallel of the phratries and classes.
With the correspondences in names shown in Table III. before our eyes, it is difficult to suppose that the statements of Mr Mathews have no basis in fact. In the absence of further information, however, it is clearly impossible to discuss the origin of these divisions. It seems most probable that they are the systematisation of the anomalous marriages already cited. But much more information is needed before anything like certainty can be attained in the matter. Both actual genealogies and tables of terms of relationship must be in our hands before we can come to a decision.
FOOTNOTES:
[198] Howitt, p. 204.
[199] ib. p. 211.
[200] ib. p. 214, cf. J.A.I.
[201] Nor. Tr. pp. 107, 114.
[202] Proc. R.G.S. Qu. XX, 71.
[203] J.R.S.N.S.W. XXXI, 173.
[204] ib. XXXVIII, 207-17, XXXIX, 117, Proc. R.G.S. Qu. XX, 53, etc.
INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES.
Phratry and Blood names are in caps., Class names in roman. In the references Map II is equivalent to Table I (pp. 42-48), Map III to Table II (pp. 48-51). The numbers refer to pages, save in the case of Table I a.
Ahjereena, 46, Map II, viii
Akamaroo, Table I a, 9
Anbeir, 44, Map II, v
Appitchana, Table I a, 12
Appungerta, Table I a, 12
Arara, 45, Map II, viii
Ararey, 46, Map II, viii
Arawongo, 45, 76, Map II, viii
Arenia, 45, Map II, viii
Arrakan, 43, Map II, ii
Arrenynung, 46, Map II, viii
Awukaria, 47, Map II, xi
Awunga, 45, Map II, viii
Badingo, 46, Map II, ix
Balgoin, 43, 83, Map II, iii
Ballaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
Ballieri, 47, Map II, xiii b
Banaka, 47, Map II, xiii b
Banjoor, 43, 44, 76, Map II, iii, iv
Banniar, 44, Map II, iv
Barah, 43, Map II, iii
Baran, 43, 74
Barry, 46, Map II, viii
Belthara, 47, Map II, xiii a
Belyeringie, Table I a, 9
Beneringie, Table I a, 9
BIINGARU, 47, 50, Map III, 41
Biliarinthu, Table I a, 7
Blaingunju, Table I a, 7
Bolangie, Table I a, 8, 9
Bondan, 43, Map II, iii
Bondurr, 43, Map II, iii
Bongaringie, Table I a, 8
Boogarloo, 47, Map II, xiii b
Boonongoona, Table I a, 9
BUDTHURUNG, 42, 50, Map III, 21
Bullaranjee, Table I a, 4
Bulleringie, Table I a, 8
Bulthara, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
Bunbai, 44, Map II, v
Bunburi, 44, 76, Map II, v
Bunda, 43, 83, Map II, iii
Bungaranjee, Table I a, 4
Bungumbura, 74
BUNJIL, 48, Map III, 1
Bunjur, 44, Map II, iv
Bunya, 44, Map II, iv
BURGUTTA, see also Pakoota
Burong, 47, Map II, xiii b
Burralangie, Table I a, 8, 9
Butcharrie, 47, Map II, xiii b
Butha, 42, Map II, i
Bya, 42, Map II, i
Carburungo, 46, Map II, ix
Carribo, 43, Map II, ii
Carrigan, 43, Map II, ii
CHEPA, 45, 50, 53, Map III, 32
Chagarra, Table I a, 14
Chambeen, Table I a, 14
Chambijana, Table I a, 15
Changally, Table I a, 14
Changary, Table I a, 15
Chapota, Table I a, 15
Chavalya, Table I a 14, 15, 16
Cheekungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
Chikun, 45, 75, Map II, vi
Chinuma, Table I a, 15
Chooara, Table I a, 14
Choolima, Table I a, 15
Choongoora, Table I a, 14, 15
Chowan, Table I a, 14
Chowarding, Table I a, 14
Chungalla, Table I a, 15
DARBOO, 50, Map III, 12
DEEAJEE, 43, 50, Map III, 26
Deringara, 47, Map II, xiii a
Derwen=Theirwain, 43, 82, Map II, iii
Dhalyeree, Table I a, 1, 16
Dhongaree, Table I a, 1
Dhungaree, Table I a, 16
Didaruk, 48, Map II, xiv
DILBI, 42, 43, 50, 53, Map III, 20
Eemitch, Table I a, 10
GAMANUTTA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
GAMUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
GIRANA, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
Gnangball, 47
Gooroona, 43, Map II, ii
Goothamungo, 46, Map II, ix
Gubilla, 47, Map II, xiii a
GWAIGULLEAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
GWAIGULLIMBA, 51
GWAIMUDHAN, 51
Gwaimudthen, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 22
Heyanbo, 74
Ikamaru, Table I a, 7
ILLITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
Imballaree, Table I a, 10
Imbannee, Table I a, 10
Imbawalla, Table I a, 10
Imbongaree, Table I a, 10
Imboong, 43, Map II, ii
Immadena, Table I a, 10
Inganmarra, Table I a, 10
Inkagalla, Table I a, 10
Ipai, 42, Map II, i
Ipatha, 42, Map II, i
Irrakadena, 43, Map II, ii
Irroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
Irpoong, 43, 73, Map II, ii
Irpoong-Marroong classes, 73
Jamada, Table I a, 16
JAMAGUNDA, 48, 50, Map III, 33
Jambijana, Table I a, 1
Jameragoo, Table I a, 4
Jameram, Table I a, 16
Janna, Table I a, 1, 16
Jarbain, 44, Map II, iv
Jeemara, Table I a, 1
Jimidya, Table I a, 1
Jimmilingo, 46, Map II, ix
Jinagoo, Table I a, 4
Joolam, Table I a, 16
Joolama, Table I a, 1
Joolanjegoo, Table I a, 4
Jooralagoo, Table I a, 4
Jorro, 45, Map II, vii
Jumeyungie, Table I a, 8
Jummiunga, Table I a, 16
Jungalagoo, Table I a, 4
Jungalla, Table I a, 1, 16
JUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 32
Jury, 46, 75, Map II, viii
Kabidgi, Table I a, 12
Kapoodungo, 46, Map II, ix
KAPPATCH, 49, Map III, 6
KAPUTCH, 49, Map III, 5
Kaiamba, 47, Map II, xiii b
Kairawa, 44, Map II, iv
KARARAWA, 49, Map III, 7
KARARU, 49, Map III, 7
Karavangi, 45, 75, Map II, vi
Kari, 48, Map II, xvi
Karilbura, 44, Map II, iv
KARPEUN, 43, 50, Map III, 26
Karpungie, 45, 75, Map II, vi
KARTPOERAPPA, 49, Map III, 6
Kearra, 44, 76, Map II, iv
Kellungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
KILPARA, 49, Map III, 4
Kingelunju, Table I a, 7
KINGILLI, 47, 50, Map III, 42
KIRARU, 49, Map III, 7
KIRTUUK, 49, Map III, 6
Kommerangie, Table I a, 8, 9
KOOCHEEBINGA, 49, Map III, 10, 53
Koodala, 44, 76, Map II, iv
KOOKOOJEEBA, 49, Map III, 10
KOOLPURU, 49, Map III, 8
Koomara, 47, Map II, xiii a
Koopungie, 45, 75, 76, Map II, vi
KOORABUNNA, 49, Map III, 11
KOORAGULA, 49, Map III, 11
KOORAMEENYA, 49, n. 19
Kooran, 43, Map II, ii
Koorgilla, 44, 74, Map II, v
Koorpal, 44, Map II, iv
KROKAGE, 49, Map III, 5
KROKI, 49, Map III, 5
KROKITCH, 49, Map III, 5
Kubaru, 44, 76, Map II, v
Kubi, Kubbi, 42, 76, 83, Map II, i
Kubitha, 42, Map II, i
Kuial, 46, Map II, x
Kuialla, 44, 76, Map II, iv
KULITCH, 49, Map III, 5
Kumara, 47, 76, 79, Map II, xiii, Table I a, 12
Kumbo, 42, 76, Map II, i
KUMIT, 49, Map III, 5
Kunggilungo, 46, Map II, ix
Kungilla, Table I a, 9
Kunullu, Table I a, 8
KUPATHIN, 42, 43, 50, Map III, 20
Kurbo, 43, 74, 76, Map II, ii
Kurgan, 43, Map II, ii
Kurkilla, 45, 72, Map II, v
Kurongon, 45, 75, Map II, vi
Kurpal, 44, 72, 74, 76, Map II, iv
Kutchal, 45, Map II, vii
KUUNAMIT, 49, Map III, 6
KUUROKEETCH, 49, Map III, 6
Kymerra, 47, Map II, xiii b
Langenam, 48, 74, Map II, xv
Lenai, 74
LIARAKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
LIARITCHI, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 40
Loora, 45, Map II, viii
Mahngal, 46, Map II, viii
MALIAN, 49, 53, Map III, 3
MALLERA, 45, 50, 52, Map III, 28
MALLERA-WUTHERA phratries, 52 sq.
Mambulgit, 36
Manjarojally, 36
Manjarwuli, 36
Maringo, 46, 75, 76, Map II, ix
Marinungo, 46, Map II, ix
Marro, 43, Map II, ii
Marroong, 43, 76, Map II, ii
Maroongah, 43, Map II, ii
Matha, 42, Map II, i
MATTERA, 49, 66, Map III, 7
MATTERI, 49, 52, 53, 66, Map III, 7
Matyang, 43, Map II, ii
MERUGULLI, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 25
MERUNG, 48, Map III, 2
Moorob, 74
Moroon, 43, Map II, iii
MUKULA, 42, 50, 53, Map III, 21
MUKUMURRA, 42, 50, 53, Map II, 23
MULLARA, 46, 50, Map III, 28
MULTA, 49, 53, Map III, 3
Mumbali, 46, Map II, x
Munal, 44, Map II, iv
Mungilly, 46, Map II, viii
MUNICHMAT, 48, 50, Map III, 34
Munjungo, 46, Map II, ix
MUQUARA, 49, 52, Map III, 4
Muri, 42, 73, 83, Map II, i
Muri-Kubbi classes, 73
MURLA, 45, 50, Map III, 31
Murungun, 46, Map II, x
Nabajerry, Table I a, 15
Nabungati, Table I a, 14
Naganok, 48, Map II, xiv
Nagarra, Table I a, 14
NAKA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
Nakomara, Table I a, 13
Nala, Table I a, 2
Nalangininja, Table I a, 11
Nalaringinja, Table I a, 11
Nalinginja, Table I a, 11
Nalirri, Table I a, 2
Naltjeri, Table I a, 13
Namaja, Table I a, 1
Namaringinja, Table I a, 11
Namaringinta, Table I a, 11
Nambean, Table I a, 1
Nambeen, Table I a, 14
Nambin, Table I a, 13
Nambjana, Table I a, 15
Nambitjin, Table I a, 2
Nambitjinginja, Table I a, 11
Namegor, 48, Map II, xv
Namigili, Table I a, 13
Namininja, Table I a, 11
Namita, Table I a, 2
Namyungo, 48, Map II, xiv
Nana, Table I a, 2
Nanagoo, Table I a, 15
Nanakoo, Table I a, 16
Nanajerry, Table I a, 14
Nangally, Table I a, 14
Nangili, Table I a, 14, 15
Naola, Table I a, 15
Napanunga, Table I a, 13
Napungerta, Table I a, 13
Naralu, Table I a, 13
Narbeeta, Table I a, 15
Narechie, Table I a, 9
Narrabalangie, Table I a, 8, 9
Nemira, Table I a, 15
Nemurammer, Table I a, 8
Neonammer, Table I a, 8
Ngarrangungo, 46, Map II, ix
NGIELBUMURRA, 42, 50, Map III, 23
NGIELPURU, 50
NGIPURU, 50
NGUMBUN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
NGURRAWAN, 42, 50, 51, Map III, 24
Nhermana, Table I a, 15
Niamaku, Table I a, 6
Niameragun, Table I a, 3
Niamerum, Table I a, 5
Ninum, Table I a, 3
Niriuma, Table I a, 5
Nolangmer, Table I a, 8
Nongarimmer, Table I a, 8
Nooara, Table I a, 14
Nowala, Table I a, 1
Nowana, Table I a, 14
Nuanakuma, Table I a, 6
Nullum, 74
Nulum, Table I a, 3
Nulyarammer, Table I a, 18
NUMBUN, 42, Map III, 24
Nunalla, Table I a, 2
Nungalermer, Table I a, 8
Nungalla, Table I a, 2, 13, 15
Nungallakurna, Table I a, 6
Nungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
Nungari, Table I a, 2
Nuralakurna, Table I a, 6
Nurlanjukurna, Table I a, 6
Nurlum, Table I a, 5
Nurralammer, Table I a, 8
Nurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
Nurumball, 47
Obu, 44, 83, Map II, v
Odall, 47
OOTAROO, 45, 46, 50, Map III, 29; see also Wuthera, etc.
Packwicky, 48, Map II, xv
PAKOOTA, 45, 46, 50, 53, Map III, 29
Paliarina, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
Paliarinji, Table I a, 3, 5
Palyang, 43, Map II, ii
Pamarung, 48, Map II, xv
Pandur, 43, Map II, iii
Panunga, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
Parajerri, 47, Map II, xiii b
Parang, 43, 72, Map II, iii; see also Baran
Parungo, 47, Map II, xiii b
Patingo, 46, Map II, ix
Perrynung, 46, Map II, viii
Pungarinia, Table I a, 3, 6
Pungarinji, Table I a, 3, 5, 6
Pungarinju, Table I a, 7
Purdal, 46, 75, Map II, x
Purula, 47, Table I a, 12, Map II, xiii
Ranya, 45, 75, Map II, viii
Rara, 45, Map II, viii
Roanga, 74, 76
Roumburia, 47, Map II, xi
Tabachin, Table I a, 10
Tabadena, Table I a, 10
Taran, 43, Map II, iii
Tarbain, 44, Map II, iv
Tchana, Table I a, 2
Teilling, 74
Thakomara, Table I a, 13
Thalaringinja, Table I a, 11
Thalirri, Table I a, 2
Thama, Table I a, 2
Thamaringinja, Table I a, 11
Thamininja, Table I a, 10
Thapanunga, Table I a, 13
Thapungarti, Table I a, 13
Theirwain, 43, Map II, iii
Thimmermill, Table I a, 9
Thungalla, Table I a, 2, 13
Thungallaku, Table I a, 6
Thungallinginja, Table I a, 11
Thungallum, Table I a, 3, 5
Thungarie, Table I a, 2
Thungaringinta, Table I a, 11
TINEWA, 49, Map III, 8
Tjambin, Table I a, 13
Tjambitjina, Table I a, 2
Tjameraku, Table I a, 6
Tjameramu, Table I a, 7
Tjamerum, Table I a, 3, 5
Tjapatjinginja, Table I a, 11
Tjapetjeri, Table I a, 13
Tjimara, Table I a, 2
Tjimininja, Table I a, 11
Tjimita, Table I a, 2
Tjinguri, Table I a, 13
Tjinum, Table I a, 3
Tjuanaku, Table I a, 5
Tjulantjuka, Table I a, 5, 6
Tjulum, Table I a, 3
Tjupila, Table I a, 13
Tjurla, Table I a, 2
Tjurulinginja, Table I a, 11
Tjurulum, Table I a, 3, 5
Tondarup, 48, Map II, xiv
TOOAR, 50, Map III, 12
Toonbeungo, 46, Map II, ix
Trumininja, Table I a, 11
TUNNA, 45, 50, Map III, 30
UA, 46, 50, Map III, 44
Uanaku, Table I a, 6
Ubur, 44, 83, Map II, v
Uknaria, Table I a, 12
ULUURU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 41, 42
UMBE, 49, Map III, 3
Umbitchana, Table I a, 12
Unburri, 44, Map II, v
Ungalla, Table I a, 12
Unmarra, Table I a, 10
Unwannee, Table I a, 10
Uralaku, Table I a, 6
Urgilla, 44, Map II, v
URKU, 46, 50, Map III, 44
Urtalia, 47, Map II, xi
Urwalla, Table I a, 10
Uwallaree, Table I a, 10
Uwungaree, Table I a, 10
WAA, 48, Map III, 1
WAANG, 48, Map III, 1
Wairgu, Table I a, 7
WALAR, 45, 50, Map III, 31
Walar, 45, Map II, vii
Wandi, 45, Map II, vii
Warganbah, 43, Map II, ii
Warkie, Table I a, 9
Warrithu, Table I a, 7
WARTUNGMAT, 48, 50, 53, Map III, 34
Waui, 48, Map II, xvi
Weiro, 43, Map II, ii
Werrican, 43, Map II, ii
Wialia, 47, Map II, xi
WILIUKU, 47, 50, 53, Map III, 43
Wilthuthu, 48, Map II, xvi
Wiltu, 48, Map II, xvi
Wirrikin, 43, Map II, ii
Wirro, 43, Map II, ii
WITTERU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
Wombee, 42, 76, Map II, i
Wombo, 43, 76, Map II, ii
Womboongah, 43, Map II, ii
Wongan, 43, Map II, ii
Wongo, 44, 76, Map II, v
WOODAROO, 46, 50, Map III, 27, 28, 29
WOOTAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27; see also Ootaroo
WREPIL, 48, Map III, 1
WUTHERA, 45, 50, 53, 54, 66, Map III, 28
WUTHERA-MALLERA phratry, 66
WUTTHURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
Yakomari, Table I a, 3, 5, 6, 8, 79
Yakomarin(a), Table I a, 3, 5, 6
Yangor, 48, Map II, xiv
Yelet, 74
Yoolgo, 74
Youingo, 46, 72, 76, Map II, ix
YUCKEMBRUK, 48, Map III, 2
Yukamura, Table I a, 4
Yungalla, Table I a, 10
YUNGAROO, 45, 50, Map III, 27
YUNGARU, 44, 50, 53, Map III, 27
YUNGNURU, 44, 50, Map III, 27
YUNGO, 45, 49, 50, 53, 66, Map III, 9, 27
YUNGO phratry, 66
SUBJECT INDEX.
Names of Australian tribes are in Clarendon, native words and parts of words in italics. Words in inverted commas are defined.
Abduction, 103
Adoption, 2, 5, 7
Adultery, punishment for, 146
Affinity, 6
"Age grades," 2, 92, 112
Agoo as suffix, 80
Aku as suffix, 80
Akulbura classes, 44
America, tribe in, 7
American organisations, 9, 33
An as feminine termination 43, 44
Ana as suffix, 80
Anaywan classes, 43
Angie as suffix, 80
Anjegoo as suffix, 80
Annan R., classes on, 45
Anomalous areas, 51, 72
Anomalous marriages, 151
Anula classes, 47
Ara as suffix, 80
Arab phratries, 10
Archaeologia Americana, 33, 34
Aree as suffix, 60, 80
Ariltha, 145
Arunta classes, Table I a, 47 customs, 145 kinship terms, 96 meaning of, 82 primitiveness, 70 S., classes, 47 totemism, 12
Associations, changes in, 1 natal, 2
Atkinson, J.J., 63
Aversion, sexual, 117
Badieri classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45, 51
Baiame, 57
Balcoin, 83
Barkinji betrothal, 22 phratries, 49
Bathalibura classes, 44
Beena marriage, 108
Belyando R., classes on, 44
Berriait phratries, 49
Betrothal and potestas, 22 rule of descent, 22 sq.
Binbinga classes, Table I a, 47
Bingongina classes, Table I a, 47 phratries, 47
Bird myth, 55 conflict myth, 55
Blood and phratry organisations, 68 cousins, marriage forbidden to, 7 division, 31 feud, 26 organisations, 30, 153 relationship, 4
Bloomfield R., phratries on, 38, 50
Brother and sister marriage, 69 meaning of terms in Morgan's work, 111
Bu as prefix, 80
Bulcoin, 83
Bulthara, 83
Bundar, 83
Buntamurra classes, 44
"Caste" subdivision, 153
Cha as prefix, 79
Chieftainship, 25
Child and parent, 23, 119
Children and parents, 4
Choo as prefix, 80
"Classes, intermarrying," 30 and phratries, 51, 72, 87 and totems, 89 later than phratries, 71 list of, 42 sq. names, borrowing of, 75 sq. meaning of, 82
Class organisations, 37 sq.; Map II, 40 effect of, 86 origin of, 100
Classificatory terms of relationship, 93
Conception, theories of, 12, 23
"Consanguinity," 3 sq.
Consent of husband, 131, 138, 146
Contrasts in phratry names, 54, 56, 68
"Couple," 30
Cousin marriage, 70
Crow phratry, 53
Cunow, H., 86, 91
Dalebura classes, 44
Darkinung classes, 42 n.
Deeroyn, 82
Degeneration and incest, 113
Descent, rule of, 11, 12 sq.; Map I, 40 change of, 15, 16
Descriptive terms of relationship, 93
"Determinant spouse," 30
Dieri betrothal, 22 marriage rules, 97 phratries, 49 wife lending, 143
Dippa-malli, 133
Dippil classes, 43, 51 phratries, 43, III b, 51
"Direct descent," 30
Dirrawong, 82
Durkheim, E., 69, 87, 90
Durween, 82
Eaglehawk, 54 and crow, 53, 59 phratries, 67
Eanda, 10
Earl, G.W., 36
Economic conditions and rule of descent, 27
Egor as feminine suffix, 49
Eight-class names, centre of origin, 78 percentages of resemblance and difference, 77, 78 system, 76 tribe in Queensland, 97
Elder and younger, meaning of, 98 brother, authority, 100
Elopement, 20, 144
Eranta, 82
Euahlayi classes 42, 51 phratries, 42 e, 50, 51, 54
Exchange of wives, 143
Exogamy, 6, 30 origin of, 63
Family, 1 types of, 8
Father and son, conflict of, 17
Father and daughter marriage, 114
Father right, see Patriliny
Female descent, see Matriliny
Females, property vested in, 26
Feminine class names, 80
Fison, L., on group marriage, 127
Folktales, stock of, 57
Four-class area, 73 and eight-class systems, results compared, 97
Frazer, J.G., 69 on totemism, 12
Free love, 106, 129
Free union, 106
Gason, S., 13
Game, 106
Gan as feminine termination, 43
Geawegal classes, 42 wife lending, 142
Geebera phratries, 49
Generation, marriage within, 99
Gnalluma classes, 47, 48
Gnamo classes, 47, 48
Gnanji classes, Table I a, 47 phratries, 47
Goa classes, 44
Goonganji phratries, 49
Goothanto classes, 45
Gregory, J.W., 27, 67
Grey, Sir G., 34
Groups, local, 29 meaning of, 136 primitive, 13, 64
Group marriage and pirrauru, 136 meaning of term, 127 not proven, 148
Gurk as feminine suffix, 49
Haida phratries, 9
Hausa rules of avoidance, 99
Hereditary kinship groups, 12
Hodgson, C.P., 35
Homophones, 82
Hottentots non-totemic, 8
Howitt, A.W., 16, 23, 37, 121, 134
Iker as suffix, 80
Iliaura classes, Table I a, 47
Ilpirra classes, Table I a, 47
In-and-in breeding, 115
Incest and degeneration, 113
Inchalachee classes, Table I a, 47 marriage, 151
"Indirect descent," 30
Individual property, 25
Inginja as suffix, 80
Inheritance and descent, 18, 25 and patriliny, 22 of widow, 20 of wife by brother, 20, 21
Initiation and free love, 144
Inja as suffix, 80
"Intermarrying classes," 30
Isaacs, F.N., 35
Itch as suffix, 63, 80
Itchana as suffix, 80
Itchumundi "bloods," 50 phratries, 49, 50
J as prefix, 84
Ja as prefix, 79, 80
Jarr as feminine suffix, 49
Jealousy, 131
Joo as prefix, 80
Joongoongie classes, 48 phratries, 48
Jouon classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45, 51
Jus primae noctis, 140, 144
K as prefix, 84
Kabi classes, 43
Kaitish classes, Table I a, 47
Kalkadoon classes, 46, 51 phratries, 46, 51
Kamilaroi classes, 42 customs, 143 marriage, 151 organisation, 31 sq. phratries, 42 a wife lending, 142
Kandri, 130
Kangulu classes, 44 phratries, 44, IV b, 51
Kanunka, 83
Karandee class names, 74
Kempe, H., 84
Keramin phratries, 49
Kiabara classes, 43, 51
Kimberley, classes at, 47, 48
"Kin group," 8
"Kinsman," 31
"Kinship," 3 sq. and consanguinity, 23 groups, 2, 7 origin of idea, 13, 14 tribal, 5
Kodi-molli, 133
Kogai classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45, 51
Kohler, J., on group marriage, 127
Kombinegherry classes, 43
Koo as prefix, 80
Koogobathy classes, 46
Koolbirra, 82
Koonjan classes, 46
Koorangie classes, Table I a, 47
Korkoren, 83
Korkoro, 75, 83
Ku as prefix, 79, 80
Kubbi, 83
Kuinmurbura betrothal, 22 classes, 44 customs, 144 phratries, 44, IV a, 51 rules of residence, 16
Kulbara, 82
Kurnai customs, 143, 144 phratries, 49, n. 8 polygamy, 134 relationships, 120 rule of residence, 17, 18
Kurnandaburi phratries, 49 polygamy, 132
Kutchin phratries, 9
Landed property, 7, 8, 29
Lang, Andrew, ii, 63
Languages, differentiation of, 60, 81
Leichardt, L., 35
Lending of wives, 132 sq., 143 pirrauru wives, 132, 135, 139
Levirate, 20, 134
Liaison, 107, 133
Limba Karadjee classes, 36
Local group, constitution of, 26 influence of, in causing change of rule of descent, 26 types of, 8
Macarthur, Capt., 35
Maian, 134
Mala, 82
Male, 82
Male descent, see Patriliny
Malu, 82
Mara classes, 46 phratries, 46
Marriage, definition of, 103, 105 sq. evolution of, Morgan's theory, 110 forms of, 108 origin of, 64 prohibitions, 3, 6 rules, 97 sq. and kinship terms, 93
Maryborough tribes, classes of, 43 phratries, 43, III a, 51 rules of residence, 17
Mathews, R.H., 31, 150
Matriliny in eight-class tribes, 151 origin of, 13, 19 primitive, 69 priority of, 12, 15
"Matrilocal," 30 marriage, 16
Matripotestal family, 8, 109
Mayoo classes, Table I a, 47
Meening classes, Table I a, 47
Melanesian phratries, 10
Miappe classes, 46, 51 phratries, 46, 51
Migrations, 61
Milpulko phratries, 49
Miorli classes, 44
Mittakoodi classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45, 51
"Mixed group," 8
Mohegan phratries, 9
Monobar classes, 35
Moore, G.F., 34
Moree classes, 42
Morgan, Lewis, on promiscuity, 110
Mother right, see Matriliny
Mother, term for, 123
Mukjarawaint betrothal, 22 customs, 144
Murawari "bloods," 51 classes, 42, 51 phratries, 42 f, 50, 51
Murchison R., classes on, 47, 48
Muri, 83
Mycoolon classes, 72
Myths, diffusion of, 56
N as prefix, 80
Nagualism, 12
Narran R., classes on, 42
Narrangga classes, 48
Narrinyeri customs, 143, 144
"Natal associations," 2
Nauo phratries, 49
Near relatives, marriage of, 113
New Hebrides club-house, 106
Ngarrego phratries, 48
Ngerikudi kinship terms, 95
Ngeumba "bloods," 51 classes, 42, 51 phratries, 42 d, 51 organisation, 152
Nicol Bay, classes at, 47, 48
Nind, S., 34
Noa, 122, 129
Noa-mara, 129
Nu as prefix, 80
Nupa, 98, 135
Obur, 83
Oolawunga classes, Table I a, 47
Oruyo, 11
Ovaherero organisations, 10
Palyara, 83
Palyeri, 83
Panunga, 83
Parnkalla phratries, 49
Paternity, uncertain, 21
Patria potestas, 15, 19
Patrilineal inheritance, 18
Patriliny, causes of, in Australia, 27 cause of rise, 22 possible primitive, 13
"Patrilocal," 30
Patripotestal family, 8, 109
Peechera classes, 42
Phratries and classes, 51, 72, 87 list of, 48 sq. object of, 69 origin of, 65 systematic groups as, 9
"Phratry," 30
Phratry names, 32 sq. meanings of, 53 sq. organisations, distribution of, 9, 37 sq.; Map III, 40 segmentation, 61, 66
Pikumbul classes, 42
Piraungaru, 135, 141
Pirrauru, 130 and group marriage, 136 distinguishing features, 137 origin of, 139, 140, 141 spouses, duties of, 139-141
Pitta-Pitta, authority of husband among, 19 classes, 44 phratries, 45
Polyandry, 104, 108
Polygamy, 104, 108
Polygyny, 104, 108
Post, A.H., on group marriage, 127
Potestas, 4 and betrothal, 22 and patriliny, 22 and residence, 14 and rule of descent, 14 relation of, to rule of descent, 19
Poverty of language, 124
Powell, J.W., 27
Prefixes, 79, 80
Primitive group, 111
Promiscuity, 133 n., 144 forms of, 107
Property, inheritance of, 25 in law, 2, 7, 18
Protectorship of woman's kin, 19, 20
Pu as prefix, 80
Puberty, licence at, 143 sq., 146
Pueblo peoples, descent among, 27
Pultara, 83
Punishment, 19, 20
Purchase of wife, 21
Purgoma classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45, 51
Queries as to Australian facts, 129 sq., 132, 141
Racial conflict, 55
Rank and intermarrying class, 35
Relationship, systems of, 93
Residence and potestas, 14 and rule of descent, 14 customs of, 8, 10
Ridley, W., 36
Right of betrothal, 22
Ringa-Ringa classes, 44
Scarcity of women, 139
Schuermann, C.W., 34
"Secret Societies," 3
Sexual aversion, 117 unions, 102 sq.
"Shade" division, 31, 152
Sign language, 84
Sisters, exchange of, 19, 20
"Social organisation," 3
Societies, secret, 3
Solidarity of totem kin, 140
Spencer, B., on group marriage, 128
Status and kinship terms, 120, 125
Stokes, J.L., 36
"Sub-tribe," 30
Suffixes, 53, 60, 80
Ta as suffix, 80
Tarderick classes, 48
Taroombul classes, 44
Tatathi phratries, 49
Tchi as suffix, 53, 60, 80
Terminology, 29 sq.
Tippa-malku, 129 husband, rights of, 132, 139
Tjingillie classes, Table I a, 47
Tjuka as suffix, 80
Toda phratries, 10
Totem and phratry, 9
Totems and classes, 89 and phratry names, 60, 69
Totemism, distribution of, 8
"Totem kin," 31 sacrosanctity of, 16
Totem kins, 5 and phratries, 89 arrangement of, 89 and pirrauru, 134
Tribal brothers, rights of, 131 n., 141 kinship, 5 names, meaning of, 82 property, 2, 7, 18, 61 solidarity, 7
"Tribe," 2, 7, 29 subdivisions of, 8
Tully R., classes on, 45
Turribul classes, 42
U as prefix, 80
Uku as suffix, 53, 60
Ula as suffix, 80
Um as suffix, 80
Umbaia classes, Table I a, 47 phratries, 47
Unawa, 122
Unconscious reformation, 116
Undekerebina phratries, 51
Undivided commune, 121, 143
Unga as suffix, 80
Unghi classes, 42
Ungilla, 84
Ungorri classes, 44
Upala, 83
Urabunna customs, 142 marriage rules, 98 phratries, 49 polygamy, 135
Uru as suffix, 53, 60
Victoria, occupation of, 27, 67 S.W., phratries in, 49
Wailwun classes, 42 organisation, 89
Wakelbura betrothal, 22 classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45 51 polyandry, 133 rules of residence, 16
Walpari classes, Table I a, 47 phratries, 47
Wanika phratries, 10
Warkeman classes, 45
Warramunga classes, Table I a, 47 marriage, 150 phratries, 47
Wathi-Wathi kinship terms, 94 phratries, 49
Weedokarry classes, 47, 48
Welu, 54
West Australia, classes in, 48 phratries in, 48
Westermarck, E., on group marriage, 128 on marriage, 105
Wide Bay, classes at, 43
Widow, position of, 20, 134 removal of, 19
Widower, 131
Wife lending, 142 authority over, 19
Wiimbaio customs, 143 phratries, 49 wife lending, 142
Wilpadrina, 129 n.
Wilson, T.B., 36
Wilya phratries, 49
Wiradjeri, chiefs among, 25 classes, 42, 51 marriage, 150 phratries, 42 b, 50
Wolgal phratries, 49
Wollaroi betrothal, 22 classes, 42
Wollongurma classes, 45
Wonnaruah classes, 42
Wonghibon "bloods," 51 classes, 42, 51 phratries, 42 c, 50, 51
Woonamurra classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45, 51
Worgaia classes, Table I a, 47 phratries, 47
Workoboongo classes, 46, 72
Wulmala classes, Table I a, 47 phratries, 47
Wurunjerri phratries, 48
Ya as prefix, 79, 80
Yambeena classes, 51 phratries, 51
Yandairunga phratries, 49
Yandrawontha phratries, 49
Yangarella classes, Table I a, 47
Yelyuyendi phratries, 51
Yerunthully classes, 44, 72
Yookala classes, Table I a, 47
Yoolanlanya classes, 47
Yowerawarika phratries, 49
Yuin custom, 145
Yuipera classes, 44, 51 phratries, 45, 51
Yukkabura classes, 45
Yun as prefix, 80
Yungmunnie classes, Table I a, 47
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Transcriber's Note:
The following inconsistencies have been maintained in the text:
Misspellings and typographical errors
Hawaian for Hawaiian Chapter IV, Table I, Section XV, the paragraph that begins with "Tribe" is missing a ) at the end.
Inconsistent hyphenation:
bi-lateral / bilateral eight-fold / eightfold four-fold / fourfold Geawe-gal / Geawegal head-man / headman inter-tribal / intertribal matri-potestal / matripostestal Narrang-ga / Narrangga patri-potestal / patripotestal sacrosanctity / sacrosanctity sub-division / subdivision wide-spread / widespread
Other inconsistencies: Archaeologia / Archaeologia Eaglehawk-Crow / eaglehawk-crow Pirraurru / Pirrauru vice versa / vice versa
In list of abbreviations: Proc. R.G.S. Qn. In text: Proc. R.G.S. Qu., Proc. R.S. Qu. In list of abbreviations: R.G.S. Qn. In text: R.G.S. Qu.
In Chapter IV, Table II, repeated column headings have been omitted. The numbering in this table jumps from 12 to 20 and then from 34 to 40.
In Chapter IV, Table III, two symbols are used ([+] and Sec.) which are not defined. Repeated column headings have been omitted.
In Chapter VII, the abbreviation ib. in the Footnotes is not italicized.
In Chapter X, Section B. Marriage The roman numerals are followed by a comma, rather than a period as in the preceding section.
THE END |
|
