The Family among the Australian Aborigines, a Sociological Study
by Bronislaw Malinowski · English · Gutenberg #48865 · 807,079 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Family among the Australian Aborigines, a Sociological Study
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Family among the Australian Aborigines, a Sociological Study
Author: Bronislaw Malinowski
Release date: May 3, 2015 [eBook #48865]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48865
Credits: Produced by garweyne and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet
Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FAMILY AMONG THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES, A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ***
TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE:
Inconsistencies in hyphenation and spelling, including inconsistencies
in the spelling of the names of tribes, locations, authors, and
aboriginal terms, have not been corrected. Punctuation has been
silently corrected. A list of other corrections can be found at the end
of the document.
THE FAMILY AMONG THE
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
MONOGRAPHS ON SOCIOLOGY
EDITED BY
PROF. L. T. HOBHOUSE
AND
PROF. E. A. WESTERMARCK
VOL. II
THE FAMILY AMONG THE
AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES
A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY
BY
B. MALINOWSKI
PH.D. (CRACOW)
London: University of London Press
PUBLISHED FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS, LTD.
BY HODDER & STOUGHTON, WARWICK SQUARE, E. C.
1913
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
PUBLISHERS TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS
FOREWORD
The importance of the subject treated in this study, as well as the
prominent part played by the Australian evidence in the problem of
kinship, will, it is believed, amply justify a detailed inquiry into
the institution of the family in Australia. It is, however, always
desirable for a monograph like the present one, besides being a mere
collection and description of facts, to have a sufficiently wide
theoretical scope. It ought to demonstrate some general principle upon
the particular example treated, and to approach the problem from a new
standpoint.
I wish here shortly to indicate how far a slight and imperfect attempt
in this direction has been made. In describing the facts of family life
in Australia I have tried to show that even if the problems of origins
and development of an institution be put aside and the inquiry be
limited to the actual facts (in this case to the actual working of the
aboriginal kinship organization), there are plenty of subjects of great
theoretical importance, some of which, as yet not fully considered by
sociologists. On the other hand, I have tried to show that in dealing
with purely sociological problems it is necessary, in order to do
justice to the complexity and fulness of social phenomena, to draw into
the field of inquiry a series of facts often hitherto partially or
completely neglected. The facts of daily life, the emotional side of
family relations, the magico-religious ideas of the aborigines about
kinship and sexual relations, customary as well as legal norms--all
these factors must be taken impartially into careful consideration
in order to give the full picture of an institution as it embraces
living man in a living society. In other words each social institution
must be studied in all its complex social functions as well as in its
reflexion in the collective psychology.
As a matter of fact, by a certain tendency to fanciful construction,
natural in all early speculations about a new domain of facts, many
problems in the study of primitive kinship have been artificially
simplified, others unduly complicated and obscured. Thus, for instance,
when in the discussion of primitive forms of marriage the whole problem
of the position of the children and of the emotional attitude of the
parents towards them has been neglected; or when different legal
terms have been applied to undifferentiated societies and legal ideas
attributed to primitive man, without asking how far and under what
conditions this may be done; or, again, when the sexual aspect has
been treated as the only essential feature of marriage. On the other
hand, the concepts of "primitive promiscuity," "descent through females
only," "mother-right" and "father-right" have proved meaningless and
abstruse; the two latter, of course, as far only as they have been used
in the majority of cases without a satisfactory definition.
It is easy to see why such somewhat artificial conceptions have found
their way into the study of primitive marriage and kinship. In the
early days of these studies work had been done not by specialists,
who would try to apply to a new set of problems new methods, but
by men learned in other branches of science, who looked at the
facts, not full in the face, but from a peculiar and often remote
standpoint. The illustrious founder of these studies on the Continent,
the Swiss _savant_ Bachofen, was a student of history of law and
classical culture, and he was chiefly concerned with establishing
the primitive mother-right of the prehistoric Greeks and Romans. The
chief theoretical interest of the eminent ethnographer Morgan was the
unravelling of the riddle of primitive forms of marriage out of the
invaluable material contained in his tables of kinship terms. McLennan
assigns a prominent place in his investigations to factors which had
hardly ever played a very important part in primitive society, as,
for instance, marriage by capture, female infanticide and levirate.
It is evident that in all these and similar speculations the chief
attention was not drawn to the actual working of the social mechanism,
but to survivals, rudiments and fictitious primeval conditions. And
the method of sociological thinking has not been developed upon
living social forms, but upon shadows and petrified remains. Whenever
concrete institutions have been theoretically treated, they were
approached with preconceived ideas, as, for instance, in the well-known
monograph of Fison and Howitt, and in the book of Herr H. Cunow--both
works relating to Australian kinship organization. When reading the
theoretical chapters of the latter, one has the impression that the
Australian tribes were a museum of sociological fossils from various
ancient epochs of which the petrified form has been rigidly preserved,
but into whose inner nature it is quite hopeless to inquire. The
understanding of actual facts is sacrificed to sterile speculation upon
a hypothetical earlier state of things.
Prof. Tylor's well-known article (_Journ. Anthrop. Inst._ xviii.) was,
perhaps, the first protest against this loose and far-fetched treatment
of the subject. He based his method of research on the firm ground
of a statistical survey of facts, and his method of reasoning on the
philosophically sound principle of inquiring into the mutual dependence
of phenomena.
The whole problem has been set on a new basis and its treatment recast
in the fundamental treatise of Prof. Westermarck on the _History of
Human Marriage_. Several of the most important aspects of the question
which had been omitted in the speculations of the previous writers have
received in it their full treatment; in taking into account, in its
manifold aspects, the biological basis of the problem he has shown how
many of the current conceptions about primitive marriage and kinship
could not hold good in the light of a closer criticism. Besides this
merely critical contribution, and besides the biological argument,
the _History of Human Marriage_ constitutes a valuable addition to
the purely sociological treatment of the problem. By resolving the
problem of marriage into that of family, by pointing to the importance
of the relations between parents and children, of the mode of living,
etc., the author has shown that marriage is rooted in a complex of
sociological conditions, and that there are many points to be treated
before we arrive at definite conclusions and broad generalizations.
Another important aspect of the problem has received its full treatment
by Mr. Crawley in his study of primitive marriage (the _Mystic Rose_;
compare the note in the Addenda at the end of this volume). Working out
thoroughly some conceptions suggested already by Prof. Frazer in his
_Golden Bough_, the author has shown the social importance of the ideas
about human relations and in particular about sexual relations as held
by primitive man.
The tendency towards a reform in the method of sociological treatment
of kinship and family has been shown not only from the side of purely
theoretical writers. Some of the modern field workers, who happily for
our science are at the same time distinguished scholars, have achieved
a considerable advance in the method of collecting evidence. This
refers in the first place to the Cambridge School of Ethnology, whose
members under the lead of Dr. Haddon have obtained such remarkable
results from their work in the Torres Straits Islands. Dr. Rivers, who
specially worked out the chapter on kinship in the joint publication of
this Expedition, has, by the introduction of the genealogical method
of inquiry as well as by the systematic study of the functions of kin,
given perhaps the most useful instruments of inquiry into the social
working of family and kinship organization. Thus both our theoretical
conceptions and our methods of getting at the facts are certainly
approaching more and more the first postulate of scientific study:
the possibility of an adequate description of facts and their mutual
dependences as they exist now in living primitive societies. Only on a
basis of such knowledge are further speculations fruitful.
As regards the general principles of sociological method much has been
done in recent times by the French school of sociology, grouped round
the editor of the _Année Sociologique_. The important question, how
methodically to present evidence, has received its full attention in
the excellent works of Dr. Steinmetz and his pupil, Dr. Nieboer, which
are examples of a clear and conclusive way of utilizing ethnological
sources. I am glad to acknowledge my intellectual indebtedness to both
these schools.
I have tried to collect sufficiently complete evidence, and in this
endeavour have used some of the older sources whose trustworthiness
might perhaps be disputed. But many of their observations are highly
valuable if properly interpreted; and moreover it was necessary to
bring their statements into line with the newer evidence for the sake
of critical comparison, as much of what they say has been uncritically
accepted and given without reference by some secondhand compilers (for
instance, Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi.; Cunow) and hence found its way into
the newer sociological literature.
The statements I have taken from the different authors are quoted at
length, and I do not think that I have thus uselessly increased the
bulk of the volume. By an unprejudiced collection of evidence, which
is, moreover, presented in a manner independent of, and accessible
without reference to, the theoretical discussion, I hope to have given
a useful compilation of observations which may serve for further
theoretical purposes other than those of the present writer.
In order to make short and yet clear references possible a list of the
works quoted is given at the end. With its help the short indications
in the footnotes will be perfectly plain.
In this place I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mr. J. Martin
White, whose munificence has made the publication of this book
possible. As a student of sociology at the University of London I am
indebted to Mr. Martin White, who, as it is well known, has founded the
chairs of Sociology at this university, and furthers these studies in
various ways--not the least by his personal contact with and interest
shown in the students and their work.
I had, while working on the present book, the privilege of personal
intercourse with Prof. Westermarck, a privilege I value more than I
can express. I owe much to Dr. Rivers for the constant aid and counsel
generously given me during my studies. Much assistance was given to me
by Mr. Wheeler, who freely put at my disposal his extensive knowledge
of the subject. I have to thank Dr. Tallqvist for several important
remarks upon some pages of my proofs.
But my debt is the greatest to Miss Helena Hadley, without whose kind
help I could not have overcome the difficulties of writing in what is
for me an acquired tongue. Her advice and criticism, both as regards
style and thought, were quite invaluable for me, and this is only a
feeble acknowledgment of my indebtedness and feelings of gratitude.
B. M.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD
I. _Exposition of the problem and justification of the task_ (pp. 1
_sqq._).
Some contradictions and obscurities concerning family and kinship
in Australia (pp. 1-6).--Necessity of a careful and detailed
description of all the features of the _individual family_ among
the Australian aborigines (pp. 6-9).--The sense in which the
conception of _law_ and _legal_ should be applied to the Australian
native society indicated (pp. 9-17).
II. _Method of dealing with the evidence_ (pp. 17 _sqq._).
At the outset only a general definition of "family" adopted; on
the other hand raw ethnographical material given. Necessity of
continually checking these two data with each other (p. 17).--In
dealing with the ethnographical evidence _three_ points to be
taken into consideration (pp. 17 _sqq._).--(1) Criticisms of
each statement (pp. 18 _sqq._).--Verbal criticism (hermeneutic)
(pp. 18-19).--Criticism of contents (pp. 19 _sqq._).--Different
elements which might possibly have been the source of errors; and
upon an analysis of which criticism in question may in part be
based; (_a_) Material which the author had under observation
(pp. 20-22).--(_b_) Circumstances and method of obtaining information
(pp. 22, 23).--(_c_) Personal character and profession of the
writer (pp. 23, 24).--(_d_) Purpose for which the book was written
(p. 24).--(_e_) Form and quality of the writer's generalizations
and abstract formulation (pp. 24, 25).--(2) Geographical
localization of statements (pp. 26 sqq.).--Condition under which
local differences may be safely assumed (pp. 26, 27).--(3)
Final inferences from the evidence (pp. 27 _sqq._).--Character
of this operation; analytical division of the information on a
given subject under different headings. Separate discussion of
each point. Contradictions emphasized and not concealed
(pp. 27-29).--Conclusion drawn (pp. 29, 30).--Its confrontation with
kindred facts (pp. 30, 31).--The chief methodological aim: general
and complete clearness of all the operations of inference and
argument (pp. 31-33).
CHAPTER II
MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES
Prof. Westermarck's definition of marriage and family accepted
at the outset as starting-point (pp. 34, 35).--Inquiry first
directed towards the legal aspect of marriage and ideas on
marriage, as expressed and embodied in the aboriginal modes of
obtaining wives (pp. 35, 36).--Statements concerning these facts
(pp. 36-47).--Rough survey (pp. 47, 48).--(1) _Normal forms of
marriage_ (pp. 48 _sqq._).--Chief features and forms of the normal
methods: betrothal in infancy (p. 48);--exchange of sisters or
relatives (pp. 48, 49);--obligations of contracting parties (pp.
49, 50);--some traces of marriage by purchase (pp. 50-52);--public,
tribal character of marriage arrangements (p. 52);--betrothal
and marriage ceremonies (pp. 52-53).--(2) _The violent forms of
marriage_ (pp. 53-55).--Capture (pp. 54, 55).--Elopement (pp.
55, 56).--_Theoretical inferences drawn from these facts_ (pp.
56 _sqq._).--The legal aspect of marriage (pp. 56-58).--The
elements enforcing _ipso facto_ the validity of marriage (pp.
58, 59).--Collective ideas expressed by the facts analyzed (pp.
60-62).--Marital bonds not lax, but on the whole strong and
permanent (pp. 62-66).--Summary (p. 66).
CHAPTER III
HUSBAND AND WIFE
Exposition of the problem (pp. 67, 68).--Statements
(pp. 68-74).--Numerous contradictions extant on this subject. Some
apparently trustworthy statements, affirming a very extensive
authority on the part of the husband, combined with a certain
mutual attachment (pp. 74, 75).--Division of the subject under
three headings for the purpose of securing more definite answers
(pp. 76, 77).--(1) The authority of the husband over his wife
nearly absolute, limited only in cases of wilful murder
(pp. 77-79).--(2) Ill-treatment not the rule; from this, combined
with the foregoing point, follows (pp. 79-82).--(3) Existence of
some affection and attachment between the aboriginal married couples
(pp. 82-84).--On the whole the information in this chapter very
contradictory (p. 84).--Strength of marital bond, as expressed by
mourning and burial ceremonies and customs (pp. 84-88).
CHAPTER IV
SEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE
General character of the information on this subject indicated,
and some controversy contained in this chapter justified
(pp. 89-91).--Problem set forth (pp. 91, 92).--Statements
(pp. 92-100).--Local differences between different groups of tribes
in sexual matters (pp. 100, 101).--Three points investigated:
(1) The husband's definite sexual over-right and control over
his wife involving his consent in all cases. Otherwise adultery
considered a crime (pp. 101-103).--(2) Chastity in general; its
slight recognition (pp. 104, 105).--(3) Regulated licence
(pp. 105-107).--Its chief form: the Pirrauru practice (pp. 108,
109).--A detailed discussion of the latter showing its lack of the
features of "group marriage" (pp. 109-123).--In general all sexual
licence _regulated_ and devoid of the character of promiscuity and
disorder (pp. 123, 124).--Digression on sexual jealousy among the
Australian aborigines (pp. 124-131).
CHAPTER V
MODE OF LIVING
I. _The relation of the family unit to the tribal and territorial
organization of the aboriginal society_ (pp. 132 _sqq._).
Terminology (pp. 134, 135).--Statements (pp. 136-149).--Rough
survey (pp. 149, 150).--The _territorial_ unit, the _local group_
a body of people possessing in common a tract of country and
inhabiting it to the exclusion of anybody else (pp. 150-152).--Three
different forms of possession of land in Australia (pp. 152,
153).--Idea of rights in a portion of land probably to a great
extent of magico-religious character (p. 153).--The mode of living,
the tribal division varying according to local conditions and with
opportunities of food-supply. In the majority of tribes (especially
those of the arid regions) small groupings of about one to three
families usual (pp. 150-157).
II. _The internal structure of the local group, with reference to
single families_ (pp. 158 _sqq._).
Statements (pp. 158-165).--Disposition of camps, the mode of
occupying the huts and other functions of daily life subject to
strict rules pointing to the isolation of the single families
(pp. 165-167).
CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION OF KINSHIP
I. _Theoretical analysis of this concept_ (pp. 168 _sqq._).
Importance of adapting sociological concepts to those social
conditions to which they are applied, exemplified on the concept
of kinship (pp. 168, 169).--Necessity of giving a definition of
kinship for scientific use (pp. 169-171).--The present discussion
specially directed to suit the Australian evidence (pp. 171,
172).--Necessary and sufficient conditions for admitting the
_existence_ of _individual parental kinship_ in any given society
(pp. 172-174).--Further features thereof to be looked for in
the variable social conditions and in the data of "collective
psychology"; "collective ideas" held about kinship and "collective
feelings" referring to it (pp. 174-176).--Preliminary definition of
kinship (p. 176).--_Analysis of the concept of consanguinity_
(pp. 176 _sqq._).--Modern European idea of kinship conceived in terms
of consanguinity (p. 177).--Physiological and social consanguinity
(pp. 178-182).--Exact definition of the latter (p. 182).--Kinship
not always based upon ideas of community of blood. Common features
of the ideas underlying kinship (pp. 182, 183).--Normative ideas
referring to kinship. Descent (pp. 183-185).--_Analysis of the
legal side of kinship_ (pp. 185, _sqq._).--_Legal_ only one of the
aspects of kinship (p. 185).--In primitive societies in particular
kinship not a legal relationship (pp. 185, 186).--Discussion of
some opinions thereon (Mr. Thomas, Prof. Dargun, Prof. Frazer)
(pp. 186-190).--Restricted use of the term _legal_ in the Australian
aboriginal society (pp. 190, 191).--_Justification of the
study of the emotional characteristics of kinship_ (pp. 191
_sqq._).--Importance of feelings in the task of characterizing any
personal relationship. "Collective feelings" (pp. 191, 192).--The
presence in the Australian ethnographic material of objective
facts which express the collective feelings referring to kinship
(pp. 192-194).--Analysis of these facts (pp. 194-197).--Mutual
dependence of collective ideas and collective feelings referring to
kinship (pp. 197, 198).--Summary (pp. 198, 199).--Critical survey
of some definitions of kinship given by other authors (Morgan,
MacLennan, Mr. E. S. Hartland, Dr. Rivers, Fison and Howitt, M. von
Gennep, Prof. Durkheim, Prof. Westermarck, Sir Laurence Gomme)
(pp. 199-206).--Two additional remarks (pp. 206, 207).
II. _Some examples of kinship ideas suggested by the Australian
folklore_ (pp. 207 _sqq._).
Introductory remarks (p. 207).--Belief in totemic conception
existing among the Central tribes (pp. 208, 209).--Absence
of knowledge concerning physiological procreation (pp. 209,
210).--Some important points discussed (pp. 210 _sqq._)--(1)
The ignorance in question complete (pp. 210, 211).--(2) In
particular no idea of _individual paternal_ consanguinity (pp. 211,
212).--(3) Analysis of the aboriginal ideas about reincarnation
(pp. 212-217).--Conclusion: absence of "consanguinity"
(in the social sense) among the Central tribes (pp. 217,
218).--_Beliefs in which some kinship ideas are expressed_
(pp. 218 _sqq._).--Among the Northern tribes special close
tie between spirit-child and father (Gnanji, Umbaia and other
Northern-Central tribes) (pp. 218-220).--Pre-established kinship
involved in the belief concerning reincarnation and return of dead
people (pp. 220-225).--Customs of the _couvade_ type (pp. 225,
226).--Geographical extension of the nescience of physiological
fatherhood (pp. 226, 227).--Two North Queensland beliefs involving
a clear idea of spiritual tie between a father and his child
(pp. 227-229).--Other examples (pp. 229, 230).--Survey of the beliefs
of the South-Eastern tribes possessing the idea of paternal
consanguinity (in the social sense) (pp. 230-232).--Summary
(pp. 232, 233).
CHAPTER VII
PARENTS AND CHILDREN
I. _The first maternal cares and suckling of the infant_ (pp. 234
_sqq._).
Statements (pp. 235, 236).--Close ties between mother and her
offspring during infancy and early childhood (pp. 236, 237).
II. _The relation between parents and children during childhood_
(pp. 238 _sqq._).
Statements (pp. 238-249).--Affirmation of a close tie of
affection and devotion between parents and children (pp. 249,
250).--Illustrations drawn from concrete facts (pp. 250,
251).--Applicable to both the father and mother; to female as well
as to male children (p. 251).--Great leniency of treatment
(pp. 252, 253).--Bearing of the affection of both parents to their
children upon the relation between husband and wife (pp. 253,
254).--No data for assuming the existence in Australia of _patria
potestas_ as a legal form (p. 254).--Lack of information as to
the actual character of the paternal authority in Australia
(pp. 254-256).--Rudiments of education (pp. 256, 257).
III. _Children at puberty removed from their parents' camp, and
consequent weakening of the relationship_ (pp. 257 _sqq._).
Marriage of females at puberty (pp. 257-259).--Great disparity
of age between husband and wife (pp. 259, 260).--Statements
(pp. 260-262).--Boys at puberty and afterwards (pp. 262
_sqq._).--Statements (pp. 262-267).--Boys undergoing initiation;
their life in a special camp ("bachelors' camp") (pp. 267-269).
IV. _The life-long permanence, nevertheless, of the tie between parents and
children_ (pp. 269 _sqq._).
Statements (pp. 269-272).--Lack of information as to the
relationship between sisters and brothers (pp. 272, 273).
CHAPTER VIII
ECONOMICS
The individual family an economic unit (p. 274).--Statements
(pp. 275-281).--Sexual division of labour a marked feature of
Australian marriage (p. 281).--The woman's share of work harder,
more important and indispensable than the man's (pp. 282-283).--The
man's share not devoted to the exclusive benefit of his family
(p. 283). Statements concerning the aboriginal communism in food
(pp. 283-286).--Their bearing upon the economics of the household
(pp. 286, 287).--Sociological features of this sexual division of
labour (pp. 287, 288).--Division of consumption within the family
(pp. 288, 289).--Description of some minor economic features
concerning the household (pp. 289-291).
CHAPTER IX
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS pp. 292-304
ADDENDA " 305-309
BIBLIOGRAPHY " 310-316
INDEX " 317-326
THE FAMILY AMONG THE AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES
CHAPTER I
EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD
I
The problem of the social forms of family life still presents some
obscurities. What appears to be most urgently needed is a careful
investigation of facts in all the different ethnographical areas. I
propose in this study to undertake this task for Australia. I shall
avoid making any hypothetical assumptions, or discussing general
problems which refer to the origin or evolution of the family. I wish
only to describe in correct terms and as thoroughly as possible all
that refers to actual family life in Australia. In other words I intend
to give in outline the social morphology of the Australian family.
It may be well to show briefly the necessity for this task, which to
some may appear superfluous, and to indicate the lines on which it will
be attempted. In the first place there are some contradictions with
regard to the problem of relationship or kinship in Australia, which
can be reduced to the question: Is kinship in Australia exclusively
individual; or is it exclusively group kinship (or tribal kinship, as
it often is called); and, further, do these two forms exclude each
other or do they perhaps exist side by side? When Howitt says: "The
social unit is not the individual, but the group; the former merely
takes the relationships of his group, which are of group to group,"[1]
this obviously means that there is no individual relationship,
consequently no individual family in Australia. It is important to note
that the passage just quoted is placed in the chapter on Relationship
in Howitt's chief work on Australia, and that consequently it refers
to all the tribes described by the author, _i. e._ to the majority
of the known Australian tribes. The same opinion that there is only
group relationship and no individual family is supported by another
passage, no less important and general, for it is placed at the
conclusion of Howitt's article on the organization of the Australian
tribes in general: "It has been shown that the fundamental idea in the
conception of an Australian community is its division into two groups.
The relationships which obtain between the members of them are also
those of group to group."[2] And again: "The unit of aboriginal society
is, therefore, not the individual, but the group. It is the group
which marries the group and which begets the group."[3] There are also
a few passages in Spencer and Gillen which deny the existence of the
individual family, at least in some tribes.[4]
[1] _Nat. Tribes_, p. 157. It is hardly necessary to point
out that this phrase is without a precise sense, unless it
be evident in what sense the author uses the conception
"social unit." One looks in vain for such a definition in
Howitt.
[2] Howitt, _Trans. R.S.V._, _l.c._, p. 134.
[3] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 135.
[4] Compare the passage quoted by A. Lang, just below,
and the passage quoted by us, pp. 108 _sqq._, and p. 243.
How far Spencer and Gillen have the right to deny the
existence of the individual family among the Urabunna will
be discussed in detail below.
Thus the impression drawn from the passages just quoted[5] is that
there is no individual relationship and, what follows as an immediate
consequence, no individual marriage, nor individual family in
Australia. Such a conclusion would be absolutely false. For the same
author (Howitt) writes: "Individual marriage in Australian tribes has
been evident to everyone."[6] Curr speaks in still more positive terms:
"No relationship but that of blood is known amongst Australians."[7]
The social relations which exist amongst the Australian aborigines are
of five sorts; first, those of family; second, those of the tribe;
third, those between associated tribes; fourth, those of neighbours
who belong to different associations; fifth, all other persons.[8]
We see that in Curr's statements there is again no room for any kind
of group relationship. Obviously Curr's information contradicts in
plain terms the foregoing set of statements, and such a contradiction
among our best informants is truly puzzling. There seems to be some
misunderstanding in the present problem.
[5] I have quoted the best first-hand authorities;
instances could easily be multiplied as well from their
works as also from other sources.
[6] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115.
[7] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. iii.
[8] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 60.
This is not only my own opinion. Mr. A. Lang discusses the same
question and finds it necessary to prove in a short article that
individual relationship exists in Australia. He says: "It is certain
that 'blood' or 'own' relations are perfectly recognized. Messrs.
Spencer and Gillen inadvertently deny this, saying: 'The savage
Australian, it may be said with truth, has no idea of relationships
as we understand them.'" This example is not the only one, as has
been shown above, and indeed their number could be easily multiplied.
Mr. Lang proves by several instances that this opinion of Spencer
and Gillen is erroneous, and concludes: "The savage Australian
does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations. It
was necessary to make this fact clear and certain, as it has been
denied."[9] The same contradiction has also been pointed out by Dr.
Westermarck: "As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison's statements have
caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert
that among the Australian savages groups of males are actually found
united to groups of females."[10] And in a footnote Dr. Westermarck
quotes Lubbock, Morgan, Kohler, Kovalevsky. With such views Dr.
Westermarck contrasts Curr's[11] opinion that strict monogamy obtains,
and that of the Rev. J. Mathew,[12] "who fails to see that group
marriage 'has been proven to exist in the past and certainly does not
occur in Australia now.'"
[9] _Procs. B. Academy_, vol. iii. 1908, May report, p. 4.
[10] Westermarck Ed. _The History of Human Marriage_, p. 56.
[11] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 126.
[12] Mathew, _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxiii. p. 404, quoted from
Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 57.
Again E. Grosse in his well-known book, speaking of Howitt's work on
the Kurnai says that this author "... hat sich so gründlich in seine
Hypothese einer Gruppenehe ... der prähistorischen Australier vertieft,
dass er darüber ganz vergisst, seine Leser darauf aufmerksam zu machen,
dass die historischen Australier in Einzelnehe leben."[13] This is
quite true, especially the remark that one of the chief sources of
error in sociology is speculating on the origins and prehistory of an
institution before this institution is thoroughly known in the present
state.
[13] E. Grosse, p. 6.
And it seems as if in the present case a good many of the difficulties
may be solved by understanding some of the statements made as referring
to hypothetical earlier stages. As a matter of fact the passage quoted
above, where the existence of group relationship is affirmed, is
continued thus: "The idea of the relation of individual to individual,
and of individual parentage, without reference to the group, is of
later origin, and is the result of a number of social forces acting in
the same general direction and producing change."[14] It is evident
therefore that group relationship is supposed by Howitt to be the
former state, and individual relationship a kind of innovation. But
there is such a lack of clearness, such a confusion of the past and
present tenses, that we are here again at a loss. Take for example
the following passage: "The latest advance which has been made in
the subject of Australian marriage was the conception of marriage in
the group, and of group to group, and of the filial relation of one
group to another."[15] This last phrase should be, in all probability,
understood in the past tense, as referring to prehistoric times. But
the author gives absolutely no hint whether this be so or otherwise.
And when he on the next page refers to Mr. Curr's assertion, that there
is actually no group relationship in Australia, and criticizes this
assertion, a suspicion is aroused that this view of the existence of
marital and filial groups is meant to express the actual status. This
is enough to show how vague and puzzling the question of the individual
family and individual relationship still is.
[14] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 135.
[15] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 113.
It is unnecessary to insist on the bewilderment, but the polemical mood
in which our informants always approached the problem of relationship
and family has had its unfortunate consequences. In the first place it
is easy to see that these two groups of facts--individual relationship
and group relationship--are treated by the writers as if they excluded
each other, or at least as if one of them were gradually encroaching
upon the other. Whereas it is quite possible that both individual and
group relationship might exist side by side, originating from different
sources, and expressing two different sets of social relationships.
In the second place, the polemical attitude of our best informants
(Howitt, and Spencer and Gillen) against individual relationship
resulted in their giving very meagre information about the individual
family. As a matter of fact, in all theoretical passages of works
devoted to the social organization of the Australian tribes, the
individual family is passed over in absolute silence.[16] As this
unit obviously plays a foremost part in the social life of Australian
tribes, I submit it is quite justifiable that in these pages some
information about this unit should be gathered and its importance
brought out. Special attention has been devoted to the facts of actual
family life.
[16] As _e. g._ in the general treatises of Spencer and
Gillen, _Nat. Tr., Nor. Tr._, Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, Howitt
and Fison, _K.K. Idem_ in _J.A.J._, xii. p. 33. Howitt in
_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 100, and in _Smithsonian Reports_,
p. 79.
To sum up, it may be said that the defects in our information as to
the individual family, and the contradiction and confusion surrounding
it, do of themselves justify an examination of this institution.
These contradictions are due probably not to any intrinsic reasons,
but to certain theoretical postulates and axioms adopted by some of
our informants. And as the exact description of actual facts seems to
suffer therefrom, a revision of the theoretical side of the problem, as
well as a collection of evidence from a somewhat extensive number of
sources appears advisable.
But over and above clearing up some contradictions, solving some
difficulties, and filling up a gap in the information concerning
Australian kinship organization, there is a much deeper justification
for a detailed collection and classification of facts referring to the
individual family in Australia. I mean, it is only such a proceeding
that can give us a scientific, correct and useful definition of the
Australian individual family (or any other social unit in general). _A
priori_ only a vague meaning can be attached to the term "individual
family," when it refers to a society different from ours. For the
essential features of the individual family, as of all other social
institutions, depend upon the general structure of a given society and
upon the conditions of life therein. A careful and detailed analysis
of the family life and of the different aspects of the family unit in
connection with other social phenomena is therefore necessary. Such an
analysis enables us to describe the said unit in a complete and exact
way.
It is Dr. Rivers to whom we are indebted for emphasizing the
methodological standpoint in this connection. In his article[17] he
points out that we cannot _a priori_ assert the existence of even such
an apparently unquestionable fact as individual motherhood in every
human society whether actual or hypothetical. To affirm that in a given
society motherhood is individual and not communal (group motherhood),
a strict analysis of a whole series of circumstances is necessary.
Applying Dr. Rivers' argument to the other family relationships, we may
say that all the circumstances referring to the relation between man
and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, must be submitted
to a careful and detailed analysis; and that only such an examination
can give us the right idea of what may be called the individual family
in a given society--in this case the Australian individual family.[18]
[17] _Anthrop. Essays_, pp. 309 _sqq._
[18] Comp. below, p. 206, the second paragraph of footnote
1.
As mentioned above, many authors, who have contributed so much in
other respects to our knowledge of Australian kinship organization,
have not entered into details as to the family life, or actual
relationship. Even Mr. Thomas, although he quite acknowledges the
existence of individual relationship, confines himself to the remark
that in Australia exists "the family in the European sense." But this
expression is not adequate. We cannot possibly find in Australia any
social unit that would exactly fit the forms of our individual family;
for this is intimately connected with the structure of our society,
and none of the social conditions it requires are found in Australia.
We can only say a unit which is _analogous_ to our individual family,
and even then we would be more metaphorical than exact. Mr. Lang,
on the other hand, is not exhaustive enough for our purpose--which
is a description of the family unit that will define it fully for
sociological use. Nevertheless as he writes in reply to Dr. Rivers
he has accepted the latter's methodological standpoint, and he gives
a series of apposite remarks and examples. But he concludes: "It is
needless to give more examples; the savage Australian does discriminate
between his actual and his tribal relations." This conclusion is quite
correct, but it is not sufficient. The mere affirmation that the actual
relationship exists and is recognized by the natives is not enough.
This has been obvious to every careful, unprejudiced reader of the
first-hand ethnographical material.
The aim of the present study is to _define what_ this individual
relationship is; to describe its different aspects and features; how
it manifests itself in its different social functions and, as far
as can be ascertained, how it must impress itself upon the native
mind. And here lies the important methodological point on which some
stress must be laid. It is not _the_ actual relationship, or _the_
individual family, or "family in the European sense" which we have
to look for in Australia. It is the aboriginal Australian individual
family, with all its peculiarities and characteristic features, which
must be reconstructed from the evidence. It will be necessary to
describe minutely all the relationships generally embraced by the term
Family,[19] and to describe them in terms taken from the native social
life. In other words we have to look for the connection between the
facts of family life and the general structure of society and forms of
native life; and to take into account all psychological data available,
such as ideas on procreation and reincarnation.
[19] Defining that term only broadly at the outset.
Only by such a description can we reach a correct and scientific
definition of a given institution in a given society. It is essential
that the elements of this definition should be taken from the
conditions of social life in the given society. As an example we may
take the legal side of marriage. Amongst us marriage is a legal act
enforced on the one hand by the authority of the law with all its
complicated social working and the power of the State at its back;
on the other hand by the authority of the Church, which exercises a
profound moral pressure in relation to this institution. These or even
analogous factors will be sought in the Australian tribes in vain.
And yet marriage there is not deprived of its legal validity and of
its social sanction. It is not an act of mere fancy, brutal force or
accident, but the legal factors have there quite a specific character,
and can be found and understood only in connection with the general
tribal structure and government.
Besides all that has been said above against a general offhand
affirmation, that the individual family exists in Australia, it may
be added here that such an assertion is practically quite useless.
No further conclusions or inferences can be drawn from such a vague
statement. Only by knowing exactly and minutely all the features and
characters of the said unit can the different questions attached
to this problem be answered; only so can it be judged whether
the individual family or certain features of it are survivals or
innovations; or whether they are so deeply rooted and connected with
the social life and the whole organization of the tribes, that neither
of these suppositions is justifiable. Such special and concrete
definitions of a given social phenomenon in a given ethnic area, as the
one which it is intended to give here for the Australian individual
family, can serve also as a basis to form by induction a general
conception of the individual family; and only from a rich collection
of such material from different peoples can any sociological laws be
constructed. As said above, a general working definition of the word
individual family may be accepted at the outset of our investigations.
After a careful analysis of all particular relationships concerned; and
further, of the economic unity of the family, division of labour within
it, legal sanction, etc., content can be given to the rough definition
laid down at the beginning, and scientific exactness can be given to
our conception of the individual family in Australia.
It seems desirable in this place to make a digression in order to
consider the problem of law and the legal side of social phenomena in
the Australian aboriginal society, as we shall often have to use these
concepts. A more detailed and exhaustive discussion of it would involve
a treatise on primitive law, but as I am unable to indicate any place
where the concepts in question are defined in a way satisfactory for
the present purpose, I define them here briefly.[20]
[20] In the treatises on primitive law and on family
law such general concepts as "legal" or "law" are never
explicitly defined. Perhaps such a definition is
superfluous for a specialist, but I think that especially
in the ethnology of primitive peoples precise concepts and
explicit definitions are necessary. I may, however, mention
the following places where there are some attempts at
definition--
_Post_, _l.c._, i. sec. 3, pp. 8-10. The author gives a
few remarks about the beginnings of law. He maintains it
existed as _Rechtsgefühl_, feeling of legality, and was
evolved through a system of juridical verdicts, given
according to this sentiment. There were no legal norms
at the beginning.--This passage is unsatisfactory, both
because it does not give any strict definition and because
it does not seem to be in agreement with the facts.
_Kohler_, _l.c._, p. 323. No strict definition given.
Besides the author says that there is no organization
(_staatliche Organisation_), no tribunal, and no executive
among the Australian aborigines. This assertion may be
questioned; compare below.
_Durkheim, D.T.S._, pp. 28 _sqq._ and 108 _sqq._ There are
some interesting remarks bearing upon our subject; but
there are no sufficiently clear definitions, especially
none to suit the laws of quite primitive peoples.
_Lord Avebury_, _l.c._, chap. xi. pp. 464 _sqq._ No
definition of what "law," "legal," should mean in very low
societies, attempted. Law and custom are not discriminated.
Some interesting remarks on punishment (pp. 495 _sqq._) are
not utilized in order to afford strict concepts.
All social organization implies a series of norms, which extend over
the whole social life and regulate more or less strictly all the social
relations. We find such norms and rules in the Australian aboriginal
society, different kinds being enforced by different forms of social
sanction. The validity of some is due to the evil results which are
intrinsically connected with their violation. So _e. g._ we know that
the breaking of certain food taboos has as an inevitable consequence
premature grey hair, eruptions on the skin, or some other mishap. There
are other rules, which are observed because any departure from them
would bring general contempt and ridicule upon the culprit; a form of
chastisement to which the natives are said to be extremely sensitive.
There are still other types of social norms, sanctioned by a more
direct collective action. In some cases the magicians of the tribe will
use the dreaded method of "pointing the bone," thus bringing about the
illness and death of the culprit; or a regulated fight ensues; or a
man has to undergo a definite ordeal. Occasionally a group of people
organize an armed party on their own account, but with the consent of
the community; and so on.
Briefly it may be said that different types of social norms have
different kinds of collective sanction and that we may suitably
classify the norms and regulations according to the kind of sanction
they enjoy. Here seems the proper place to introduce the concept of
Law, Legal. We can agree to call such norms Legal, which enjoy an
organized, more or less regulated and active social sanction. To make
this definition plausible, we may remark that it makes the Australian
legal institutions correspond to what we call law and legal in higher
societies. Further it would be necessary, in order fully to justify our
definition, to show: (1) that among the Australian blacks there exist
such modes of regulated, organized and direct social sanction; (2) that
they differ from other modes of sanction and that the collective mind
is quite aware which norms enjoy just this form of sanction.
In answer to the first problem we may generally point to the existence
of tribal government. That a kind of centralized authority exists in
Australia and that it has well-determined functions has been shown at
full length by Howitt.[21]
[21] _Trans. R.S.V._, pp. 103 _sqq._; _J.A.I._, xii, p. 35;
J.A.I, xiii, p. 282. And especially _Nat. Tr._, chap. vi.
pp. 295-354. The elucidation of the problem of authority
and justice in Australia is one of Howitt's chief merits.
In the passages quoted, there will be found ample material
to exemplify all that is said in the text. I shall give,
however, a few more detailed references on some special
points. Howitt does not classify the facts according
to the principle just enunciated. But all he says fits
perfectly well into our scheme, and he puts stress on some
essential points; viz. that there is a tribal as well as a
supernatural punishment; that there is a central authority,
and that it had means to enforce and execute its decrees.
Curr (_A.R._, vol. i. pp. 53 _sqq._) emphatically denies
the existence of any kind of government; but his polemic
is due to the misunderstanding of the word _government_ as
it should be applied to the Australian aboriginal society.
For general discussion of this problem compare also
G. C. Wheeler, pp. 46-52. Interesting details, corroborating
Howitt's opinion may be found also in the following places:
Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 12 _sqq._, p. 324,
p. 477, pp. 491 _sqq._ _Nor. Tr._, pp. 26 _sqq._ R. Dawson,
pp. 64-65. Hodgson, p. 204. J. D. Lang, p. 331. G. S. Lang,
pp. 9-10. Grey, ii. p. 222. Eyre, ii. pp. 214, 318, 385.
Woods, p. 8. L. Schultze, p. 225. J. B. Gribble, p. 114.
J. Mathew, p. 129. Compare also the following extracts, where
I shortly indicate what is to be found--
Ch. Wilkes, ii. 204. Obedience to elders. _Idem_, i. 222.
Regulated fights. Wilson, 144. Reverence towards old men.
Bennett, pp. 177-178. Chiefs chosen for personal qualities.
Turnbull, p. 91. Ordeals as punishment for crime, p. 101.
Respect for and authority of old men and magicians.
Barrington, 81. Pacific settlement of differences.
Henderson, pp. 107, 158. No chiefs: only "doctors" wield
some authority; p. 160, Duel as redress of injuries.
Macgillivray, i. 151. Power and authority of old and
experienced men; p. 152, Important instances of justice.
_Idem_, ii. p. 27. Authority wielded by some important and
privileged men. G. W. Earl, p. 275. Alleged powerful chiefs
(unreliable). Campbell, 171. Instances of important and
influential men. B. Field, 67. Description of two regulated
fights. Krichauff, p. 77. Old men and doctors in council:
they carry out the resolutions arrived at, or see that
these are carried out; p. 78, Laws, which the warriors or
old men uphold. Penalties: reprimand, exit, and ordeal.
Sutton, p. 18. Hereditary "kingship." Wilhelmi, p. 183.
No chiefs. Respect for old men and their magical powers.
D. Mathews, p. 49. Council of old men. S. Newland. _Proc.
R.G.S.S.A._, iii. p. 40 _sqq._ Examples of important and
powerful men. Mrs. Bates, p. 52. Regulation of offences by
ordeals.
All these references bear indiscriminately on one or the
other of the important features of government and of legal
or other norms discussed in the text.
This government consists roughly speaking of headmen and a tribal
council, composed in the first place of old men of the tribe, skilled
magicians and experienced warriors. This camp council seems as a rule
the more influential factor, and only in few cases are we informed of
chiefs with extensive powers.[22] What is important for us is that
one of the main functions--if not the chief one--of those central
authorities is to decide in case of difficulties in tribal affairs and
to give sentence, a function which is that both of a legislator and of
a judge.[23] The old men are the only depositories of tribal lore; they
also know the rules and norms and how to apply them. We are informed
in many places that they discuss important matters and decide vital
questions; and especially in cases where any law has been transgressed.
They possess also executive power; they can organize an armed party;
they arrange and control the regulated fights; and they have also in
their hands the personal power of punishment by magic.[24] It may
therefore be said in general that the rudimentary form of central
authority, as found in Australia, possesses quite clearly traceable
features of juridical functions and executive power; it forms a kind of
tribunal, and it has its organs to carry out the sentence. It is hardly
necessary to add, that those institutions exist only in a rudimentary
form; but they appear to be quite unmistakable. Besides this central
authority, which sometimes takes the juridical functions upon itself,
there are other forms of organized action, carried out by groups
of individuals, personally interested in the case. Here the legal
character, _i. e._ the feature that distinguishes such action and the
underlying norm from mere violence, fancy or custom--lies in the fact
that such an action is regulated by strict rules and prescriptions. And
it is in just such a mutual connection of a norm and social enforcement
that the fundamental feature of legality may be seen. So _e. g._ in
the Central Tribes a man who has by magic charmed away a woman can
reckon upon the actual support of a definite group of his kindred. The
legality of his act is based upon the existence of a certain norm and
the existence of a form of active and regulated social support which
enforces this norm. Without the norm the social action would be mere
violence. Without the social enforcement the norm would be a moral or
customary rule; so enforced, it may properly be called a law.[25] It is
impossible, for want of space, to deal here more in detail with this
question, which could correctly be answered only by collecting all the
evidence available, and bringing the results into connection with the
general features of Australian society, such as age grades and tribal
secret societies. I only indicate here the point of view, and I shall
in what follows refer to it and exemplify it by concrete instances.
[22] Chiefs are reported by Taplin (Woods, p. 32); J. Dawson,
pp. 5 _sqq._ But these statements, especially the latter,
seem subject to doubt. Compare Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 55 and
58. Howitt and his correspondents report chiefs among the
Dieri, Tongaranka, Wiimbaio, Theddora, Yuin, Wiradjuri,
Gurnditch Mara, Kulin, etc., _Nat. Tr._, pp. 297-320.
Compare also Waitz Gerland, p. 790. But the term "Chief"
appears somewhat vague; probably it is usually applied to
influential individuals, whose importance is due to their
personal qualities and not to their social position. The
influence of old men, magicians and "doctors," is almost
universally reported, and the council made up of them seems
to wield the real power in the tribe. Compare Howitt, _Nat.
Tr._, pp. 320-326, for some of the above references.
[23] See Wheeler, p. 122, where it is said that offences
like murder by magic, breaches of the marriage regulations,
and the revealing of ceremonial secrets are dealt with by
the elders and headmen. The legislative powers of old and
influential men is mentioned: Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 89
_sqq._ (new norms introduced by individuals under alleged
supernatural command or vision). Spencer and Gillen,
_Nat. Tr._, pp. 12 _sqq._ (important changes in custom,
law, organization by individual initiative), _idem_,
_Nat. Tr._, p. 324. _Nor. Tr._, pp. 26 _sqq._ (a kind of
tribunal formed by old and influential men). Spencer and
Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 477 (old men in council assembled
decide); p. 490 (Atninga, avenging party, despatched by old
men, whenever vengeance is to be taken); pp. 491 (old men
discuss and settle matters with an Atninga party). Howitt,
_Nat. Tr._, pp. 297, 298 (Council of Pinnaru described);
pp. 320 _sqq._ (deliberating in all important matters).
[24] For the methods of carrying out justice, _i. e._ for
the executive organs, see Wheeler, pp. 131-139, where the
"authorized agents" (avenging parties, etc.), regulated
fights, expiatory ordeals and blood revenge, methods which,
as different forms of carrying out justice, are more or
less executions of a sentence and have the character of
legal proceedings.
See also under the heading "Executive power of tribal
councils of old men," in Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, chap. vi.
pp. 295 _sqq._--The Pinya party of the Dieri tribe. _Ibid._,
pp. 297, 321 and 326.--An atonement of the offence by
barter, p. 329. Direct action of magicians, _ibid._ p. 343.
Compare also the Kurdaitcha, Illapurinja, and Atninga
parties of the Arunta. Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._,
chap. xiii. p. 475. All these parties are more or less
under the control of the tribal council of old men.
[25] Compare Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 554: "...
a man's right to woman secured by means" of magic "is
supported by the men of his own local group." Compare also
the description of this method of charming away a woman in
_Proc. R. Geogr. Soc. S. Australia_, vol. iv. p. 26, by
F. Gillen.
The second problem, viz. whether the distinction between the
customary and religious rules and legal norms may be considered as
well defined in Australia, is still more difficult to answer. The
small differentiation of that society hardly allows any very clear
and definite sociological distinctions. But, broadly speaking, it
seems that the distinction between (1) a trespass, whose punishment
is supernaturally entailed by its very committal; (2) a trespass,
punished by ridicule and public contempt; and (3) a crime, punished by
the decision of the community, acting as a whole, or by its central
organs, or certain groups of it--that this distinction between sin,
improper conduct and crime (as we can call those three categories) is
quite well marked in different features of aboriginal social life. What
might fully elucidate this question, would be a collection of facts,
classified according to these categories.[26]
[26] So _e. g._ there could be placed in the _first
category_ different kinds of food taboos. In the Arunta,
food procured or handled by certain relatives may not
be eaten by a man; nor may be eaten any food in their
immediate presence. Such food would disagree with the man.
Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 469.--If certain food
taboos were transgressed during initiation by the boys,
their wounds would inflame. _Ibid._ p. 470.--Certain taboos
must be observed during pregnancy both by the woman and
her husband; if they were transgressed the sickness of
the woman would be worse and the man would lose his skill
in hunting. _Ibid._ p. 471.--Compare also Mitchell, ii.
p. 29, and Wilhelmi, p. 176. If the man should transgress
the mother-in-law taboo, his hair would prematurely grow
grey, or he would soon become bald. This belief is very
widespread. Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 296. D. Mathews, p. 49.
Mrs. Bates, p. 50. Compare also Waitz Gerland, p. 795,
where different norms, enforced by supernatural
punishment, are mentioned, and also MacGillivray, ii. 10,
Eyre ii. 339, Stanbridge, p. 289. Different ceremonies
and ordeals at mourning and burial are regulated by
_custom_; the same thing may probably be said of some of
the initiatory ordeals. Noncompliance would involve the
general ridicule or contempt of the tribesmen: Spencer and
Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 510. As _crimes_ may be mentioned:
transgression of the class rule as well in marriage as in
sexual intercourse. Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 495,
say that the usual punishment is death. Killing by magic:
Spencer and Gillen, p. 476; Waitz Gerland, p. 794. In some
cases the transgression of the mother-in-law taboo seems
to be punished by expulsion from the local group: Howitt,
_Nat. Tr._, p. 296.--Salvado says that marriage under
thirty years is punished by death (p. 267). Such examples
could be indefinitely multiplied.
These few remarks are merely made to settle the terminology. By
definition a given norm or rule is Legal if it is enforced by a direct,
organized, and definite social action. And by the word legal will be
designated this side or aspect of a given social relation which is
regulated by laws, as just defined.
Our considerations indicate also in what direction an analysis of the
social conditions in Australia would be interesting from the point of
view of primitive jurisprudence. In the first place, there is a great
variety of modes in which the different legal norms are preserved,
impressed upon the social mind, and taught to different members of
the society. Here the connection of different norms with religion,
myth, totemic cultus, organization of the secret society, etc., might
be discussed. In the second place a careful investigation of the
different forms of social sanction, based partly on belief, partly
on collective ideas and feelings, partly on actual institutions and
direct enforcement, might be carried out. In connection with it there
might be a classification of the norms; and the domain of the purely
legal norms, or rather the properly legal aspect of norms and different
social phenomena could be exactly traced. In other words each norm
should be studied in connection with the way in which it is "codified"
(_i. e._ preserved for and imparted to social knowledge); and in
connection with its sanction. In the case of a legal norm the tribunal
and the executive organs should be indicated as far as possible.
Undoubtedly we find in such a primitive society as the Australian many
institutions still in a state of confusion, which on a higher level
are quite well determined and differentiated. But the more confused
the phenomena, the clearer our conceptions must be in order exactly
to follow the different ways in which the elements are interwoven and
combined. What is an isolated and defined institution in a higher
society, may be merely a side or aspect of social phenomena in a lower
one. But it is highly important to use definite concepts to denote such
aspects or sides in undifferentiated societies, because it often widens
our horizon and puts our ideas to a crucial test.
I wish to add that in the present case it is only the necessity for
clearness and convenience that makes a definition necessary. The domain
of primitive jurisprudence cannot be considered fully explored yet;
the chief aim of a good definition is to state the proper problems and
to show the groups of facts that must be inquired into in order to give
right answers to the problems proposed.
II
Having thus justified the scope of the present book and indicated the
general lines on which its task should be carried out, a few words must
be devoted to the method of dealing with the evidence. We start our
investigations with (1) the Australian first-hand information, and (2)
a general idea of the object of our research, that is a general idea of
the individual family. This implies that during the process of research
these two sets of data must be checked against each other. On the one
hand we must continually extract from the evidence all that corresponds
to our general idea of the individual family; on the other hand this
idea must be specialized and determined according to the evidence.
It is clear enough what, broadly speaking, is meant by the Individual
Family. But what exactly will be the features of this institution in
Australia, that must be extracted from the evidence. This evidence
is, on the other hand, given in the majority of cases in a very crude
state, without reference to any theoretical points of view. The facts
are often given in a purely casual and colloquial way. It is part of
the task to sift out each one of them, and to ask if it can have any
bearing on the present subject. Many facts that seemed not to bear
immediately on it, yet furnished some very useful inferences. In
short, the first duty of such a work as the present is to ask from the
evidence right questions in the right way.
But even if a certain point has been settled upon as essentially
important to be inquired into, and information referring to it has been
gathered, the task is not yet finished. The statements collected on
this point will as a rule present more or less radical discrepancies.
After we have heard twenty opinions on the same subject which by
no means agree with each other, to which shall we adhere? A method
of dealing with evidence must be fixed upon. In the first place the
statements are of the most heterogeneous character and value. They must
be submitted to some criticism before use can be made of them.
After the degree of their reliability has been settled, and after, by
a criticism of each statement, some of the contradictions have been
removed, it must be considered how far the differences between the
statements may be regarded as due to irreducible, local variations of
the given institution; in other words, the problem must be discussed
from the geographical standpoint.
Finally a certain system of weighing the evidence must be chosen, so as
to draw from it the most correct conclusions, and never to prove too
much or too little. So there are three different processes: criticism,
localization of differences, and drawing of conclusions; all of which
must be done according to a careful and conscientious method.
A few remarks about the latter must be given here without any attempt
at completeness. That preliminary criticism is necessary seems hardly
to need justification; to look at the irreducible inconsistencies and
contradictions of a series of statements concerning any given point is
enough. But such criticism must not be arbitrary; it must conform to
strict rules.[27]
[27] The ethnographic sources do not differ essentially
from the historical ones. The purpose of a descriptive
ethnography (such as is adopted in this monograph) is
also nearly identical with the historian's task so far as
positive statement of an actual state of things is the aim
of both. The rules of criticism of sources apply therefore
to our subject as well as to any other historic science.
This will become obvious to every ethnographer who reads
the excellent manual of MM. Langlois et Seignobos. The
proof of the indispensability of such a criticism is to
be found there, too. The method of criticism of sources
adopted in this paper was accepted after a careful study of
this useful book.
The first point to which attention must be paid, is to ascertain the
exact meaning of a given statement. As many of our informants do not
use exact terminology but write in a colloquial language, often spoilt
by literary pretensions, we occasionally run the risk of being misled
by a word or by a turn of expression.[28] In other words, it never
seems advisable to cling blindly to the verbal meaning of a statement
before having put it to the test. So, for instance, in the problem
whether the natives live in families or tribes--the _family_ and
_tribe_ having been exactly defined, a phrase like "the aborigines live
in families" may not be accepted as argument, for by the word "family"
the author may possibly have understood what we have designated by the
word tribe.[29] I shall, as a rule, quote each statement _in extenso_,
and give, if necessary, an interpretation or correction.[30] The sense
in which a word is used may be, in the majority of cases, easily
settled from the context, examples given by the author, and other
instances where he uses the same word. When a phrase is hopelessly
ambiguous, it is wrong to make any use of it.
[28] We obviously do not speak here of such writers as
Howitt, W. E. Roth, Spencer and Gillen, authors who had
a theoretical training. But, as may be pointed out here,
in the present work no writer is excluded, provided that
he has had opportunities of first-hand observation, or
opportunities of private information from first-hand
observers.
[29] See below the discussion of this topic, Chap. V., I.
[30] Much weight has been attached to a very extensive
reproduction of the original text. More important
statements are always adduced verbatim; less important, or
too cumbersome ones, are abridged, but keeping as closely
to the original words as possible.
After the sense of a statement has been settled more or less reliably,
two cases must be discriminated. If the statement is purely a record
of facts, and, still better, if it is exemplified by concrete
instances, there is generally no reason to disbelieve it, especially
if in the general character of the author there is a guarantee of
his trustworthiness; and if he actually has had good opportunities
of observing the natives. But if the statement involves a judgment,
a generalization, or abstraction, we must be much more careful.
Broadly speaking, statements of this latter kind are generally much
more contradictory than mere statements of fact. It will be seen that
the information concerning the treatment of women by their husbands,
concerning sexual matters, and concerning the authority of husbands,
will present many more discrepancies than the information concerning
the modes of obtaining wives, economics, and other concrete questions.
The first category implies much more abstraction and qualifying
judgment than the second. It must be borne in mind that statements of
the first category are the result of a long and complicated series
of mental processes, and that their quality and value is dependent
upon many conditions. All these conditions must be mentally analyzed
and each of them must be taken into account in order to ascertain
its bearing upon the final form in which we find the statement. The
conditions in question may be shortly set forth as follows: Did the
author possess all the qualities necessary for a good ethnographer? Had
he good opportunities to observe the natives and a good method of doing
so? Were the latter still in a primitive condition, or in an advanced
state of decay? A few words may be said in the first place about this
last point.
Only in exceptional cases is it possible to say anything definite
on the state of the natives the author had under observation.[31]
In general, it may be taken as a rule that all writers who were in
any close contact with aborigines, had to do with fairly degenerated
specimens. They were usually squatters or missionaries, and had to do
with blacks hanging round farms or with remnants of tribes gathered in
missions.[32] Their immediate observations, especially in sociological
matters, which are at once affected, when conditions of life change,
and when blacks become degenerate, could be of little value. But there
was still the possibility of gathering information from the natives
themselves, who could, properly questioned, give their recollections of
the bygone times. This was the way in which probably A. W. Howitt got
so much of the most valuable information on the Kurnai tribe, which he
never saw in its primitive state. But only few writers had the mental
training and the opportunities of the writer just mentioned. And the
majority probably communicated to us simply what they saw--not even
considering the problem how far the conditions then present tallied
with the primitive normal state of things in the aboriginal society.
Allowance must therefore be always made for the degeneration of the
blacks as a possible factor affecting ethnographical evidence. In many
cases there will be no room for doubt. For instance, in sexual matters
it is obvious that contact with the white man invariably fosters a
great deal of depravity. An improvement in sexual morality may, on
the other hand, take place if the natives are gathered in a mission
station.[33] But this cannot have any connection with aboriginal custom.
[31] For instance, we can judge this from Curr's
_Recollections_; we know pretty well the state of the
different tribes investigated by Howitt, Spencer and
Gillen, and by Roth. In many other cases a general idea may
be formed from different hints.
[32] The aborigines in their natural uncorrupted state
appear to have been extremely shy, and great difficulties
would undoubtedly have arisen had any one attempted to come
into more intimate contact with them. But in the early days
of the settlement of Australia there was nobody with such
intentions. It is sufficient to read very early accounts,
such as the voyages of Gov. Phillip, Barrington; as also
accounts of explorers like Grey, Eyre, Leichardt, Mitchell,
Sturt, etc., to see how shy and inaccessible were the
blacks in their really savage state.
[33] For examples how natives on mission stations may be
forced into morality, legal and Christian marriages, etc.,
the reader may be referred to the personal diaries of
missionaries. Compare _e. g._ the article by the missionary
D. Mathews, _l.c._ pp. 48 _sqq._
If, therefore, it is found, as is in fact the case, that all writers,
who either inquired into the matter with really scientific precautions,
or had to do with pure, primitive material, inform us that, speaking
broadly, the sexual relations were strictly regulated; and on the
other hand, all settlers, casual observers, and people who obviously
had already corrupted blacks under observation, speak of unrestricted
immorality and even of incest,[34] it may be safely said that the
second type of statements refer to degenerate blacks. Here the general
_a priori_ suppositions quite harmonize with what is to be found
in the evidence; the second type of statements may be therefore
fittingly discarded. In the same way it may be assumed that with a
general dissolution and corruption in the aboriginal society, and with
all kinds of vices engrafted upon it the general level of conjugal
affection and the standard of treatment of the wife by her husband went
down. The contrary cannot possibly be assumed.
[34] See below, the statements, pp. 92 _sqq._
So it appears that, even from the quality of the material the observer
had at his disposal, some useful hints may be obtained as to the
direction in which our statements need correction. Furthermore it
was said above that useful indications can be gathered from the way
in which the observer was in contact with the natives; whether the
observer was a long time in contact with the natives or only a short
time; whether he made his observations with deliberate scientific aim,
or whether they were made casually and recollected afterwards; whether
he had good opportunities for observation, and under what conditions
this was carried on, and so forth.
All these questions may throw much light upon the relation between the
writer's statement in its final form and the actual state of things
to which it refers. These questions are also in close connection with
the point mentioned below, touching the profession of an observer.
For it is usually the privilege of the missionaries to be in a long
and intimate contact with the natives, to have their confidence,
and sometimes to understand even their language, while it is the
ethnographer's privilege to understand the aim of his inquiries. In
some cases there are fairly detailed data about these points, and such
information about the conditions and circumstances under which the
writer got his evidence greatly increases its value. In all cases where
the evidence is contained in memoirs, diaries, descriptions of travels,
expeditions, etc., it is possible to form an idea as to what kind of
relation existed between the respective author and the material of his
observation. So it appears that Curr and Salvado had especially good
opportunities; it is possible to picture the way in which authors like
Collins, Taplin, Grey, Eyre, Lumholtz, Angas, Strehlow and others,
came into contact with the natives. This is much more difficult to
say in the case of writers who wrote only short articles (Oldfield,
Stanbridge, Bonney, Palmer, Cameron and others), which merely give
information without any details as to how it was gathered. In the case
of ethnographers, observing themselves or collecting the observations
of others--like Howitt, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, and some others--we
might expect to be informed minutely about the way in which they
obtained their information. Unfortunately this is only partly the case.
The questions how the condition of the natives, and how the method of
observation can affect the final statements have been discussed at
length. It was done in order to exemplify how from such considerations
may be gathered useful hints, nay even positive indications, as to
the direction along which the given statement may be corrected, if
corrected at all. There are, besides these points, several other
important points referring to the qualifications of the ethnographer
that cannot be omitted when any correction of statement is made.
There is no room to discuss them in detail; they would lead us too
far into the domains of methodology, of ethnographic research. They
must be enumerated briefly. So it is quite clear, that not only the
personal character but also the profession or occupation of the writer
influences very considerably the value and trustworthiness and the
character of the information given. The personal character of the
ethnographer is a rather delicate matter, but nobody could deny that
some authors inspire us with the belief that everything they say is
their real conviction, based on solid foundations of facts, while other
authors fail to produce the same impression on the reader. It is also
clear that a missionary, a police trooper, or an ethnologist, will each
look with different eyes upon the same facts; each of them will group
the essential features and generalize quite differently, and will
express himself in terms which are by no means of the same degree of
exactness and clearness. Ultimately each man will have his professional
bias: the missionary will be influenced by his creeds and his moral
ideas, the ethnologist by his theories, and the squatter or police
trooper will sometimes, where there is room for it, allow play to his
feelings, which usually are not ones of pure sympathy for the natives.
As a matter of fact, it is allowable to speak without exaggeration
of professional types of information. That the utmost caution is
necessary, and that thus only are to be found indications of the
directions in which it is possible to interpret some possible error, is
an almost superfluous statement. Of course a careful and complete study
of the whole work of an author enables one to judge much better how far
his profession or personality may have affected his statements. And
this is also the reason why an ethnologist confining himself to a small
ethnic area is in a better position than the general one. For he is
able to know his sources better, having a much more restricted number
to deal with.
Not less important as regards our attitude towards a given writer's
statements is the purpose with which his book is written. The
greatest confidence of course is inspired by books written with a
purely scientific aim. Even the articles of observers who are not men
of science are apparently much more carefully written if they are
intended for purely scientific use in serious scientific journals (as
some articles in the _Journal of the Ethnological Society_, _Jour.
Anthrop. Inst._, etc.). Memoirs, descriptions of travel, and so on,
give--_ceteris paribus_--less guarantee; often much more room is left
to phantasy, to a tendency to amuse, perhaps puzzle or interest.
Concrete instances of this could be easily adduced.
At the end of all his mental operations, each observer had to
generalize his observations, to express their common features, and
formulate these in abstract and exact language. Here the most important
points are personal intelligence and some mental training. The first
is to be found even among the casual writers; for only people of a
somewhat higher level of mentality would care to observe and write down
their observations. But mental training in a scientific direction is
exclusively to be found among the ethnographers; some of them stand far
above all our other informants in matters of rather theoretical aspect,
especially if social phenomena are concerned. And we may usually, in
case of contradiction, take this information as the firm basis from
which to start the operation of criticism. But on the other hand, there
are reasons to mistrust general opinions laid down by professional
ethnologists, for they are very often not simple generalizations, but
theoretical inferences. Cases will be often met with where a general
remark, which could be taken as a statement of fact--and often is given
in such a form--appears after a more careful analysis to be quite a
conjectural deduction from purely hypothetical premisses, or from
incorrect definition. In all cases--_e. g._ where actual existence
of group marriage is alleged--it will appear that this statement is
a deduction from certain phenomena, which allow of quite a different
interpretation, and that the term "marriage" is defined somewhat
loosely.[35]
[35] Compare also above, pp. 2-5.
To sum up briefly: criticism of statements has in the first place to
ascertain the exact and correct verbal meaning of each of them. In the
second place many general but sure hints are afforded by a detailed
analysis of the conditions under which the evidence was obtained and
set forth by the author. The important points here are: quality of the
material under observation; modes in which evidence was obtained (by
inquiries from natives, by immediate observation, etc.); character,
profession, and training of the informant, including possible bias,
theoretical, moral, and personal. All these points appear at first
sight rather impalpable, but as shown above they may afford good hints,
especially if taken into account simultaneously.
Now we pass to the second point indicated above on page 18, namely, the
discussion of the local differences which may introduce some apparent
contradictions into the statements. Assuming the possession of a series
of statements, the correctness of which we accept within certain
limits, there may still be some contradictions between them, due to the
differences between the tribes, to which these statements refer. The
task will be consequently to indicate these differences and to give
certain reasons why some of the contradictions may be dealt with in
this way and why others cannot be reduced to local differences. In the
first place, in order to facilitate the application of the geographical
point of view, the survey of the statements will always be made in
the same geographical order. I begin with the south-east end of the
continent and proceed then westwards and northwards, enumerating first
the tribes of Victoria, then the tribes of the South territory of South
Australia. I proceed over New South Wales to the Central and Northern
tribes; then to Queensland, ending with West Australia. The order is
kept only roughly without pedantic accuracy, which cannot be achieved,
as many writers do not even trouble to localize their statements with
anything approaching exactitude.
It may now be laid down in which cases it is possible to point with
certainty to local differences between the different tribes and reduce
to these factors the contradictions which are found. If the same
author, who is known to be well-informed concerning the whole area
(either personally or through reliable informants), points expressly
to such differences, there is no reason to disbelieve him. Many such
local differences are indicated in the extensive works of Spencer and
Gillen, and Howitt. As an example may be quoted the differences in
sexual matters, pointed out by Howitt in _Reports of the Smithsonian
Institution_ (compare below, pp. 100 and 101). But even in the case
of such reliable authors as the ones just mentioned it should always
be carefully considered whether they knew with the same degree
of exactness all the tribes they compare. Further, when there is
independent information about geographically-separated tribes from
reliable authors of the same degree of exactness, to whose information
we have reason to ascribe the same weight, we may also safely point,
if there are any contradictions, to local differences. But if quite
contradictory statements about some tribe or tribes living in close
neighbourhood are given, we hardly feel inclined to attribute these
contradictions to local differences. A very important indication of the
advisability of introducing the element of geographical differences
is further the question whether the tribes in question are in general
different from each other, and whether they belong to different types
of culture. Although very little can be said on that point, still on
quite broad lines we must, _e. g._ acknowledge that the Kurnai were a
tribe with many singularities, that the Arunta and other Central tribes
clearly differ from the S.E. tribes, etc. As we shall make very little
use of the geographical factor, what is said above may be considered
sufficient on that point.[36]
[36] As far as I see, in the present state of our
knowledge, it is only admissible to speak with greatest
care and in very broad lines of the Australian types
of culture. Interesting attempts have been made in this
direction by Dr. Graebner, Mr. N. W. Thomas, and Father
Schmidt. The two latter especially base their work
on a profound and extensive knowledge, and formulate
their results with the utmost reserve and carefulness.
Fr. W. Schmidt has at his disposal the powerful instrument
of linguistic knowledge. Mr. W. N. Thomas knows the
Australian facts as nobody else does. Their conclusions are
therefore of much weight. The present investigations afford
little opportunity to point out geographic differences.
Compare Fr. W. Schmidt, "Die Stellung, d. Aranda," etc.,
_Z.f.E._, 1908, pp. 866 _sqq._; F. Graebner, _Ibid._, 1905,
pp. 28 _sqq._; _Globus_, xc. Consult also N. W. Thomas,
_Kinship_, and the same, _Z.f.E._, 1905.
Passing now to the third and perhaps most important methodological
point, we may say a few words as to what method should be adopted
for the drawing of conclusions from evidence considered as reliable.
This is neither a logical proceeding, nor is it a kind of induction.
Properly speaking, a witness's statement may be either accepted or
rejected. But in this book importance has been laid on presenting the
evidence in a quite definite way. Evidence is not used in order to
exemplify or to prove a given assertion on a special point. Such a
proceeding appears to be rather dogmatic, for usually in such cases the
author gives preference to an _a priori_ opinion, and looks afterwards
for its confirmation in the ethnographic first-hand literature. Owing
to the contradictory character of the latter, practically anything can
be proved from it. In the present book the author merely sets forth the
problem; for instance, such quite general questions are asked, as: How
are wives obtained in Australia? What is the treatment of the wife by
her husband? What are the sexual relations in general? and so forth.
On each of those general topics evidence is afterwards collected,
without prejudice or preference given to any type of opinion. There
is, therefore, much less risk of bias or one-sidedness; the whole
care is to make the best of the evidence thus collected; and a series
of statements upon a given subject is presented. Each of them gives
information on several points at once; at any rate each of them may
usually be analyzed into a series of simpler statements. And this
analytical operation will be our first task. There is always one or
more assertion sufficiently general, or simple, which will be contained
in all or in the majority of our statements and will be contradicted by
none. These may be considered as established by our evidence. On other
points there will be contradictions. Often these contradictions will be
only apparent, due to a confusion in terminology, or to the defective
way in which the writers have expressed themselves. Here recourse must
be had to our first form of criticism, to the ascertainment of the
exact meaning of each statement (verbal criticism). If that fails, the
contradictions must be recognized as real ones. In case they cannot be
attributed to any local differences, we must try to eliminate them. And
on this point recourse must be had to the criticism of the statements
from the point of view laid down above (p. 25). Some of the statements
may be discarded as untrustworthy; the correct interpretation of others
may be determined; and thus the contradictions will vanish. Sometimes
this is impossible; the contradictions remain irreducible. Then they
must be simply pointed out, and there is nothing further to be done.
Undoubtedly much greater service is rendered to science by pointing out
really irresolvable contradictions and obscurities than by establishing
fallacious certitude.
Especially if on the part of the field ethnographers there could be
expected some interest in the results of theoretical research, such
indications of contradictions on points, the theoretical importance
of which should be proved, would be of real value.[37] Only such a
co-operation between theoretical writers and observers can give us
satisfactory results. To make indifferent observation is easy. To note
essential things and give useful observations is impossible without
theoretical knowledge and an insight into the laws of sociology. It
would be better if field ethnographers would consider the questions
of theoretical writers, and take into account in their scheme of
investigations the utilization subsequently to be made of their work.
[37] Mr. Thomas in his work on Australian kinship suggests
at every step questions which apparently are quite within
the scope of investigation, and upon which our present
evidence gives no answer. But unhappily I have not been
able to trace any influence of this important work in the
recent ethnographic publications.
Returning, after this digression, to our theme, it may be observed
that the method of dealing with evidence is very simple: there is the
analytical operation, of finding the essential points contained in
a series of statements; in other words, the operation of analyzing
these statements into simple factors and stating which are common to
all the statements and may be accepted as well established. A further
task consists in pointing out the irreducible contradictions. This
operation obviously contains all the others--criticism of the text
and contents of the statement, and reduction of contradictions to
local differences. It is evident also that, although theoretically
the criticism of statements was dealt with first, then the question
of geographical differences, and in the third place the problem of
handling a series of statements, as a matter of fact, the first step
is to make a survey of all our evidence, resolving it into a set of
problems, and then to take each problem separately; in this way we
shall find contradictions and endeavour to eliminate them, and we shall
be compelled to exercise criticism on the statements.
I would like to add here that to help us in the decision between
several contradictory opinions, there is still one criterion beside the
hints enunciated above (which refer to the character of each individual
statement). I mean the criterion whether the final opinion drawn from
the evidence is compatible or not with the other well-established
features of Australian sociology. When deciding to adhere to some view,
which is not established by a unanimous and categoric opinion of all
our informers, it is always necessary to put this view to the test of
other well-established facts. There are some views which are quite
incompatible with the general conditions of life in the Australian
aboriginal society and with the resulting mode of living. As a good
example of such deductive demonstrations we may quote the passage in
Curr, where he arithmetically proves that the statement of Dawson about
the Australian chiefs and their court cannot be true.[38] Another
example is afforded by the interesting passage of Howitt quoted below
_in extenso_ (pp. 113 and 114), which relates how the author thinks
that our ideas on group marriage should be modified by what we know
about the aboriginal mode of living and about the natural character
of men. As a rule it is well always to try to ascertain whether our
conclusion does not stand in contradiction with some part of our
well-founded knowledge. Thus in practice it is always necessary to
start with a crude series of facts, and in any attempt at criticism to
be guided by the contradictions found in them. If then criticism and
corrections, made according to our rules, remove the contradictions, we
have another guarantee that our corrections were good. For if a series
of statements, which at first sight seemed to present irreconcilable
contradictions, do agree after we have applied to such of them as were
either in a minority or appeared vague or came from uncertain sources,
corrections or interpretations (the latter based on principles laid
down quite independently), it may be concluded that our reason for
applying the correction and the way in which we have done it, were
sufficiently correct and justified.
[38] Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 53 _sqq._
To use a series of statements as they are given would be in the
majority of cases quite impossible. All the contradictions imaginable
would be present, and we should either helplessly drop any attempt at
forming an opinion, or we should get out of the difficulty by a purely
arbitrary act. We could by an act of faith believe in some of our
writers and accept only what they say or what confirms their opinion,
and completely ignore any contradictory information. That would even
enable us to form a much more certain and detailed view on many points.
Our way of proceeding compels us often to relinquish a very precise,
definite opinion, which we could hold if we accepted one statement to
be ultimately true, and neglected the others; but it gives us at least
the conviction that any more precise conclusion would be unfounded.
That all the corrections must be carried out on grounds of ample
justification and in the most discreet way is quite clear. It will be
seen that in the subsequent pages only rarely have statements been
amended, and then the reasons are always given. But it is important
that even these few corrections should be done systematically. The
above indications will, I trust, help to a certain degree to justify
the method adopted in dealing with evidence.
Our methodological considerations were necessarily taken on broad
lines. To give a detailed and precise description of the method of
treating the Australian material would require a whole volume, for
there are in all individual cases so many influences and possibilities
that may be considered as sources of error, and so many elements to
take into consideration, that it would be nearly impossible to trace
all the mental processes that have to be followed here. I found it
also impossible to give explicitly all my reasons in each place where
I ventured to correct a statement. Nevertheless, I have not thought
it superfluous to give in outline the chief points adopted in this
criticism. In the first place even these general hints will be quite
sufficient to indicate the writer's motives to every one who has had to
deal in an analogous way with ethnographical materials. And then they
will serve as a proof that these questions, doubts, and precautions,
were present to his mind while weighing the evidence. In the last
place, as science is essentially based on mutual help and mutual
agreement, if we had a whole series of workers on a given ethnographic
material, a certain general assent, if such could be obtained, would
undoubtedly be the best criterion of reliability of sources. But
matters should be openly and explicitly discussed.
To sum up, the chief methodological principle which we have striven
to keep always before us, is a thorough clearness about every step of
our reasoning. In the first place, therefore, care has been taken to
give an explicit and a perfectly clear survey of the statements; and to
draw conclusions in such a way that all our reasons for drawing them
shall be as clear as possible to the reader, so as to enable every
one to apply his own criticism as easily as possible at any stage of
our reasoning. Necessarily in a study such as the present one, some
allowance must be made for a subjective element in the final judgments
on the value of the evidence. But just as the writer must ask for a
certain amount of trust in his scientific judgment, so he is bound to
give every means to the reader to enable him always fully to judge and
exercise his criticism on the use the author is making of this liberty.
In order to achieve this as far as in us lies, the methodological
principles set forth above have been adopted. They are in short, as
follows: We accept as facts those points in which all statements agree.
On controversial points we try to eliminate the contradictions by
applying textual criticism to the statements, or by pointing out the
possible sources of error, or by showing that these contradictions
must be set down to local differences between the tribes. In drawing
conclusions, we shall point out those facts which are well established,
and also point out those which are more or less uncertain or
contradictory. The sources used are not very numerous, but it is hoped
that they will be found sufficient. They have been impartially chosen
and include each of the various types of Australian evidence.
CHAPTER II
MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES
Keeping to these general methodological principles, the aim of this
study will be merely an objective, unprejudiced description of the
different forms of the Australian family organization.
In accordance with what has been said above, let us accept at
the outset a general definition, along the lines of which our
investigations will be carried out. My choice for this purpose is
the well-known definition of Dr. Westermarck: "Marriage is a more or
less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the
mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." In
another place (_Moral Ideas_, ii. p. 364) Dr. Westermarck completes
this definition: "As a social institution, on the other hand, it has a
somewhat different meaning: it is a union regulated by custom and law.
Society lays down the rules relating to the selection of partners, to
the mode of contracting marriage, to its form, and to its duration." We
may also remember that Dr. Westermarck first pointed out that "marriage
is rooted in family, rather than family in marriage"[39]; and that he
insists on the importance of economic elements in family life, and
especially on the facts of the rearing of children and the mode of
living.
[39] (_Hist. H. Marr._, chap. iii.) Dr. Westermarck's work
was written on much more general lines. He did not aim at
a purely morphological reconstruction of family life in
any ethnographical province. I did not, therefore, refer
to his researches in the methodological sketch; here,
however, they must serve as a starting point. It is the
most exhaustive treatise on the individual family; all the
essential parts of the problem are sketched in a masterly
manner in this fundamental work, and the outlines of more
special investigation indicated.
These remarks of Dr. Westermarck, corroborating what has been said
in the introduction, direct our analysis to the relationship between
parents and children as well as between the conjugal parties; resolving
thus the marriage problem into the more general family problem. On the
other hand, Dr. Westermarck, in these short passages quoted, as well as
throughout his work, insists on the general and sociological aspect of
family life. We shall try to apply his points of view systematically to
our Australian material, keeping in mind the addition of the legal side
of the question.
As each relationship is intended to be separately treated, let us begin
with that of man and wife, and especially with its "legal" aspect.
The first point for discussion will be the modes of obtaining wives.
In this the search will be for elements, that enforce _ipso facto_
the validity of marriage; there will probably be found in them the
expression of some collective ideas, referring to the validity, moral
or customary sanction, that marital union enjoys in the eyes of the
native. It is also highly important for the whole question of marriage
and family to ascertain whether the modes of obtaining wives are
subject to any norm, compliance with which was enforced by an active
intervention of society in some form. Such norms, according to the
definition given above, would be legal ones, and they, necessarily,
involve and presuppose a series of collective ideas, the knowledge of
which would afford a deep insight into the primitive social mechanism.
Betrothal or marriage ceremonies that would express a sanction of
purely social or even _mystic_ or moral character are few, although not
quite absent. Nevertheless the widespread practice of allotting young
girls even in infancy, or before birth sometimes, shows _ipso facto_
how deeply rooted the idea of the individual right of a man to a woman
is in the native mind. Also in the case when wives are obtained by
elopement or capture, there are certain ordeals, formalities or duties,
that give to such a marriage its social sanction.
The following statements it will be seen present but little field for
correction. What we are asking for in this place are merely facts which
are evident and palpable enough not to escape the attention of even
ordinary observers. Only the betrothal ceremonies and acts seem to
have been more esoteric, and therefore they are reported in only a few
cases, where the authors were more intimately acquainted with native
customs and ideas.
_Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai marriage was brought about
generally by elopement; sometimes by capture; and less frequently
by exchange or by gift.[40] In cases of elopement "the male
relatives searched for her (the fugitive), sometimes with success,
sometimes without success. If the couple could remain away till
the girl was with child ... she would be forgiven."[41] Otherwise,
if found, she was badly chastised, and the man had to fight her
relatives. If they should persevere in their plans and elope two or
three times ... they would be forgiven.[42] The Kurnai are the only
people among whom elopement was the general rule. The punishment
was there accordingly not very severe, and the marriage legalized
in case of perseverance, or if the couple were skilful enough not
to allow themselves to be soon caught.
[40] Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 343. See also their
modes of getting females by capture. Compare pp. 200 _sq._
and pp. 348 _sq._
[41] p. 202.
[42] _Ibid._
J. Bulmer, Lake Tyers, Gippsland, says that among the
Gournditch-Mara the majority of wives were obtained by exchanging
a sister or a near relative. Elopement was always followed by
bloodshed.[43] "Marriage was by betrothal of children by their
respective parents, therefore by exchange of sisters," says
Howitt[44] of the same tribe.
[43] In Brough Smyth, i. p. 77. Compare also Howitt,
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350.
[44] _Nat. Tr._, p. 249.
Exchange of sisters (own or tribal) was practised by the Youin;
the marriage being arranged by the fathers; there was a mutual
public agreement between them. "The two being thus promised to
each other, the girl is looked upon as the future wife of the
boy." In cases of elopement, if there was a baby the marriage
was legalized, especially if a sister (tribal or own) could be
given in exchange.[45] Here we may note that the arrangement was
made publicly, during one of the tribal gatherings. The future
brothers-in-law exchange gifts, and on the day of the arrangement
keep ostentatiously the whole time together. Thus the whole affair
was known to everybody and had a sort of tribal approval.
[45] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 263 264. Compare also _Trans.
R.S.V._, p. 117.
Among the Woeworung girls were promised in infancy. The arrangement
was entered into by the respective fathers, then made public.
The old men of the tribe had to decide when the girl was to be
handed over to her husband. There was a kind of betrothal ceremony
consisting in a public giving up of the bride to the bridegroom.[46]
[46] Howitt in _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.
In the Bangerang tribe "wives were obtained by the exchange of
females with any other tribe; so that a man who had a daughter,
exchanged her for a wife, for himself or his son, as he thought
proper." The custom of exchange of females was a check on abusive
cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband. A Black said once to
Curr, "If he beats my sister, I'll beat my wife."[47]
[47] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 248.
In the Victorian tribes described by Beveridge, girls were usually
exchanged. It was the father who had to dispose of his girl;
there was no betrothal ceremony. Only the woman was bound by the
marriage; the man could always send her away.[48]
[48] Beveridge, p. 22.
Amongst the South-west Victorian tribes "parents betroth their
children when just able to walk."[49] The arrangement was carried
out by the respective fathers. As a sign the boy's father gives
the girl an opossum rug, shows her attention, and gives her
"nice things to eat." The girl's father visits sometimes her
intended husband. "No marriage or betrothal is permitted without
the approval of the chief of each party."[50] The girl's mother
and aunts must not look at her intended husband from the moment
of betrothal.[51] In cases of elopement against the wishes of
parents fights take place. A second elopement makes the marriage
lawful.[52] Exchange of sisters exists also, with consent of
chiefs. The ceremony of betrothal is described at length by the
same author.[53] The bride and the bridegroom are painted and
specially dressed. Food is stored for the purpose, as feasting and
amusement accompany the ceremony. The chief is present and gives
his consent. Two months after the betrothal the two do not sleep
alone, but with the bridemaid and brideman. The alleged approval
of the chief in this statement would be interesting, but here we
may mistrust our author, for the general information about the
chiefs, their power, etc., seems to be not quite correct (see Curr,
_A.R._, i. p. 53). Besides, the whole style of the book is not
strictly scientific, and shows signs of literary embellishments.
We must also attach some caution to the detailed description of
the betrothal ceremony. It is the only account of a detailed and
elaborate ceremony of this kind, with feasting, chief, abstinency,
etc. Interesting and important as it is, we may attribute it to
local exception, but we cannot consider it as established beyond
doubt.
[49] J. Dawson, p. 28.
[50] _Ibid._, p. 28.
[51] _Ibid._, p. 29.
[52] _Ibid._, p. 34.
[53] _Loc. cit._, p. 31.
Amongst the Wotjobaluk (S. Victoria) girls were exchanged in
infancy by the elder brother. The father's consent was essential:
he could also dispose otherwise of his daughter. The marriage
arrangements and agreements were publicly made at large tribal
gatherings.[54]
[54] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 241. Also _Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 116.
Stanbridge says that "females are generally betrothed in early
infancy," either to friends, or to those whose friendship is
solicited. Although the father decides when she has to be given
away, "the bridegroom is sure of obtaining his bride, as the honour
of the family and of the tribe is considered to be involved in the
fulfilment of the betrothal." In case of subsequent elopement it
is the duty of the family to chastise the guilty pair.[55] This
statement is not quite clear, inasmuch as we scarcely understand
how the mediæval idea of honour is to be applied to Australian
Blacks. Probably it means that the family and local group of the
girl have some reason to keep the promise; whether this reason be
of magical, legal, or customary character is an open question. But
inferring by analogy we may say that all these factors are coercive
here, as in the other tribes. The family must also support the
husband in case of elopement.
[55] _Loc. cit._, p. 288. (Mount Gambier tribes.)
"Whenever a female child was promised in marriage to any man, from
that very hour neither he nor the child's mother were permitted
to look upon or hear each other speak, nor hear their names
mentioned by others; for, if they did, they would immediately grow
prematurely old and die." This statement refers to the Jajaurung
tribe of Victoria.[56]
[56] Brough Smyth, ii. p. 156, on the authority of some
first-hand observer. Brough Smyth gives also (i. pp. 83,
84) a detailed account of courtship and betrothal. But
according to our criterion we do not accept it as a
first-hand evidence; nevertheless, it may be useful as
illustration.
"Female children are betrothed usually from early infancy, and
such arrangements are usually adhered to," with rare exceptions.
Exchange of sisters is commonly practised, but the parents' consent
is essential. "If a wife be stolen, war is always continued until
she is given up, or another female exchanged." These statements
refer to the Lower Murray and Adelaide tribes.[57]
[57] Eyre, ii. p. 319.
There is a very plain and primitive form of betrothal, performed
by the "principal old man in the camp" amongst the Lower Darling
natives. They usually exchange sisters, and girls are promised in
infancy.[58]
[58] F. Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 129.
Among the Parkengee tribe of the Darling River, "A brother had the
right of giving away his sister, which he usually did with a view
to his own matrimonial interests. They were in this way promised
when quite children, and in the event of the death of the claimant,
his nearest of kin became possessed of his rights."[59] This means
that levirate was valid in case of betrothal.
[59] S. Newland, _loc. cit._, p. 21.
Exchange was the chief feature of the Narrinyeri marriage.
Sometimes the father, usually the brother, disposed of the girl.
There is a simple ceremony, consisting in a formal handing over
of the bride, who seems usually to be rather unwilling.[60] It is
a social disgrace for a girl not to be given away; if she goes by
herself and lives by her own choice with a man, she is "regarded
as very little better than a prostitute."[61] A woman is supposed
to signify her consent to the marriage by carrying fire to her
husband's wurley and making his fire for him.[62]
[60] H. E. A. Meyer, quoted by Rev. Taplin, _loc. cit._,
p. 10.
[61] _Ibid._, p. 11.
[62] _Ibid._, p. 12. Taplin's own remark. See also
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350, where it is added that in
cases of unsuccessful elopement against the parents' will,
the couple were severely punished; the offender being even
put to death.
Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula, "Betrothal took place in
infancy, and the marriage ceremony after circumcision and other
rites performed on the male."[63]
[63] Sutton, p. 17.
"In the Geawe Gal tribe marriage was ordinarily by the gift[64] of
the woman and by consent of both fathers ... and would be arranged
years before the time of marriage." In cases of elopement the
offender had to fight the female's relatives; he retained her only
if victor. In cases of capture, only a woman of the right class
could be retained.[65]
[64] I think it means not by exchange.
[65] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 216. Geawe Gal, Hunter River,
New South Wales; possessing the Kamilaroi sub-class. See
also _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 250.
In New South Wales marriage was arranged by the parents. If two
people fell in love, they eloped, but if the family applied to the
camp council, the latter would interfere and punish the culprit.[66]
[66] G. S. Lang, p. 11.
Henderson says that among the Blacks of New South Wales abduction
always arouses fights.[67] Using legal terms, this means that
abduction of a woman, whether married or not, was considered a
crime.
[67] _Loc. cit._, p. 110.
Of the courtship in some of the New South Wales tribes we have
an account by J. Turnbull: "When a young man sees a female to
his fancy, he informs her she must accompany him home; the lady
refuses; he not only enforces compliance with threats, but blows:
thus the gallant, according to the custom, never fails to gain the
victory, and bears off the willing though struggling pugilist."[68]
In the following context the author asserts that violence is here a
mere formality. It is difficult to say anything definite about this
statement. If it refers merely to the final marriage "ceremony"
it might be accepted. But if it is to be accepted as describing
all that refers to marriage, it is obviously false. The author
was a "circumnavigator," and in his voyage round the world, about
the year 1800, had probably little opportunities for observing
the Australian aborigines. Such statements as this, uncritically
accepted (as this is, _e. g._ in Waitz-Gerland), are usual sources
of error in ethnology and hence in sociology.
[68] Turnbull, pp. 98, 99.
In some other New South Wales tribes "the ceremony of marriage is
peculiar. In most cases the parties are betrothed at an early age,
and as soon as they arrive at the proper age, the young man claims
his 'gin' or wife."[69] "The women are considered as an article of
property, and are sold or given away by the parents or relatives
without the least regard to their own wishes."[70] The well-known
elements of infant betrothal, and a kind of purchase of a female
from her family, are contained in this statement.
[69] Wilkes (smaller edition), i. p. 225.
[70] _Ibid._
According to another author, who has written about the New South
Wales tribes, the girls are given away at a corroboree. Sometimes
they are "stolen," but then fights always ensue.[71] This statement
contains the feature of publicity of marriage. It does not say
anything about the conditions preceding such a public allotment.
[71] Hodgkinson, _loc. cit._, pp. 229, 230.
According to Tench, capture was the prevalent form in which
marriage was brought about in the Port Jackson tribes.[72] Tench
was in very early times at the settlement, but being a military man
and making only a short stay, he hardly had very good opportunities
of observing the natives. His statement cannot outweigh all the
contrary ones.
[72] _Loc. cit._, p. 199.
The statement of Barrington, who says that among the Port Jackson
natives blows are the usual mode of courtship and that they are
well accepted as a token of tenderness,[73] can only be understood
if we accept these facts as a kind of pretended marriage by
capture. But much importance cannot be attached to it.
[73] _Loc. cit._, p. 168.
Amongst some tribes in the neighbourhood of Sydney[74] small
children are betrothed, and as a sign of that the girl wears a
necklace. In another place[75] the same author says that marriage
by capture occurs.
[74] C. P. Hodgson, p. 220.
[75] _Ibid._, p. 243.
Among the tribes of the South-east coast of New South Wales
(Hawkesbury River to Cape Howe) the "marriages are regulated by
a system of betrothal." "The old men assemble in council," and
establish the relation of _Nanarree_ between a boy and a girl or
woman. The boy then marries eventually the woman's daughter. The
_Nanarree_ couple "theoretically occupy the position of son-in-law
and mother-in-law." They are tabooed to each other. A man and woman
may be _Nanarree_ to several individuals.[76]
[76] R. H. Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxxiv. pp. 263, 264.
We read of an instance of a formal betrothal (called _Bahumul_),
although meagre in its ceremonial, among the Euahlayi tribe. A
baby girl is destined by her parents to be "given to a man." She
is brought to him, some feathers are taken off the baby's head
and put on the man's. Her grandmother says, "Look at him and
remember him, because you are promised to him." "That makes it
a formal betrothal, binding to both sides." "I have heard great
camp rows, because girls made a struggle for independence, having
found out they had only been promised, not formally betrothed, to
some old chap whom they did not wish to marry." Here we meet with
an instance of a formality, which has in itself much more than a
simple promise, that is "binding for both sides."[77]
[77] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 55.
Amongst the Wiradjuri the girl was promised in infancy and sisters
were exchanged.[78]
[78] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 211.
Amongst the Dieri the individual or _Tippa Malku_ marriage was
established when girls were quite young, and upon the basis
of exchange, the decision lying in the hands of the mother's
brother. In another place we read that the _Tippa Malku_ marriage
was brought about sometimes also by the council of old men.[79]
_Pirrauru_ "wives" were allotted by the council of old men.[80] In
cases of elopement the offender was pursued by the kindred.[81]
[79] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. p. 55, and Frazer, _ibid._,
xxiv. p. 169.
[80] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 177, and _J.A.I._, xx. pp. 57
_sq._
[81] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 350.
The German missionary, L. Schultze, informs us about the Central
tribes that "the betrothal is solely and absolutely arranged by the
father of the girl. He promises and contracts his daughter, within
the limits of the class, to whomsoever he pleases." "A youth cannot
select a bride for himself, or a girl a bridegroom." "The betrothal
is often made by the father, soon after the girl is born, from
mercenary motives," for the future son-in-law is obliged to hunt
and provide his father-in-law with food.[82]
[82] _Loc. cit._, p. 236.
We are informed about the Central tribes that "girl-stealing is not
a trifling matter." Fights always ensue as the result of it.[83]
[83] W. H. Willshire, _loc. cit._, p. 27.
By the detailed data given by Spencer and Gillen[84] we get a
good insight into the legal and customary side of the modes of
obtaining wives amongst the Central tribes of the Arunta nation.
Methods of securing a woman are (_a_) charming by means of magic,
(_b_) capture, (_c_) elopement, (_d_) the custom of _Tualcha-Mura_,
by means of which a man secures a wife for his son by making an
arrangement with some other man, with regard to the latter's
daughter. The legal side of the first method is shown by the fact
that a man's right to a woman, secured by means "of magic, is
supported by the men of his own local group."[85] Capture is the
"very rarest way in which a Central Australian secures a wife." If
captured by an avenging party, the woman must be lawfully allotted
to one of the men (who has exclusive right to her afterwards).[86]
There is an accompanying ceremony, and the decision lies in the
hand of an old man, the leader of the party.[87] In cases of
elopement there was always a fight, sometimes between the two
parties only, sometimes their local groups taking part. There
were some (tribal) relatives having a special duty of supporting
the eloper. Sometimes the aggrieved husband will consent to hand
over the wife; the offender has then an ordeal to undergo.[88] "The
fourth and most usual method of obtaining a wife is that which is
connected with the well-established custom" of _Tualcha-Mura_.[89]
This is a relation between a man and his mother-in-law[90]
established by a simple ceremony,[91] and it signifies that the man
has the right to take as wife the daughter of the woman. In this
way "practically every man in the tribe is provided with at least
one woman to whom he is lawfully entitled."[92] He has a definite
right over her; he may waive it or exchange it for another right
over his mother-in-law's son.[93] He stands in a definite relation
to his _Tualcha-Mura_ (mother-in-law); receives her hair to make
his hair girdle,[94] and may not speak to her. He has the duty of
providing his father-in-law with food, which is a condition for the
obligations to be kept.[95] It is seldom that these obligations
are broken; and if the parents give the girl to someone else,
the latter is sure to have to undergo a struggle with the former
fiancé.[96] All this holds good also in respect to the Northern
Central tribes.[97] There, too, "as a general rule women are
obtained quite peacefully by the system of betrothal."[98]
[84] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. xvii, _Methods
of obtaining Wives_, pp. 554 _sqq._ Compare also _Nor.
Tr._, pp. 32 and 33.
[85] Compare also the detailed description of charming by
magic (different methods) given by J. Gillen in _Proc.
R.G.S.S.A._, iv. pp. 25 _sqq._
[86] No other man of the party having any access to her.
_Nat. Tr._, p. 556.
[87] _Nat. Tr._, p. 555. The story related in this place is
given by the author as an illustration of a general custom.
[88] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 556, 557. The story told, pp. 557,
558, where both the eloped woman and her actual husband
have an ordeal to submit to from the former husband. After
having renounced her in this way she became the property of
the man with whom she had eloped.
[89] _Ibid._, p. 558.
[90] Who is often of the very same age as he, pp. 558, 559.
[91] _Ibid._, p. 559.
[92] _Ibid._, 554. As also _Nor. Tr._, p. 33.
[93] _Ibid._, p. 559.
[94] _Nat. Tr._, p. 559.
[95] _Ibid._, p. 555.
[96] _Ibid._, p. 560.
[97] _Nor. Tr._, p. 77.
[98] _Ibid._, p. 33.
Among all the tribes, described by Spencer and Gillen, there
seem to be some marriage ceremonies.[99] In their first work
(_Nat. Tr._) these authors describe such ceremonies among nine
tribes.[100] In the main these ceremonies consisted of a ritual
defloration of the girl by men standing to her in a definite
relationship. In each case the girl had to submit to sexual
intercourse with a series of men standing to her also in a definite
relationship. Men of forbidden degrees have on these occasions
access to women. The girl was afterwards painted and decorated
and handed over to her husband, to whom she was allotted.[101]
In the _Northern Tribes_ there is also a detailed description of
this ceremony among the Warramunga,[102] where the husband keeps
abstinence for three days after marriage. Among the Binbinga, Anula
and Mara tribes the ritual defloration seems not to be a marriage
ceremony, _i. e._ seems not to be connected with the handing over
of the girl to her allotted husband.[103] Messrs. Spencer and
Gillen state the existence of this ceremony among sixteen tribes.
It is to be noted that these ceremonies do not seem to express any
special sanction of the marriage to which they lead, unless they
are viewed as "expiation for marriage."[104] Then they might be
interpreted as the renouncement of all men's rights and claims to a
woman for the benefit of her future owner. The ceremonial handing
over of a woman may be also regarded as expressing the public
sanction of marriage. We must still notice an interesting ceremony
amongst the Warramunga, Tjinjilli, Gnanji, Binbinga, Mara, which
consists of some hair being given by the maternal uncle of the girl
to her future husband. This hair is worn by him under his arm-band;
"it is a simple plan of publicly announcing the fact" of the
betrothal.[105] Amongst the Binbinga there is a form of betrothal.
The future husband must present his father-in-law with boomerangs,
etc., and must avoid him, but goes on giving him presents.[106]
[99] Compare _Nat. Tr._, chap, iii., pp. 92 _sqq._, and
_Nor. Tr._, chap. iv., pp. 133 _sqq._
[100] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92 _sqq._
[101] For detailed description see _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92,
93 (Arunta and Ilpirra), p. 94 (S. Arunta), pp. 94,
95 (Kaitish), p. 95 (the remaining six tribes). These
ceremonies differ only in details from each other in
different tribes.
[102] _Nor. Tr._, p. 135.
[103] _Ibid._, p. 135.
[104] According to Lord Avebury; see _Nat. Tr._, p. 96.
[105] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 603, 604.
[106] _Ibid._, p. 77, footnote.
Among some tribes of South Queensland (Bunya-Bunya country)
marriage was arranged without any consent of the contracting
parties. Sometimes it was arranged when the girl was an infant,
and she was then promised to some man of importance or influence.
Sometimes exchange of females took place at large tribal
gatherings. Elopement was known in these tribes, and a fight
decided whether it was legalized or not.[107]
[107] Tom Petrie, _loc. cit._, pp. 59, 60.
We find a ceremony of betrothal among the Kuinmurbura. "The parents
having painted the girl and dressed her hair with feathers, her
male cousin takes her to where her future husband is sitting
cross-legged in silence, and seats her at his back and close to
him. He who has brought the girl after a time removes the feathers
from her hair and places them in the hair of her future husband,
and then leads the girl back to her parents." The future son-in-law
must give presents of game to the father of his promised wife.[108]
[108] Howitt, _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118.
We read about the natives of Moreton Bay, that marriage is
generally contracted with the consent of the relatives of both
parties and the approval of the tribe. As a form of betrothal they
join their hands. The stealing of women from neighbouring tribes
ends usually in war.[109]
[109] J. D. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 337.
Among the Herbert River natives, exchange of sisters or daughters
is the commonest way of obtaining wives.[110] Girls are promised to
their respective husbands[111] in infancy and delivered at the age
of nine or ten years.
[110] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._, p. 154.
[111] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._, p. 165.
We find in Brough Smyth an account of a betrothal ceremony, as
practised by the natives on Fraser Island (Queensland). This
description is given by a correspondent of the Rev. L. Fison: "The
bride makes a fire, and the other natives come and place white
feathers on her head; then the bride places feathers on the head
of the bridegroom; the bridegroom makes a fire, and every one of
the blacks present on the occasion brings a firestick and throws it
down at the bridegroom's fire."[112]
[112] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 89.
Girls were betrothed in infancy by their mothers amongst the
Wakelbura. It was supposed that a girl would be given in exchange
for her.[113] In case of elopement, there was a severe fight, and
only after a victory over many adversaries could the man keep his
wife.
[113] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 222, and _Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 117.
Among the North-West Central Queensland tribes[114] "each male
can have an official wife" supplied him by the camp in general
council assembled,[115] and an unofficial one of his own choice.
"Both share equal rights and responsibilities." The consent of the
girl's family is in both cases essential.[116] The ceremony of
betrothal consisted in exchange of firesticks, and "is binding on
both sides."[117] Exchange of sisters is practised, too.[118] If
eloping, "both have to run the gauntlet of the outraged community,"
which gives them a rather harsh reception. After which "the couple
is now recognized as husband and wife."[119] In cases of elopement
of a married woman there is a fight, or compensation is granted to
the injured husband. In another place Roth says that taking a girl
against the wishes of parents was punished by death.[120]
[114] W. E. Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, pp. 180, 181, sec. 323.
[115] See _Ibid._, sec. 238.
[116] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _a._
[117] _Ibid._
[118] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _b._
[119] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _c._
[120] W. E. Roth, _N.Q. Ethnog._, Bull. 8, p. 5.
According to Macgillivray's information, infant betrothal even
before birth was prevalent in the Port Essington tribes.[121]
[121] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 151.
The following account is reported by a Lascar who spent several
years among the tribes of the North-East coast (Raffles Bay):
"Their marriage ceremony is performed in the following way: The
father and mother of a female child lead in one hand between them
the intended bride (whilst in the other they each carry a piece of
burning wood) towards the intended husband, he standing with his
back towards them. When they arrive at the appointed place, the
parents lay down the burning pieces of wood, beside which the child
sits down, and the parents retire, on which the husband turns round
to his wife and takes her home."[122]
[122] Wilson, p. 144.
We are informed about the natives of the Cape of York Peninsula and
Prince of Wales Islands: "In most cases females are betrothed in
infancy, according to the will of the father, and without regard to
disparity of age. Thus the future husband may be, and often is, an
old man with several wives."[123]
[123] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 8.
J. Forrest, speaking of the natives of Central and Western
Australia, says: "Betrothal is very general. A child a year old
will sometimes be betrothed to an old man, and it will be his duty
to feed and protect her, and (unless she is stolen by someone else)
when she is old enough she becomes his wife."[124]
[124] _Loc. cit._, p. 317.
"The girls are not the exclusive property of the father until he
thinks fit to give them in marriage to some of his friends; by the
law of these people the females, from the time of their birth,
are appropriated to certain males of the tribe, and not even the
parents have the right to set aside these obligations." If this man
dies, the mother may dispose of her daughter.--This refers to the
Watchandee tribe of West Australia.[125] The same author writes
that elopement is punished in these tribes by the death of the
female, and a severe ordeal is imposed on the male; an instance
is adduced to illustrate this.[126] The statement is quite unique
in this, that it asserts no right of the family to betroth their
daughter. On the other hand, we are by no other author informed
of such a thing as a man having an _a priori_ right to a girl. We
are led to the supposition that these male individuals are simply
men belonging to the right marriage class. For undoubtedly in
an exogamous tribe, having four or eight classes and being not
too numerous, the number of marriageable individuals must have
been very limited, and one of them might have had some special
prerogatives. This supposition would also account for the severe
punishment inflicted in case of elopement with a man to whom "she
did not lawfully belong," viz. with an individual of the improper
class. Otherwise this statement would be contradictory with all the
others, and we could hardly harmonize it with the general view we
form of the aboriginal marriage rules.
[125] Oldfield, p. 249.
[126] _Ibid._, pp. 249, 250.
Among the tribes observed by Salvado "Le sauvage demande la
personne qu'il veut épouser au père de celle-ci, et si celui-ci ne
l'a promise à aucun autre, et n'y voit pas d'empêchement, il la lui
accorde. Dès ce moment, la jeune personne appartient au sauvage
qui l'a demandée, quoiqu'elle reste en compagnie de sa famille,
jusqu'à l'age de la puberté. Cet engagement est inviolable, et si
jamais un père y manquait, ce serait la cause de beaucoup de sang
répandu. Le sauvage pourtant quand il demande une jeune personne en
mariage, s'il ne se fie pas à la parole du père, l'emmène avec lui
et lui tient lieu de frère, jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait atteint l'âge
convenable. Dans aucun cas on ne demande à la jeune personne son
consentement. Neanmoins j'ai entendu dire à des fiancés: 'Je l'aime
et elle m'aime aussi.'"[127] "L'autre manière de prendre femme est
de la ravir à son père, ou à son mari, soit à cause de sa rare
beauté, soit parce que son mari la maltraite. Mais ensuite si
celui-ci la trouve, il la tue sans pitié, aussi le ravisseur
l'emmène-t-il au loin, et tâche de se soustraire à tout jamais à la
présence de l'offensé."[128]
[127] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 278.
[128] _Ibid._, pp. 278, 279.
In West Australia "female children are always betrothed within a
few days after their birth; and from the moment they are betrothed
the parents cease to have any control over the future settlement
of their child." The woman is kept by her husband as his exclusive
property. "Stealing a wife is generally punished with death." It
means that elopement was punished by death, but we are not told if
of both parties or only one, and which one. This statement agrees
with our last one. It might be, therefore, that in West Australia
the rules were in this regard more stringent. But it seems more
probable that death was the extreme punishment only, and that
usually an ordeal was sufficient.[129]
[129] Geo. Grey, ii. pp. 229, 230.
We are informed in G. F. Moore's vocabulary of West Australian
languages that the word meaning "firm," "fixed" is "applied to a
man and wife as firmly united together."[130] It shows that this
idea must have been strongly inculcated in the aboriginal society,
if the expression for firmness and marriage were associated in
their language. By itself, such a linguistic argument might be
justly designated as futile; but it is a valuable addition to the
other evidence in our possession. The same author mentions three
modes of obtaining wives: infant betrothal, inheritance from a
brother or relative (levirate), and elopement.[131]
[130] _Loc. cit._, p. 5.
[131] _Loc. cit._, p. 41.
We read in Scott Nind's description of the aborigines of King
George's Sound: "The girls appear to be at the disposal of their
father and are generally bespoke in their infancy; even before
they are born we have been told to whom they were betrothed, if
they prove to be females." Sometimes exchange of relatives is
practised. In some cases boys are adopted as sons-in-law--a custom
called _cotertie_.[132] This seems to be analogous to the customs
reported from Central Australia and New South Wales. "Attentions
and presents are paid more to her (the bride's) father than
to herself, and indeed the trifles she receives are generally
transferred to him. These chiefly consist of game or other articles
of food; the father, perhaps, receives a cloak, spears or other
implements."[133] The author says: "I do not think they have any
nuptial ceremony."[134] Another mode of procuring a wife is to
carry her off; sometimes against her will, generally by mutual
agreement. In both cases the couple must beware of the husband's
revenge. If the female become pregnant and presents are given to
the husband, she is released from her first engagement.[135] A
woman may be also betrothed during her husband's lifetime to a man,
to whom she passes when widowed.[136]
[132] _Loc. cit._, p. 38.
[133] _Ibid._
[134] p. 38.
[135] _Ibid._
[136] p. 39.
Browne relates that girls were often promised in infancy; elopement
also often took place.[137]
[137] _Loc. cit._, p. 450.
We have also six statements in the answers given to Professor
Frazer's _Questions_ (_J.A.I._, xxiv., pp. 157 _sq._). I have not
ranged them with the foregoing, for they seem not to be of equal
accuracy[138] except perhaps that of Police Inspector Foelsche,
Port Darwin, North Territory, South Australia. And this agrees
with the majority of our data: girls are promised in infancy to
men of different ages, and go to live with them when arrived at
puberty. It is noteworthy that all these six statements deny
the existence of any betrothal ceremony. Five of them inform us
that wives were obtained by "purchase" from their parents. The
word purchase covers, probably, the fact that the girl's parents
obtained, at the marriage contract, and probably ever after, gifts
from their future son-in-law. We have such statements already in
our collection, and it seems that wherever there was no exchange
of females the girl's family received some compensation for her in
another form.
[138] They are given by police troopers, stationmasters,
etc. One of them is Sam Gason, whose information about the
Dieri we know from another place. It is crude, but not
quite useless; here he does not teach us anything new.
According to our already described methodological plan, the area
or range of the facts covered by all this evidence must be divided
into smaller fields. Or, in other words, it is needful to bring our
information under several headings, show the points upon which there is
complete agreement, and discuss the other points in greater detail.
There are forty-nine statements (including one of the six just
summarily mentioned). Not all of them give us full information
concerning the whole of our subject; some mention only one or other
of the methods of obtaining wives, without asserting or denying the
existence of the other forms. But roughly speaking, we may say that
in all tribes there are on the one hand some normal, pacific modes of
obtaining wives (exchange of relatives, promise in infancy, betrothal),
and on the other hand some more or less violent forms (elopement,
capture). About twenty-three of the forty-nine statements, all which
are explicit and reliable, assert the existence of both these forms
amongst the tribes they deal with. The violent forms, elopement and
capture, seem to have been rather the exception than the rule, but
there seems to have been not a single tribe in which elopement was
completely absent.[139] Among the Kurnai elopement was a prevalent
form of marriage. In all other tribes the methods, called here normal
or pacific, were prevalent. The main features of these forms are:
betrothal in infancy, exchange of sisters or relatives, and a series
of obligations and mutual duties which both contracting parties
undertake. All these features may be briefly discussed.
[139] Compare _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118. Howitt says that in
all South-Eastern tribes elopement was in use; especially
if there was any difficulty in finding a relative for
exchange, or if two people fell in love with each other.
It was considered a breach of custom and law, but it
was a valid, recognized form of marriage if legalized
subsequently. Practically the same may be said of all
tribes of the continent.
The custom of _betrothing_ females _in infancy_ seems to be very
widespread. That this custom was known in all tribes appears in all
the statements explicitly or implicitly (with the exception of those
statements only which were discarded as unreliable, _e. g._ those
which assert marriage by capture as the most usual form). So in the
tribes described by Howitt and his correspondents (chiefly referring
to Victoria, New South Wales, and South territory of South Australia)
girls were as a rule promised in infancy, and these engagements were
kept. This appears the most usual way of obtaining wives amongst the
Central tribes, in Queensland, and in West Australia (J. Dawson, Curr,
Stanbridge, Howitt, Eyre, F. Bonney, R. H. Mathews, Spencer and Gillen,
T. Petrie, Grey, Browne); whereas according to Oldfield, girls belonged
by birth to a certain man. In Roth's statement we are not informed
whether women were allotted by camp council in infancy or when grown up.
This widespread custom of infant betrothal had its important
consequences, some apparent at first sight. So it is evident, that not
only had the woman no voice as to her husband, but even the latter had
scarcely a choice in the proper sense of the word. For when he entered
into the engagement, although he was often of a mature age, he could
not have any idea how his bride would look when grown up. The legal
importance of this form of marriage and all the mutual obligations
connected therewith will be discussed below.
Another point of importance is that this form of marriage contract was
in many tribes combined with the _exchange_ of sisters or relatives.
Fifteen statements mention this explicitly as the most usual condition
under which a female could be obtained. It must have been prevalent
in the South-Eastern tribes.[140] In the case of exchange it was
usually the sister who was given in exchange for a wife,[141] but
sometimes also a father secured a wife in exchange for his daughter
(Curr, Taplin, Beveridge), which is in perfect accord with the fact
that disparity of age was very frequent in Australian marriages. At any
rate the father's consent was always essential (Stanbridge, Beveridge,
Schultze, Taplin on the Narrinyeri, Rusden on the Geawe Gal, Howitt
on the Wotjobaluk). In general when a girl was promised in infancy it
was always done by her family; or at least with the consent of her
family. As, for instance, in N. Central Queensland, where, according
to Roth, girls were disposed of sometimes by the camp council, but by
agreement with the family. By the word family must be here understood
in the first place the girl's father, whose consent, as just said,
was essential, then her brothers and nearest relatives, who would
eventually have profit from exchanging her. But also other members of
the female's family are interested in the transaction and possibly
benefit by it.
[140] Speaking of the South-Eastern tribes in general,
Howitt says: "It may be safely laid down as a broad and
general proposition that among these savages a wife was
obtained by the exchange of a female relative, with the
alternative possibility of obtaining one by inheritance
(Levirate), by elopement, or by capture."--_Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 115.
[141] "It seems to me that the most common practice is the
exchange of girls by their respective parents, as wives
for each other's sons, or in some tribes the exchange of
sisters, or of some female relatives by the young men
themselves."--_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.
The important _part_ played by the _family_ appears in all our
statements; the only contradictory one is that of Oldfield, who says
that the parents had no right over their daughter from her birth (but
see above our critical remark). From the moment of the "betrothal" the
man or boy enters into a certain relation to his future wife's nearest
relatives; he has certain duties to perform, certain obligations to
fulfil, and certain restrictions to observe. In the case where it is
the male's family which makes the contract for him, the two families
have certain duties towards each other and stand in a certain mutual
relationship. They exchange gifts (Yuin, Woljabaluk, S.W. Victoria
and others); the boy's father has to give presents to the girl, and
the boy is visited from time to time by his future father-in-law (W.
Victoria); the future mother-in-law is tabooed (Jajaurung, New South
Wales, according to R. H. Mathews; Central tribes); in the Central
tribes there is the relation of Tualcha Mara and the duty of hunting
for the future father-in-law. In the Binbinga there is a present at the
betrothal and sometimes duties afterwards.
It seems that in all cases, even when exchange does not take place,
it is the father who disposes of his daughter (compare just above).
This privilege is important: in this way, as we saw above, an old man
may procure a young wife for himself. In other cases by these means
the friendship of an influential man may be gained. It is therefore
probable that the father, who wields all the authority in the family,
enjoys this privilege of disposing of his daughter.
We may view the facts of exchange of females on the one hand, and the
various duties of the husband towards his (future or actual) wife's
family on the other, also in another light; they show distinctly the
features of _marriage by purchase_. In the first place let us remark
that the two forms--exchange of females and exchange of gifts or
duties for a female--seem to be localized in different areas. We saw
that Howitt affirms that exchange is the prominent feature in the
South-eastern tribes with the exception of the Kurnai. In those of our
statements which refer to this area we found with very few exceptions
(J. Dawson, Stanbridge, G. S. Lang, Mrs. Parker) confirmation of his
views. The above exceptions do not deny this fact. They are not very
explicit, so that we can hardly insist on them as negative evidence. On
the other hand, in the Central and Northern area, exchange of females
seems not to take place. Here we have some detailed statements, such as
those about the Dieri by Gason and Howitt, about the Arunta by Spencer
and Gillen, about the other Northern tribes by the same authors,
about the N.W. Queensland tribes by W. E. Roth. In all these explicit
statements there is not a single remark about exchange. Nor is the
latter mentioned in any statement referring to the Central and Northern
area, nor in the four statements which refer to West Australia. We
may therefore conclude with a high degree of probability that we have
here to do with a real geographical difference between the tribes
indicated. As to Queensland, exchange was probably known in the Central
and Southern tribes (Tom Petrie and Lumholtz mention it), whereas,
as we saw, it was absent in the Western part of that colony. But in
nearly all these tribes, where exchange of females is apparently not
in use, there is evidence of the existence of duties and obligations
on the part of the future husband towards his parents-in-law. We may
remember the five statements in which the word purchase was used, and
the statement of Wilkes. Schultze says explicitly that the father often
gave his daughter away from mercenary motives. The same is confirmed
by the more exact and detailed statement of Spencer and Gillen, where
the duties of providing the father-in-law with game are reported to be
a necessary condition for the obligations to be kept. Among some of
the Northern tribes (Binbinga, Anula, Mara) the man has to present his
father-in-law with boomerangs and weapons at the contract, and then to
supply him with game. There is no information about purchase-marriage
either from Queensland or from West Australia. But such a negative
evidence is not convincing. Again among the Kurnai, where exchange
of females happened very seldom, there were duties of supplying the
parents-in-law with game (compare below, pp. 283 _sqq._). So that if
we leave on one side the Western part of Australia and Queensland, and
take into consideration only the Northern, Central and South-Eastern
tribes, we may say that exchange of females and obligations, of gifts
and hunting duties were geographically exclusive. Now it appears to
me that exchange of females was a kind of marriage by purchase. If we
regard as the chief feature of the latter the fact that the bridegroom
has to contribute for his wife something of more or less equal value,
we must agree that exchange of females was such a kind of contribution,
and even a very fair one.[142] Besides, it appears that the exchange
of females was often accompanied by exchange of gifts (compare p. 50,
Yuin, Wotjobaluk). That the facts reported from the Central and
Northern area show a form of marriage by purchase appears quite clear.
[142] With reference to the Australian facts Dr.
Westermarck makes the same remark. "The simplest way of
purchasing a wife is no doubt to give a kinswoman in
exchange for her."--_H.H.M._, p. 390.
As a further characteristic feature we are told in several instances
that such mutual agreements are made _publicly_, during great tribal
gatherings, so that all the tribe knows about it (Yuin, Woeworung,
New South Wales according to Mathews, New South Wales according to
Hodgkinson). Or else the bride is publicly handed to the bridegroom
(Narrinyeri, Lower Darling, Kuinmurbura, Fraser Island). In the Central
and North Central tribes there are outward signs: the maternal uncle's
hair worn under the arm-band; or hair is procured from the future
mother-in-law. In some New South Wales tribes a necklace is worn as a
sign of engagement (Hodgson).
In some statements we are directly told that there is no _betrothal
or marriage ceremony_ (in the six notes in _J.A.I._, xxiv.). But this
negative evidence seems on one side to result from the slight and
superficial acquaintance these observers had with the aborigines;
on the other side from the fact that even in cases where we have
such ceremonies described by very reliable informants and their
binding power asserted, they are described as being so simple and
insignificant, that it is easy to conceive they might readily escape
the notice of even a good observer, or at least their nature and
importance might be misunderstood. We possess nine statements about
betrothal or marriage ceremonies. We have Dawson's detailed statement,
which seems, nevertheless, not to be absolutely trustworthy. But we
are also informed of the existence of some simple and apparently
insignificant ceremonies by J. Bonney, Taplin, R. H. Mathew,
Mrs. Langloh Parker, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, Fison's anonymous
correspondent, Howitt on the Kuinmurburu, Wilson.[143] Some of these
are our best sources.
[143] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 107, says also that in some
tribes there are some insignificant marriage ceremonies.
Turning now to the other, the _violent form_ of obtaining wives, we
may distinguish the _elopement_, when both sides are consenting, and
_capture_ where the woman is secured by a mere act of brutal force.
These latter forms occur, but they are by no means frequent. They
are mentioned by several writers (Hodgson, Rusden, Turnbull, Tench,
Barrington and Collins); and by the two latter as the only form of
marriage. That this is obviously incorrect was mentioned above in
connection with their statements. It is characteristic that all
statements reporting the prevalence of marriage by capture refer to
New South Wales, and more especially to the neighbourhood of Sydney.
But I think that it would be inadvisable to attribute this to a local
peculiarity of those tribes. It appears more probable that as all
those reports date from the early days of the settlement, and were
written nearly at the same time, their opinions cannot be considered as
independent, and they are probably repetitions of the same erroneous
view which may be assumed to have been held by the general public in
the settlement.
This is confirmed by the following comparison of two statements. The
first, that of Collins, stating the existence of a crude form of
marriage by capture runs thus: "These unfortunate victims [the wives]
of lust and cruelty ... are, it is believed, always selected from the
women of a different tribe from that of the males (for they ought
not to be dignified with the title of men), and with whom they are
at enmity.... The poor wretch is stolen upon in the absence of her
protectors. Being first stupefied with blows, inflicted with clubs or
wooden swords, on the head, back and shoulders, every one of which
is followed by a stream of blood, she is then dragged away through
the woods by one arm, with a perseverance and violence that it might
be supposed would displace it from its sockets." In this manner the
woman is said to be dragged to the man's camp, where "a scene ensues
too shocking to relate."[144] The second statement made by one of
Howitt's reliable correspondents, depicts the state of things with
quite different colours: "When a young man has passed a certain number
of Boras (initiations) he has a right to choose a wife from among the
unmarried and otherwise unappropriated women of the tribe who are of
the class permitted to him by the native laws. He claims the girl in
the presence of her parents by saying 'I will come and take you by
and by,' and they cannot refuse her to him unless he be specially
disqualified--as, for instance, if his 'hands are stained with the
blood of any of her kin.' And even in that case he may carry her off
by force if he can in spite of their refusal. For this purpose he
generally comes by stealth and alone. But if he be a very bold warrior,
he sometimes goes openly to the girl's camp and carries her off,
defying the bravest of her friends to meet him in single combat if they
dare to stay him."[145] In this second statement it may be noted that
only the unappropriated girls of the tribe and those who are lawfully
marriageable may be obtained in this way. Besides, this proceeding
appears much more in the light of elopement than capture.
[144] Howitt in _Smiths. Rep._, p. 798.
[145] _Ibid._
Important it is to note that in utter contradiction with those few
statements, made by some early observers in New South Wales, _capture_
is usually reported to be merely an exceptional form of contracting
marriage. That it was in existence in nearly all tribes seems beyond
doubt. Spencer and Gillen, Howitt,[146] Curr[147] mention that
marriage by capture occurred. But all these authors add emphatically
that this was the most exceptional mode of acquiring a wife.[148] And
it appears from Spencer and Gillen's account that capture is effected
rather by an avenging party than by an individual enterprise. And even
in the case of capture, possession does not mean right. The woman must
belong in the first place to the right class (Rusden, Spencer and
Gillen), and in the case related by Spencer and Gillen she had to be
especially allotted to one of the men by the leader of the party.
[146] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 343.
[147] _A.R._, i. p. 108.
[148] That capture of females occurs only very seldom is
affirmed by Palmer, _loc. cit._, p. 301, and by Taplin,
p. 10. J. Mathew, _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxiii. p. 407, states that
marriage by capture takes place between members of hostile
communities. Quoted from Dr. Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 389.
_Elopement_ on the other hand is, as we mentioned above, to be found
in nearly all tribes. In all cases it is considered as an encroachment
on the rights of the family or of the husband over the girl, and it
is punished. But the severity of punishment seems to vary according
to the tribe; in the Kurnai elopement was probably the most usual way
of getting married; it was therefore not so severely punished. The
latter seems to apply to all Victorian and New South Wales tribes.
In the Central tribes charming by magic and subsequent elopement
led to a fight or ordeal, but the matter was apparently not very
serious. Whereas, we read in Roth, Grey, Salvado and Oldfield that
the punishment was death.[149] Nevertheless, as we have come to the
conclusion that these three statements are not quite clear on this
point, we may not take this for granted as a geographical distinction
between the South-Eastern and North-Western (including W. Queensland)
regions. It may be also that abduction of a woman was punished by death
or at any rate more severely in case she belonged to a forbidden class.
[149] Also Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 108, affirms that elopement
was usually severely punished and only very seldom
legalized. He knew only three cases where eloped couples
were allowed to live together permanently.
In general it may be said that elopement was always punished, and in
the majority of cases afterwards, under certain conditions, legalized
and acknowledged. These conditions are: in the first place that bride
and bridegroom belong to the right class; and then, pregnancy of the
woman or the birth of a child (Kurnai, Yuin); or a victory in the fight
which ensues after the offender has been caught (Kurnai, Yuin, Davis,
Central tribes); or subsequent exchange of a relative (Yuin, L. Murray,
Wakelbura); or a second or third elopement (Kurnai, W. Victoria).
Victory in a combat did not mean that it was by pure force that the
offender kept the woman. For these combats were regulated and often
assumed the form of an ordeal to be undergone (Central and Northern
tribes). It is well to notice that the majority of our informants when
speaking of elopements never observe the point whether the woman was
already married or not.
A few theoretical conclusions from all the facts just enumerated
may now be drawn. We have asked at the outset for all the actual
circumstances, as well as legal factors connected with the modes of
obtaining wives, which express and enforce the validity of marriage. We
asked also how does the mental attitude of the native express itself in
these facts, as far as individual marriage is concerned. Must we admit
that the aborigines have an idea of individual conjugal rights?
In the first place it is quite obvious that according to our
definitions of the word _legal_, the ideas of legal and illegal may
be applied quite legitimately to the Australian marriage. For there
exist different norms, the compliance with which assures to a match its
recognition by society, and actual protection at its hands. Whereas, if
a marriage was brought about outside these legal norms it had either
to be legalized afterwards, whereupon it enjoyed the same privileges,
or it was considered illegal and was interfered with. It appears,
moreover, from all the facts reviewed that it was always a difficult
matter to secure a wife outside the usual forms. The legal norms for
marriage consisted in the bringing about the marriage in one of the
forms discussed above, and consequently in the fulfilment of the series
of conditions, obligations and duties connected therewith. In all
these forms there is involved some kind of control of the social group
concerned, which enforces the mutual obligations, and which in case of
breach of contract had the privilege or the duty of amending the wrong.
In the most frequent form, _i. e._ when a female child is promised in
infancy, her family is under an obligation to keep the arrangement.
Her relatives have not the right to dispose of her otherwise after
they have once promised her (Curr, i. 107), and they must also watch
over her and prevent any attempt at capture or elopement, as they
would have the duty of rescuing her (Curr, Stanbridge). In this case
we are also told that the respective local group would interfere.
The fact that the engagement was made publicly, and so was known and
acknowledged by all the members of the local group and perhaps even
of the whole tribe, emphasized its legal aspect. The cases where the
tribal authority disposed of the girls or had to give consent itself
shows this in a still stronger degree. We see therefore that two social
factors were involved in the legal side of the marriage: the family,
which was responsible for the carrying out of marriage and often for
its maintenance,[150] and the community,[151] which gives its consent
and often controls the right performance of expiatory ordeals. It may
also be remarked that the mere moral sanction, which stamps one act
as right and another as wrong, gives a strong support to the offended
party and paralysed the help that the friends would perhaps like to
give to the offender. Although it is difficult to adduce sufficient
evidence in order to show in detail what were the obligations of
the family and where the tribal supervision began--and it seems that
these matters were possibly settled only roughly and on broad lines
in the Australian society--one thing appears quite clearly from the
whole evidence, viz. that in all tribes only those couples were secure
from any interference who had married according to the legal form or
whose marriage was subsequently legalized. We are informed by Spencer
and Gillen that in some cases (when elopement was brought about by
magic) there were some relatives who were lawfully entitled to help
the eloper. This shows also clearly how little the settlement of these
affairs was arbitrary. Elopement was in this case, and in all others,
considered as a trespass; when it was a girl it was an encroachment on
the rights of the family; when it was a married woman it was an offence
against her husband and also perhaps against her family. According to
circumstances and varying with the tribe, it was considered as a more
or less serious trespass and punished accordingly. In order that an
elopement might result in an acknowledged union, it had to be followed
always and invariably by certain expiatory acts. Even in the case of
capture, we saw in the example given by Spencer and Gillen that the
woman was lawfully allotted to one of the party. Individual capture
seems to occur very seldom; in its legal aspect it would not differ
essentially from the elopement, but it would have had probably less
chances of being made valid.
[150] Family means here in the first place the father, who
disposed of his daughter; or in some cases the brother or
near relative, who got or will get a wife in exchange for
her.
[151] Or better, what was called above the tribal
government.
After the legal aspect of marriage has thus been established, it may
be pointed out that several of the features of Australian marriage
and betrothal set up, besides these legal bonds, other ties which in
themselves lead to the carrying out of marriage, and afterwards keep
husband and wife together.
In the first place, exchange of women. When a man was to receive a
wife in exchange for his relative, it is clear that he felt himself
strongly bound to keep his promise; for he lost as much as his partner
in case he broke the agreement. We saw also that betrothal established
a certain status between the families of the male and the female
respectively. This status, the main feature of which was exchange of
gifts, with a preponderance of the male's gifts and duties, such as
providing food, created certain obligations which further enforced the
validity of the contract.
As pointed out above, we can even find, at least in the Central and
Northern tribes, clear features of marriage by purchase. Equally
important in this light is the fact of exchange of females. This
has its theoretical consequences. The two main facts of collective
psychology, expressed by marriage by purchase, are (1) that there is a
certain value attached to the woman and expressed by the conventional
price; (2) that there is the idea of right of property or at least of
the individual personal right of the husband over his wife, acquired by
him through the fact of purchase. These two facts are very important.
For both these sets of ideas can only have been evolved in a society
where individual marriage was a well-known, well-recognized and
fundamental institution. There would have been no reason to pay for a
wife if the possession of her would confer no positive rights on the
owner.
The following point may also be adduced here, viz. that generally the
old men and other men of influence and power secured the young females
of the tribes. It was easier for influential and important men to
maintain their right over their wives before as well as after actual
possession. Besides, we are informed by all (with the exception of
R. H. Mathews) that the rules of exogamy were very strong, excluding in
the majority of tribes a good number of females from all attempts by
the males of forbidden classes. This undoubtedly contributed also to
increase the security and validity of the marital union, by reducing to
very few the number of the men who were in a position to interfere with
the rights of the husband.
If we now look behind the facts of all these customs, rules and
practices to the underlying social psychology, we see that the idea
of the individual rights of a man to a woman must have been deeply
impressed upon the aboriginal mind. The female, when promised in
infancy, belonged to a certain man, who afterwards took possession
of her. Neither he nor she had a choice; she belonged to him by the
title of obligation; he had no choice, for all the other females were
already distributed. Thus, as infant betrothal was prevalent in the
majority of the tribes, there was a status in which everybody belonged
to somebody or other. At least there were no free females. That such
a state of things is indicative of a deeply-rooted idea of personal,
individual rights over a woman seems clear. If the value of such rights
were not known, nobody would care to secure them so eagerly and so
early, especially as the acquirement of these rights was apparently
never gratuitous. On the other hand, this complete allotment of all
the females of the tribe must have in turn impressed upon the native
mind the idea that marriage is a question of regulated rule, of a
well-established order, and not a question of private initiation and
enterprise. If a man chooses the other way, _i. e._ tries to conquer a
wife, he must be prepared to undergo the consequences of it and thus
expiate for having broken the custom and rule. It must also be borne in
mind that legal norms presuppose the existence, in the society in which
they are in force, of quite clear and definite ideas of the rights
which they involve. It is impossible that in a given society there
would be norms concerning the legality of individual marital rights
without the idea of such individual right being known to the social
mind. In Australia there are such legal norms, as has been shown above.
And _a fortiori_ there must be not only a clear idea of the individual
rights of a man to his wife, but these rights must be highly valued.
Marriage contract in nearly all societies is accompanied by some
ceremonies, which possess in themselves some binding force, generally
of a magical and religious character. This seems to be the case in
Australia too. We are in no place told what in a given ceremony would
have magical power, and how the natives imagine the working of this
power. Nevertheless, we read that in North Central West Queensland
the exchange of fire-sticks is binding, and that among the Euahlayi
the simple promise of a girl does not create any obligation unless
it is strengthened by the act of formal betrothal. It can mean only
that to such acts was attributed some magical power, and that this was
coercive.[152] From whatever form of superstition it may be derived,
it seems beyond doubt that the rudimentary ceremonies described above,
such as exchange of fire-sticks, placing of feathers, joining of
hands publicly, etc., had some inherent force and an importance as
sanctions. They were a form of sacrament. Now I would like to point
out that whenever it happens that a certain legal or social fact is
transformed into a sacrament, _i. e._ is supposed to be accomplished by
the performance of some formality endowed with a supernatural sanction,
we have every reason to suppose that this legal or social fact is very
deeply rooted in the collective mind, that it corresponds to very
inveterate ideas.[153] This seems to be, therefore, also the case in
Australia, where individual marriage has also its kind of sacrament.
This is another fact, another social institution, in which the
collective ideas of the community find their expression. And everywhere
we find not only that the idea of individual marriage exists, but that
it by no means bears the features of anything like recent innovation,
or a subordinate form subservient to the idea of group marriage.
As well in the betrothal ceremonies as in infant engagements, in
the ideas of legality of marriage, exchange of females and purchase
of the wife--in all these facts we find that the aborigines have a
deeply-rooted idea and high appreciation of the individual rights of
the husband to his wife.[154] It is also to be noted that, as Spencer
and Gillen inform us, when a man wished to persuade a woman to elope
with him, he resorted to magic; in this presence of a magical element
lay a certain degree of justification that ensured him the help of some
of his relatives.
[152] Reasons have been already advanced to support our
belief that such betrothal ceremonies were in fact more
frequent than our informants report. Considering now the
force attached by the natives to what is called infant
betrothal, we perhaps have another reason to justify this
supposition.
[153] There is no room here to discuss this general
assertion at length. But it may be made plausible
by pointing out that a certain status must be quite
fundamental in a society to get the religious sanction (for
instance monogamy in our country), and that it requires
undoubtedly a long process in order to transform this
sanction into a formal act and put into a material form the
accumulated action of many social forces.
[154] In what these individual rights consist will be
discussed in detail below. Evidently it is erroneous,
though a frequent error, to understand here exclusively the
sexual rights.
In short the modes of obtaining wives enforced and expressed of
themselves a good deal of the validity of marriage. We have still
to ask if the marriage was binding for both sides or only for the
female. This is an important question and closely connected with the
legal aspect of marriage. For marriage being a kind of obligation,
the question presents itself, whether only one party was bound by
it or both. There is but little direct evidence upon this point in
the statements. Beveridge asserts stoutly the latter; from Dawson's
statement we conclude that the former was the case, as he says that
a man could only under certain conditions repudiate his wife and had
to ask the permission of the Chief. But it must be borne in mind that
marriage had by no means the features of a contract into which both
consorts would enter with mutual agreement. Marriage in Australia
must be much more viewed in the light of a privilege acquired by the
man, and for which, as we saw, he usually has to pay in one way or
the other. It was always a great advantage to a man, both for sexual
and economic reasons, as will be clearly evident in the respective
chapters. The economic advantages persisted even when she grew old
(compare Lumholtz, p. 207). It was therefore scarcely necessary to
compel an individual to fulfil an obligation that was advantageous
to him. It may be therefore said that marriage, being an advantage
for a man--usually acquired by exchange, gifts, or an act of bravery,
sometimes inherited (Levirate)--was an obligation binding on the woman
in the first place. There are practically no reasons to suppose that a
man would ever repudiate a wife. As long as the woman was young, her
husband tried obviously by all means to keep her, and would display all
his personal force and social influence to frustrate any attempt at
abduction. When his wife grew old he would, perhaps, secure a new one
if possible; in two of the few authentic anecdotes told of the natives
a man is represented as possessing one old wife and another quite young
(see Grey, _loc. cit._, ii. pp. 350-361, and Curr, _Recollections_,
pp. 141-145); there was no reason to repudiate the old one, as she would
go on working and providing food for her husband.
In the statements referring to treatment of women, there will be
some which show that husbands sometimes displayed a great affection
towards their old wives. Moreover, Mr. Mathew's statement (on p. 73)
mentions explicitly that marriage bonds lasted usually for life; Roth
and Lumholtz inform us that great respect was often paid to old women,
consequently it can hardly be supposed that they were cast off by their
husbands as useless. We must also remember that usually there was a
great disparity of age between the husband and wife. As infant children
were often betrothed to mature men, when they reached puberty their
husbands were quite old already. Such a woman was kept until the death
of her husband, when she fell to the lot of his younger brother or the
nearest relative (tribal brother) who wished to keep her.
The practice of the Levirate seems to be very widespread.[155] To
us it seems to be in the first place the expression of the idea of
complete right of a man over his wife. With his death this right was
not extinguished, but only passed to his nearest relative. If she were
elderly she would probably become the property of a young boy, as these
were usually deprived of wives. Such couples--of which one was quite
young and the other more than mature--seem to be very frequent. In
these cases marriage lasted till the death of the older party. From
this it may be concluded that it was the husband's interest to keep his
wife. As to the latter, the only way in which she could have dissolved
the marriage bonds appears to be by finding a protector with whom to
elope. This undoubtedly occurred from time to time. But then it was
not a simple pacific dissolution of marriage, only an act of violence,
always pursued with varying vehemence, as shown above.
[155] Howitt, _S.E. Tr._, pp. 193, 224, 227, 236, 248,
Kulin tribe, p. 255; Yuin tribe, p. 266; Kurnai tribe,
_Kam. and Kurn._, p. 204; _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118;
Wotjobaluk, Wakelbura, Turribul, _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118;
J. Dawson, p. 27; _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170 (Gason on the
Dieri); _Ibid._, p. 194 (Inspector Foelsche on the Pt.
Darwin tribes); Lumholtz, pp. 160, 161; Salvado, p. 278.
From all this we may conclude that marriage was not as a rule an
ephemeric occurrence among the Australian natives. In the majority of
cases it lasted for life; anyhow, for a long period. To supply here
the _experimentum crucis_, let us quote some contradictory instances.
Lumholtz says that the women usually change their husbands so often
that the children do not generally know their fathers and never grow
very attached to them (_loc. cit._, p. 193; comp. below, p. 245).
Salvado, speaking of the unhappy lot of an aboriginal beauty, mentions
that she has very often to pass from hand to hand, being continually
coveted and captured by some new lover who is stronger than her actual
possessor. The same is related by Grey. Lumholtz's cursory statement is
not explicit enough to enable us to judge whether it were not formed
from observations of "civilized blacks." He was only a short time
in personal contact with the natives, and what he gathered from the
settlers applied probably in the main to blacks corrupted by contact
with civilization. Salvado's and Grey's information applies only to
exceptional cases when the belle excited special passions by her
personal charms. Besides, from all we know, elopement, and still more
capture, were not every-day occurrences which would follow each other
in the case of the same woman. On the contrary, if an exceptionally
desirable woman were taken away by some strong and influential
aggressor from her lawful husband, the former would have power enough,
personal and social, to retain her, if he had enough to secure her.
That elopements occurred and that they were more frequent in the case
of a beautiful and useful woman is beyond doubt. Still the picture that
we would form from these three statements does not seem to fit the
framework of the other facts.
The question as to the length of the normal duration of the Australian
marriage is a very important one. And, unhappily, the scanty
evidence does not allow of a sufficiently clear and detailed answer.
Nevertheless, the few statements that say anything about this matter
point to a lifelong duration, or at least to a long period of marriage.
At any rate the view often expressed that the primitive pairing family
is a highly unstable unit, formed and dissolved very frequently,
according to the whim of the moment, without any serious obligation
for a longer duration of the common life--this view appears absolutely
denied by the Australian evidences. It is impossible to find a direct
answer in the evidence to the question whether the general rule was
duration for life, or whether, after the wife became useless both
sexually and economically, she was repudiated. But our short discussion
pointed rather to the first view. Moreover, if marriage were not a
serious matter and if it were possible to form and dissolve it without
further ado, all its features set forth in this chapter (legality,
actual obligations, purchase, etc.) would be absolutely unnecessary; in
fact they would be quite unintelligible. In such a low society as the
Australian especially, when an institution (here individual marriage)
shows so many aspects, even in a rudimentary state, it proves that
this institution has a very firm basis. As the act that brought about
marriage was usually one of importance and subject to many conditions,
so also an attempt to dissolve it was grave in itself and in its
consequences.
Now let us summarize our results in a few words. Marriage was brought
about as a rule in the form of infant betrothal, which was binding on
both parties; it was accompanied by the exchange of relatives; always
there were certain mutual obligations. In cases when a man secured a
wife without her family's approval (but usually with her own consent),
this act was considered a trespass, both in the cases of a girl and of
a married woman. The couple was pursued, and unless the elopement was
in some way expiated and legalized, both were punished. The idea of
legality may be safely applied to Australian marriage in all its forms.
For in all there was the necessity of a previous or subsequent sanction
of society, and if this were absent society used actually to interfere
with the union. The idea of the individuality of marriage was also
quite clear to the aboriginal mind and expressed itself in many of the
facts connected with the marriage contract. It may be added that it was
only in marriage by elopement that the man and woman had a free choice.
In all the normal cases neither of them had any voice in the matter at
the time of actual marriage.
CHAPTER III
HUSBAND AND WIFE
It may be said that marriage in either of its forms makes the woman
the property of her husband. We must, of course, carefully define the
word "property." This we shall do by analyzing the economic duties of
the woman, the sexual rights of the husband, and in general, the limits
of marital authority, and the features of the treatment applied by a
native to his wife. As the economic aspect will be better described
below, in connection with the family life in general (including
relations of parents to children), I shall here pass briefly over this
point, remarking that the economic function of a wife is most important
in the aboriginal life. She has to provide the regular food supply, to
undertake the drudgery of camp life, the care of the children and all
household implements, especially on marches. There remains the sexual
aspect of marital life and the authority of the husband, including the
treatment of the wife.
Let us turn to the latter question and pass in review some statements
illustrating the general character of the marital relations; the limits
of the husband's authority and power; the actual use he makes of his
authority, _i. e._ the treatment of the family; and last, but not
least, what idea may be deduced from our evidence as to the feelings
of the two consorts towards each other. On this subject few reliable
statements will be found, and even these will be rather contradictory.
And it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. We are asking
here not for a report of plain facts, but for a judgment on more or
less complicated and hidden phenomena; this refers especially to the
psychical side of the question, _i. e._ to the problem of conjugal
affection. But even the other aspects of the problem--authority and
treatment--although they are but a sum of facts, are always given in
the form of vague general assertions and in that of qualified judgments.
Very few writers trouble at all about the deeper, underlying phenomena.
What they see is the way in which a woman is treated by her husband;
they often judge this way according to their own moral principles and
sensitiveness. They forget that, using the words of Messrs. Spencer
and Gillen, "what would cause very serious pain to a civilized woman
only results in trifling discomfort to a savage." For all these reasons
there will be more scope for corrections in these statements than in
the series given above.
_Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai there were certain limits to the
husband's authority: "Although a man might kill his wife under
certain circumstances, and his act would be then approved by custom
and by public opinion, yet, under other circumstances, he might not
do so without incurring blood feud."[156] All the duties of the
family were "shared equally" by man and woman.[157] This statement,
as to the limits of authority, is in agreement with all we shall
find afterwards: nobody and nothing could interfere with the
husband if he ill-treated his wife, unless her life was threatened.
Then her relatives intervened. What the expression of "sharing
the duties" means, is not quite clear. If it refers to economic
functions, we shall have a better picture later; but it stands as
a contrast to such expressions as "slave" or "drudge," used in
connection with the wife's rôle by so many writers. In another
place Howitt says: "I have known many instances ... including
several cases among the Kurnai, of men carrying their wives about
the country when too old or too sick to walk."[158] This would
point to a great affection, not only resulting from erotic motives,
but from real attachment, such as unites human beings who have
lived and suffered much together.
[156] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 206.
[157] See below on economic side of family life.
[158] _Nat. Tr._, p. 766.
Among the Bangerang "community of interests between man and wife
is much less than amongst civilized people. The husband gorges
himself before he gives the rest of his food to his wife. He is a
constant check on her free will and inclinations. She regards him
more as her master and enemy than as her mate. But as she is not
very sensitive, and educated to her lot, she bears it patiently,
and after a year or two she is happy on the whole."[159]
[159] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 259.
Speaking of the Australian aborigines in general, Curr says:[160]
"The husband is almost an autocrat. His wife he may ill-treat as
he chooses. In rare instances he will exchange her for another,
repudiate, or give her away." He may not kill her; her relatives
would kill the first of his blood. "Otherwise the husband may treat
his wife as he likes." "The husband is the absolute owner of his
wife. He may do as he pleases with her, treat her well or brutally,
ill-use her at his pleasure; keep her to himself, prostitute her,
exchange her for another, or give her away." But he adds, "Yet ...
they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented."
[160] _A.R._, i. pp. 60, 110. Curr knew personally only
the Bangerang tribe, and some others in North Victoria
(Glenbourn and Murray tribes), and his general observations
must be taken as framed on this material, as he does
not seem to be sufficiently aware of how many and deep
differences there might be between different tribes.
Amongst some West Victorian tribes, "notwithstanding this drudgery
and the apparent hard usage to which the women are subjected, there
is no want of affection amongst the members of a family."[161]
The author speaks even of "persistent disrespect and unkindness"
of a wife towards her husband;[162] he speaks also of women being
"legally separated"[163] from their husbands; and of magic charms
worked by husbands for punishment of their wives;[164] all this
would point rather to a regulated and less brutal treatment. Here
we have the usual concurrence of "hard usage" and affection.
Characteristic is the addition of "apparent" to "hard usage." It
is, perhaps, the whole style of treatment which appears to be hard
to a European observer: the scale is shifted, but undoubtedly the
nervous system of the natives is less responsive, too. What Dawson
says about separation and husbands recurring to magic to influence
their wives, seems to speak still more in favour of the good
position of women. But we must remember, that in his whole book,
Dawson uses rather bright colours to picture the native character,
and tries never to say anything that could shock a European reader.
[161] Dawson, p. 37.
[162] _Ibid._, p. 36.
[163] _Ibid._, pp. 35, 36.
[164] _Ibid._, p. 36.
Bonney asserts that "quarrels between husband and wife are rare,
and they show much affection for each other in their own way."
Apparent coolness in their relations is required by custom. He
gives an example of a couple who "loved each other," and did not
even greet after a long absence.[165] According to the statement
the treatment of women was fairly good, and there was also no want
of mutual affection.
[165] _Loc. cit._, p. 130.
Angas writes that among the aborigines, whom he had under
observation (Lower Murray tribes), the man walks proudly in front,
the woman following him; she is treated like a slave, and during
meals receives bones and fragments like a dog.[166]
[166] _Loc. cit._, i. pp. 82, 83.
About some of the Lower Murray natives we are told by Eyre, "But
little real affection exists between husbands and wives." "Women
are often sadly ill-treated by their husbands," "beaten about the
head with waddies," "speared in the limbs," etc. Here we have
bad treatment based on absolute authority and complete want of
affection. Besides, we are told, "each father of a family rules
absolutely over his own circle."[167]
[167] _Loc. cit._, ii. pp. 321, 322.
A statement of Mitchell (quoted by B. Smyth, i. p. 85), suggests
that there could not be much affection between husband and wife.
"... After a battle they (the women) do not always follow the
fugitives from the field, but not infrequently go over, as a matter
of course, to the victors, even with young children on their
backs."[168] This statement sounds not very trustworthy. We never
hear of open battles, in which fugitives would leave the camp
unprotected. Besides, even if affection would not bind them to
the "fugitives," would fear of the stranger and enemy not act in
this direction? Little weight must be, therefore, attached to this
evidence.
[168] This statement refers, probably, to the Murray and
Darling River tribes, without any exact localization.
Taplin, about the Narrinyeri, says that sometimes the treatment of
women by their husbands is very bad; but this is not always the
case. "I have known as well-matched and loving couples amongst the
aborigines as I have amongst Europeans."[169] This last comparison
shows that the ill-treatment was not a clearly distinctive feature
of the aboriginal married life.
[169] _Loc. cit._, p. 12.
The Encounter Bay tribe (Narrinyeri) regarded the wives "more
as slaves than in any other light."[170] This statement implies
lack of affection, absolute authority, and probably bad treatment.
Nevertheless, we cannot be content with such a metaphorical and
peremptory phrase on such an important subject. It is, therefore,
useless, and adduced only as an example of how different and
contradictory the statement of even good informants may be.
[170] H. E. A. Meyer in Woods, p. 191.
We are told of a case, where a black woman of the Murrumbidgee
River tribe, who lived in marital relations with a white
bushranger, evinced for him the greatest affection and attachment,
and even several times helped him to escape justice with great
self-sacrifice. Although she was ill-treated by him in the most
brutal and revolting way, nothing could alter her feelings.[171]
This example may serve as an illustration of how attached a black
woman may be to her husband, even if he ill-treats her.
[171] Bennett, pp. 248, 249.
An account of the brutality of a woman's treatment is given by
Tench (referring to the Port Jackson blacks). "But, indeed, the
women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity; condemned
not only to carry the children, but all other burthens, they meet
in return for submission only with blows, kicks, and every other
mark of brutality."[172] But Tench's statements do not appear to go
very deeply below the surface of superficial observations.
[172] _Loc. cit._, pp. 199, 200.
The same author in another place adduces the wounds and scars of
women as examples of "ill-treatment."[173] How much weight is to be
attached to such an inference is well known, after the explanation
given by Spencer and Gillen.[174] I adduce this statement as one
which is obviously unreliable, at the same time being typical of a
whole class of statements based upon insufficient and superficial
observations.
[173] _Loc. cit._, p. 181.
[174] Compare their statement below.
Interesting is what Turnbull says in his old account: "The women
appear to attach themselves faithfully to their husbands thus
chosen: they are exceedingly jealous of them."[175]
[175] Turnbull, J., p. 99 (concerning some tribes of New
South Wales, probably of the neighbourhood of Port Jackson).
C. P. Hodgson,[176] speaking of some New South Wales tribes, says
that _gins_ were slaves of their men and had all the drudgery of
camp. The misleading term "slave" is of little use to us.
[176] _Loc. cit._, p. 217; compare p. 208.
According to Collins, in the Port Jackson tribes the father enjoyed
absolute authority over his family.[177]
[177] Collins, i. p. 544.
Dr. John Fraser[178] speaks of the bad treatment of the woman by
her husband amongst the natives of New South Wales. Further he
says: "In spite of the hardness of their mode of life, married
couples often live happily and affectionately together...."[179]
[178] _Abor. N.S.W._, p. 2. This work is not written by a
first-hand observer; I quote his opinion because the writer
seems to have got sometimes good personal information, and
to be an able compiler.
[179] _Ibid._, p. 35.
G. W. Rusden writes:[180] "... a man had power of life and death
over his wife." This asserts absolute authority; we know, that as a
rule, the man had not the power of death over his wife unless she
proved especially guilty.
[180] _Loc. cit._, p. 283. The tribes in question are the
Geawe Gal, New South Wales, Hunter River.
Rob. Dawson relates of the Port Stephens blacks, that they treated
their wives very badly--with club and spear.[181]
[181] _Loc. cit._, pp. 66, 67.
Hodgkinson remarks that the women are better treated in the
River MacLeay tribes than among the other tribes he had under
observation.[182] This may point to a real difference in the
treatment of women among different tribes, or to the fact that the
other tribes which Hodgkinson might have observed were nearer the
settlements, and therefore more degenerate.
[182] _Loc. cit._, p. 229.
As to the Euahlayi, Mrs. Parker remarks only: "In books about
blacks, you always read of the subjection of the women, but I have
seen henpecked black husbands."[183] This statement, which implies
that bad treatment was not universal, is inexact and therefore of
little use.
[183] _Loc. cit._, p. 58.
We read about the Central Australian tribes of Finke River: "Some
married couples agree very well, live frequently quite alone in
solitude, and together provide for their wants."[184] The wives are
only ill-treated in case they elope.
[184] L. Schultze, p. 237.
"The women are certainly not treated usually with anything which
could be called excessive harshness" among the Aruntas.[185] Only
in cases of infidelity "the treatment of the woman is marked by
brutal and often revolting severity."[186] The same is repeated of
the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[187] We are also told
that the scars that the majority of women possess are due, not to
the barbarity of their husbands, but to the mourning ceremonies,
during which the women beat and wound themselves severely. And the
authors conclude: "Taking everything into account, however, the
life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of
her requirements ... is far from being the miserable one that it is
so often pictured."[188] For what would be a severe pain to a white
woman is for them merely a trifling discomfort.
[185] Spencer & Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 50.
[186] _Ibid._
[187] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 32, 33.
[188] _Nor. Tr._, p. 33.
We read in Barron Field, on the authority of two shipwrecked men,
who spent some time among the natives of Moreton Bay, that the
women are there usually well treated by their husbands.[189]
[189] _Loc. cit._, p. 66.
Another analogous statement is given on the Moreton Bay tribes:
"The wife is rather the drudge or slave, than the companion of her
husband." This (although badly formulated) means bad treatment and
lack of affection as well. But we read further on that cruelty is
perpetrated usually under the effect of rum; this corroborates our
supposition made in connection with Lumholtz's statement. And we
learn yet: "but instances also of warm and deep affection are not
infrequent."[190] And the author confirms it by an example.
[190] J. D. Lang, p. 337.
Among the Kabi and Wakka: "Husbands were usually affectionate to
their wives, but when angered they were often brutal, thrashing
them unmercifully with waddies, sometimes breaking their limbs and
cracking their skulls. Still the conjugal bond generally held out
for a lifetime."[191]
[191] J. Mathew, p. 153.
Lumholtz says: "The women are the humble servants or rather slaves
of the native."[192] The women are ill-treated in the most cruel
manner; he gives an example of a wife being awfully maltreated for
a trifle.[193] But this happened among "civilized blacks." If she
elopes she may be even killed. But sometimes they are examples of
loving couples.[194] In another place we read of love and jealousy
and of the great affection they are capable of;[195] and an example
thereof is given. This statement suggests to us that much of the
ill-treatment was due perhaps to the "civilization" of the blacks.
[192] Lumholtz, p. 100.
[193] _Ibid._, p. 161.
[194] _Ibid._, p. 163.
[195] _Ibid._, p. 213.
An analogous statement in this regard is given by Palmer,
concerning the tribes of Upper Flinders and Cloncurry River. The
lot of the women is hard and they are often treated with club
and spear. There are, nevertheless, happy and mutually regardful
couples.[196]
[196] Palmer, p. 28.
Roth says[197] that among the North-West Queensland tribes the
man has absolute authority over his wife. In another place we are
informed, that "in the case of a man killing his own gin, he has
to deliver one of his own sisters" to be put to death. And "... a
wife has always her 'brothers' to look after her interests." Thus,
in some extreme cases, the husband's authority seems to be limited
by his wife's kindred, who protect her.
[197] Bull. 8, p. 6.
The women among the Cape York natives are reported to have a very
hard life, but occasionally there exists a strong attachment
between a married couple.[198]
[198] Macgillivray, ii. pp. 8, 9.
In West Australia the man is said to possess a full and inheritable
right over his wife.[199] Grey says that they have very much to
suffer, especially from the jealousy of their masters.[200] The
authority of the husband appears also in the story, told in Chapter
XVII, where the husband inflicts a severe beating on his two wives;
nevertheless, he seems to display also a certain affection for them
and great care, protecting them as far as possible.[201]
[199] Grey, ii. p. 230.
[200] _Ibid._, pp. 248, 249.
[201] Compare Grey, ii. chap. xvii. p. 350, especially
pp. 353, 354; point 3, p. 359.
We learn from Bishop Salvado that: "La méthode qu'il [the husband]
emploie pour la [his wife] corriger est si barbare, qu'il arrive
bien souvent que ... il lui traverse une jambe de son Ghici, il
lui casse la tête de son Danac et lui prodigue mainte autre
tendresse de ce genre,"[202] in cases of jealousy. In general
"L'état d'esclavage dans lequel toutes sont retenues est vraiment
déplorable. La seule présence de leurs maris les fait trembler, et
la mauvais humeur de ceux-ci se décharge souvent sur elles par des
coups et des blessures."[203] The barbarous modes of treatment are
well known to us; what is more important is the great fear they are
said to have of their husbands. But, in another place, the same
author speaks of tender and affectionate couples: "I l
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48865