CHAPTER VIIIECONOMICSNow we proceed to pass in survey the economic facts connected with family life in Australia. As we are dealing with the individual family, the first question that naturally presents itself is: How far in Australia is the individual family an economic unit? In other words, in what way is the individuality of the single family determined by the economic facts?To answer this general question we are led to examine various sets of facts. In the first place, we know that in primitive societies there is already a rudimentary division of labour, or rather a division of economic functions, within the household. It is usually called the sexual division of labour; obviously it makes the household an economic unit; for it is just the division of labour which establishes the unity of a social group from the economic point of view. We must ask, therefore: Which, respectively, are the chief functions of the husband and of the wife? Who provides the food and performs the labours of the camp?The economic unity of the family may also be constituted by other facts. It is necessary in this connection to say a few words again of individual land ownership, discussed above in connection with the mode of living; several statements must be adduced referring to the well-known features of communism and general liberality among the Australian blacks. These features throw considerable light upon native economics with reference to the constitution of the family. Let us begin by examining the evidence on the sexual division of labour.Statements.—The question of the economic side of family life is quite correctly set forth and answered by Howitt[851]: Amongst the Kurnai, as "the pairing family is strictly established," we might expect "that the domestic life, the arrangements of the family circle, and the division of labour should conform, more or less perfectly, to that condition.... The man has to provide for his family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for their support and to fight for their protection." The woman has to build the hut, to fish, to gather fruit seeds and all vegetable food, and to weave rush bags or nets. "The supply of vegetable food procured by the woman is all devoted to her husband, her children and herself."[852]The man's contribution goes only in part to supply the wants of his own family, the rest being divided between other relatives (see below). Fishing belonged to both sexes.[853]Dawson reports the existence of permanent and temporary dwellings in his tribes. "The men share the labour of making the permanent dwelling, but the women are compelled to erect the smaller one."[854]The women carry in bags on their back all domestic utensils, as sticks, tinder for producing fire, gum for cement, shells, tools, charms and food. The custom of carrying burning fire-sticks is also reported by Dawson.[855]And in another place we read: "After marriage the women are compelled to do all the hard work of erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food, and attending to the children. The only work the men do in time of peace is to hunt for opossums and large animals of various kinds, and to make rugs and weapons."[856]A still clearer picture of the division of labour between the sexes is drawn by Curr in his Memoirs. On the march the men carried the arms and their personal effects; the women had to carry all the other implements as well as the small children. The supply of vegetable food belonged to them.[857]When several families camped together the women went in parties to procure roots, small animals and other food, carrying babies on their backs and followed by other children.The men, in parties of three or four, went out hunting. After returning to camp, each party cooked its food. The men, however, gave to their wives only the remainder of their food, sharing it first with the children; it seems, therefore, that the food supply provided by the female was much more regular and reliable, and therefore of greater importance to the family, than the man's share.[858]And again we read: "At the family fires the father generally cooked the animals which he brought home, and the woman the roots which were her contribution."[859]Speaking of all the Australian tribes in general, Curr says: "Among the Australian blacks the common occupations of the men are the manufacture of arms and implements for hunting, fishing and occasionally war. The women generally procure and cook vegetables and fish, collect wood for fire, manufacture nets and bags. On the march the woman carries child, household effects, fire-stick, and digs for roots and vegetables."[860]"Wives have to undergo all the drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the hardest work."[861]This statement gives quite clearly the division of labour, the greater share falling on the wife.Amongst the Mount Gambier tribes (West Victoria) the females have to construct the lodge, to collect firewood, and to make the fire.[862]They always carry the fire-stick when travelling.[863]They fetch water and collect all vegetable food, roots, and mushrooms, with their digging-stick.[864]The men's task is hunting; they do it generally in company.[865]Men make arms and prepare skins; women, objects of use and adornment.[866]We read in Angas that carrying all the things, digging of roots, and making the huts is woman's work.[867]Eyre says that the women had to dress the huts.[868]We read in Br. Smyth that women had to carry all the "worldly goods" of their husbands, even part of their arms.[869]The men hunt and women collect food during their march according to Protector Thomas. There exists a customary communism among them.[870]Mitchell says that because of their great skill in manufacturing all the things of daily use as "nets, cloaks, mussel-fishing, rooting, etc.; and their patient submission to labour,always carrying bags containing the whole property of the family while they follow their masters, the great value of a gin to one of these lazy fellows may be easily imagined."[871]They are, therefore, the chief objects of all their fights.Meyer states about the Encounter Bay tribes that the man regarded his wife as a slave and let her do all the hard work, employing her in all ways to his advantage.[872]He even prostituted her for objects of use.[873]But he states also the typical division of labour: "the men employ themselves ... either in fishing or hunting emus, opossums, kangaroos, etc., while the women and children search for roots and plants." It is also the women's task to arrange the encampments.[874]In the Port Lincoln tribes men provided animal and women vegetable food.[875]We read in another author, about the same tribes, that women have to collect vegetable food, while the men are hunting.[876]There is also some kind of division of consumption; men eat male, women female animals, and children the small ones.[877]Among the Wiradjuri (New South Wales): "The wife always looks after the camping arrangements."[878]Speaking of the Port Jackson tribes, Tench says that they derive their principal food supply from fishing. Both men and women take part in this; the men spearing the fish and the women catching them from land and sea. Both husband and wife bring their shares to the common household.[879]Both men and women take part in procuring the fish supply among the natives of Botany Bay.[880]According to Henderson, among some of the New South Wales tribes the women have to carry children and all burdens; they procure also roots and shellfish.[881]Gribble says: "The women always look after camp arrangements."[882]Fishing was the chief support of the aborigines of Port Jackson described by D. Collins. In procuring this food, men, women and children were employed.[883]In the compilation of Dr. Fraser, on the New South Wales tribes, we have a detailed account of the sexual division of labour. The woman has to put up the wurley; to light andkeep the fire, to carry the fire-stick, to cook the food. On the march she carries the bag containing the whole property of the family, the children and the yam-stick. Her duty is to provide fish and vegetable food.[884]The man has only to hunt.[885]All the drudgery of the camp and all the hard work was the lot of the women. They made nets and bags and they carried, on the marches, all the domestic implements as well as the children.[886]In the Arunta tribe the women have "to do a considerable part, but by no means all, of the work of the camp."[887]From a detailed description we see that the women have to procure vegetable food and small animals, marsupials, etc., which they do with their digging-sticks. The man's task is hunting.[888]In the Port Essington tribes, the digging of roots and collecting of shellfish was the woman's task.[889]"I have observed that upon the northern coasts of Australia the amount of the population upon a certain tract of country is great or small in proportion to the quantity ofvegetablefood it produces. However abundant animal food may be, a toilsome search for edible roots gives almost constant occupation to a portion of every tribe. Women and children labour for hours together, with no other implement than a pointed stick, in following up the creeping stem of the wild yam through the earth until the root is arrived at, often at a depth of six or eight feet below the surface. A certain proportion of vegetable food appears, indeed, to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and they willingly forego the use of the animal food, if this more grateful diet can be obtained in sufficient abundance."[890]We are informed that among the Bunya-Bunya people (Turrubul and kindred tribes, South East Queensland) the woman had all the heavy work to do.[891]Among the aborigines of Moreton Bay, women have to erect the huts and provide vegetable food for the whole party, as the men only have to supply fish and game.[892]We owe a good description of the division of labour on the march to Mathew: "When shifting from one campingground to another they usually moved slowly through the bush, the families separating and gathering their food on the way—opossums, bandicoots, honey, grubs, birds, and so forth. At other times they marched along singly, the lordsof creation stepping out with elastic tread and graceful bearing, carrying their light weapons with perhaps some game, the weaker vessel loaded with the chattels and possibly a baby on the back in a loop of a rug or sitting stride-leg on a shoulder. Some would carry live fire-sticks to save the trouble of producing fire by friction. Arrived at the familiar, well-chosen rendezvous, it was the duty of the women to cut the bark of the humpies (dwellings) and prepare the fires."[893]Further on we read: "The women were skilled in the manufacture of nets and of dillie-bags made of grass or twine."[894]"The man's chief home duties consisted in cooking and eating. He would also spend much time in fashioning his weapons."[895]Lumholtz speaks of the woman as the slave of her husband. "He does only what pleases himself, and leaves all work to his wives; therefore the more wives he has the richer he is."[896]We see here again the economic value of a wife directly stated. In another place: "It is the women who daily provide food," often making long excursions for this purpose, and collecting fruits, digging roots and chopping larvæ out of the tree-stems. "She must do all the hard work," carry the baby, make the fire, cook, provide water and fuel, dress the hut. She carries all the baggage on the march, as well as the children. The man carries only his arms. "The husband's contribution to the household is chiefly honey, but occasionally he provides eggs, game, lizards, and the like. He very often, however, keeps the animal food for himself, while the woman has to depend principally upon vegetables for herself and her child. Upon the whole he feels no responsibility as the father of a family."[897]It is interesting to find that the men make not only weapons but also, exclusively, baskets.[898]Among the North-West Queensland tribes: "It is the husband's business, in the main, to supply the animal food for the family, and although a particular dietary may be forbidden him he has no compunction in hunting or killing it for his kith and kin."[899]It is necessary to add that according to Roth's information each member of a given family has some special food forbidden to him; because each class has its special food taboos, and in a family the father, the mother and the children, each belong to a different class.[900]Roth sees in this institution the chief aim of the class system.[901]Vegetable food and fish seem to be supplied by womenchiefly.[902]The same general principle of sexual division of labour is reported in another place by the same author. We read there that the father's duty was to supply his family with animal food, whereas the mother had to provide the vegetable food. On the wanderings the wife follows her husband at a considerable distance, carrying all the implements and often the children.[903]Among the natives of Cape York the woman has to procure practically all food for herself and her husband.[904]Moore describes the women in West Australia as being almost the slaves of their husbands. They have to attend upon the men and to carry all their property. They construct the hut, kindle the fire, and have to provide all the vegetable food.[905]The digging of the yams is a very laborious task.[906]In return they often do not get even their share of game.[907]John Forrest writes in his account: "The women are nearly slaves, having to do most of the hard work, such as making huts, carrying wood, and also carrying all the baggage, which includes many weapons, grease, 'wilgie,' and a host of articles, wooden dishes, etc., besides often a child. The man does not generally carry much except his spears, etc."[908]Among some of the West Australian blacks, a female, before she is married, has under certain circumstances to provide "individuals of a certain degree of relationship to herself with a certain amount of vegetable food."[909]After her marriage her husband is entitled "to the chief part of her services. While she has to supply him with unlimited quantities of yams and other roots, he does very little towards providing for her wants, merely giving her the offal of game." The woman is thus the chief caterer of the family. She is "a slave in the strictest sense of the word, being a beast of burden, a provider of food."[910]In South-West Australia the woman carries all the domestic implements on her back."Pendant que la femme chemine avec toute cette charge, l'homme marche devant sa famille, portant seulement ses armes de la main gauche."He looks for animals,[911]the chase is his task.[912]The woman has to light the fire, carry the fire-stick,[913]fetch the water[914]; she has also to construct the hut.[915]We are informed by Browne that all the hard work, the carrying of heavy burdens, camp arrangements, etc., is done by the women among the natives of King George's Sound.[916]The economic division of labour, based upon the co-operation of both sexes, is stated by Scott Nind. The women and men go out in search of food, or hunting, in separate parties. The women chiefly collect roots and small animals; men go out hunting. Each sex reserves a part of its share for the family. "The women are very useful for them (their husbands), not only in procuring food, but also in preparing their cloaks, building their huts and other menial offices."[917]We see that our thirty-five statements agree pretty well as to the general features of the division of labour. Certain of the economic functions, like hunting, making of weapons and, undoubtedly, the important function of protecting the family, are allotted to the men. Other work—the providing of roots, bulbs and other vegetable food, camp work and carrying heavy burdens, manufacturing nets and usually fishing—all this is the duty of the woman. Our statements more or less agree upon this division of labour. The more detailed ones (Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Mathew, B. Field, Oldfield, Moore) depict to us the occupations of the man and of his wife in nearly the same words. Only in the statements of Collins, Tench and Phillips is fishing mentioned as a common occupation of men and women. But these statements (probably not independent of each other) are not so explicit and reliable as to lead us to make exceptions of the Port Jackson tribes. We may, therefore, affirm the existence of a very marked sexual division of labour, which seems to present everywhere the same features and to be nearly identical over the whole continent.Prima faciethis division of labour consists only in each sex having its different occupations prescribed by custom. But more careful analysis shows that there are other features which more deeply differentiate the economic activities of the sexes.It is easy to see that the amount of work allotted to women isconsiderably greaterand that their labour is muchharderthan the men's work. This is directly affirmed by a series of statements (Curr, Dawson, Stanbridge, Tom Petrie, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest, Salvado, Scott Nind, Moore). This is also undoubtedly a reason why so many authors designate the wife's position as that of a slave and drudge. But it also results directly from a comparison of the occupations allotted to women with those allotted to men. A woman had to carry all the heavy things, all the objects of domestic use, her own as well as her husband's; for the man carried only his weapons (Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Angas, Br. Smyth, Thomas, Phillips, Fraser, Lumholtz, Salvado). The woman had to construct huts and look after camping arrangements (Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Stanbridge, Meyer, Schürmann, Angas, Howitt on the Wiradjuri, Gribble, Henderson, Fraser, Field, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest, Salvado, Browne). All this was rather hard work, especially when compared with the man's share of work, which was mainly hunting and fashioning weapons. It must not be forgotten that women were often encumbered in their work by suckling, carrying their children, and by the various cares demanded by the latter. The digging for roots is also exceedingly hard work (Moore, Earl).More regularandsystematickind of labour is also called for by the nature of the woman's tasks. These are intimately connected with the wandering mode of life of the aborigines. Obviously in a people which was forced by natural conditions to lead a roaming life, such tasks must necessarily have required regular labour. The other chief female occupation—collecting roots and small animals—required also a regular kind of labour. All these occupations—being, as just said, harder and more systematic than men's work, clearly appear also to be much more wearing and tiresome; compared with the men's occupations they appear much less in the light ofsport and amusement. The man makes his weapons and hunts, and this is a natural and pleasant sport for him. There are no elements of excitement or variety in the women's work; it is just this element of system and of regularity which makes work repulsive and hard to man, and especially to primitive man. Work of this kind is usually done only under a strong compulsion; and woman's work in Australia appears also to be compulsory. This is directly stated in several places (Dawson, Curr, Mitchell, Forrest, Moore, Oldfield). This compulsory character is undoubtedly another reason why the women's position is described in other statements as that of a slave and drudge.A very important point is that the woman's share in labour was of much morevital importanceto the maintenance of the household than man's work. This is quite obvious, seeing that the general occupations of camp life were of essential necessity for a roving people. But even the food supply, contributed by the women, was far more important than the man's share. We read that the chief resource of the natives, especially in bad seasons, is vegetable food (Oldfield). And the interesting statement of Earl confirms this in a still stronger manner. So that it appears fairly probable that, on the whole, food collected by women was the staple food of the natives. But not only does the kind of food supplied by the man appear on the whole to be less important than that contributed by the woman, but it seems as if the man's contribution, which in the main was reduced to his hunting products, was devoted much less exclusively to his family's benefit. In order to understand this, let us adduce some statements relating to communism of food, and giving besides some interesting details about aboriginal economics.Statements.—Among the Kurnai[918]the hunter who killed a big piece of game gave some of it to the men who assisted him in killing, cooking or carving. The chief parts weredivided among his wives' parents and his own parents. These in return supplied their son and son-in-law respectively with meat the next day. Similar rules, varying according to the game and tribe, obtained also among the Murring tribes of New South Wales.[919]Important for us is the general feature of communism; the preponderancy given to the parents of a man and his wife. If the man be unmarried he provides chiefly his parents and his brother and sister.[920]The grandparents cared especially for their grandchildren.[921]In the Wurrunjeri tribe a kangaroo was distributed among those present in camp and the hunter's family. The man had (even in case of a limited food supply) to provide for his own and his wife's parents. They cared in turn for him.[922]Communism obtained among the Kulin tribes.[923]A communism, similar to that of the Kurnai, prevailed among the Narran-ga.[924]The same is related about the tribes of the Karamundi[925]; the Wolgal tribe,[926]amongst whom the woman was provided for with food by her parents; the Wiradjuri; Wotjobaluk; Mukjarawaint.[927]Among the Gournditch-Mara game was divided amongst all present in camp.[928]J. Dawson states that food brought by a hunter to the camp was distributed so that he and even his brother gets the worst part of it. "The best pieces of birds and quadrupeds and the finest eels" were given away. An anecdote is told in support of this statement which appears trustworthy.[929]It may be pointed out that this apparently refers only to food brought by men; and that this statement only says that the shares of the individual and his brother were neglected; but it does not make clear how the shares of the other relations (family, wife, parents) were regulated, if they were favoured or the reverse.In the Chepara tribe, the men, women and children went out every morning to hunt and search for food. It was a man's duty to provide food. This food was divided equally amongst all those present by the old men. A man had special duties towards his wife's parents if they were sick and unable to hunt.[930]Here we see a communism which gives no preference to any relation, and apparently treats equally all the members of the local group.Curious customs obtained among the Narrinyeri, when an emu was killed. It was first divided by an old man with some ceremonies, apart from the camp, and then carried to the camp and eaten by men, women and children alike.[931]This shows, by the way, that big game like emu, or kangaroo, must be rather an exceptional feast; and as all the communistic customs in this connection refer to bigger game, they do not affect, perhaps, so much the everyday food supply, which is due chiefly to females.Among the Port Lincoln tribes "the custom of dividing their food amongst each other is so common that he who fails to observe this rule is branded as a sort of miser."[932]Among the Yerkla-Mining tribe, all present in camp shared equally the animal killed. The slayer had to distribute it. Women and children had also their equal share.[933]In his book about the New South Wales aborigines, the Rev. J. B. Gribble writes: "Food is distributed on the principle of community of goods."[934]Amongst the Port Stephens blacks each family provided for its own subsistence, "except in a general kangaroo hunt, where the game is impounded and taken in large quantities, when it is fairly distributed."[935]Game was divided according to customary rules among the Euahlayi.[936]We are informed also of some other interesting details in this tribe: stones, used to grind seed, are kept in family possession.[937]There seems also to be a kind of harvest, and the storing up of some kinds of food is known.[938]A series of interesting regulations as to how game is distributed among several New South Wales tribes is given by Mr. R. H. Mathews.[939]We read in Spencer and Gillen[940]that a man shares his food with his father-in-law and other relatives. It is there explicitly stated that he shares it not only with his actual but also with his tribal relations; in another place, however, the same subject is treated as if the father-in-law in question were the actual one, not a group of them. So we read[941]that if the man or boy neglected his father-in-law the latter would take revenge at the initiation ceremony; and that the giving of food may be considered as a form of payment for his wife.[942]Among the Bunya people (Turrubul tribe, near Brisbane),the trees belonged to the people of the place. Visitors might be invited to the feast; but they "purchased bags of the seeds when they returned home."[943]Exact rules of division of game are followed among some Queensland blacks (North-West Central), "the best part going to the father's camp, the next to the father's brother."[944]The man himself goes often very short, being with his gin quite neglected.Among some of the West Australian tribes (Murchison District, Watchandee tribe) a very high degree of communism in food is reached among the men. If a man was unlucky at the chase he was sure to receive food in the evening at camp from all the other hunters. Was a man pre-eminently successful, he divided his booty with all his friends.[945]We find also another testimonial to the high liberality of the natives and their sense of communism, in a passage of the same writer,[946]where we are informed that a native supplied a party of white settlers with game for many days, being told that they were short of food.Let us apply these statements in the first place to the question of the division of labour. We see that in all this evidence, the question is merely one of communism in game. With the exception, perhaps, of the summary statements of Mrs. Parker, J. B. Gribble and Wilhelmi, all the others speak clearly of communism in game only. And, on the other hand, we can conclude, as so many statements report the customary division of any large hunting products, that game was practically always divided more or less equally among those present in camp, the relatives of the hunter receiving the major part, but he himself and his wife being probably neglected.[947]The valuable statement of R. Dawson expresses this directly: in other respects each family provided for its own subsistence, but if big game were killed it became the property of the whole group. Wesee that in all probability the results of the man's labour—the big game—did not go to the exclusive use of his family. This is stated emphatically by some authors, who say that the woman did not get even her share of the results of the man's work (Moore, Curr, Lumholtz, Oldfield). But some say, on the other hand, that both husband and wife shared equally in providing food. From several statements of the authors (Roth, Spencer and Gillen, Howitt) it must probably be assumed that the husband also gave in his share to the common household. But on summing up all the data here brought forward, it may be considered positively certain that the woman's part is of vital importance for the maintenance of the family, while the husband's share is quite secondary.To sum up, it may be said that the sexual division of labour consists not only in different occupations being laid upon the man and the woman by custom. This division of labour is much deeper rooted, viz. in the fact that man's and woman's work is of quite different kind. The woman's work is on the whole much heavier than that done by the man; her work is much more regular; it is compulsory, and it forms the chief support of the household. These features of the division of labour are of great sociological importance.1. It appears that the sexual division of labour is based only partly on differences in the natural capacities of the sexes. Heavier work ought naturally to be performed by men; here the contrary obtains. Only so far as the hunting is allotted to men and collecting to women, do natural gifts appear to be taken into account. But even here the woman's work appears to be much more exacting, inasmuch as it requires a steady strain, patience and regularity. Such work is the most repulsive; it differs most essentially from sport, and it is carried on only under strong compulsion. Compulsion is therefore, as we saw, the chief basis of this division of labour, and it may be said that in the Australian aboriginal society theeconomic fact of division of labour is rooted in a sociological status—viz. the compulsion of the weaker sex by the "brutal" half of society. This fact gains a deeper and more general aspect if brought into connection with the "terrorism produced upon women"[948]by the members of the tribal secret society,i. e.by all the initiated men.2. From its compulsory character it follows that the distribution of economic functions does not correspond to true co-operation, but that the relation of a husband to his wife is, in its economic aspect, that of a master to his slave.[949]And this throws also some light on the value of a wife to a man. (Compare the statements of Mitchell, Br. Smyth, Lumholtz.)3. The woman's work appears as the chief basis of the economy of the Australian household. Her work goes exclusively towards the benefit of the individual family, and this latter economically is entirely dependent upon woman's work. It is her work which, taking to itself the most considerable share in the sexual division of labour, plays the main part in giving to the individual family its economic unity.There is still to be noted the statement of Roth, who reports the existence of class taboos which establish what we would call a division of consumption between the father, mother and children; each of these three parties belonging to a different class. That this statement is a result of careful and frequent and not merely casual observation, further, that this division of consumption plays an important part in the native family life, may be accepted as very probable. For the author, who is undoubtedly among our best, most exact and conscientious ethnographers, builds upon the rule in question a theory of the origin of classes. The whole class system has been devised by a process of natural selection, to regulate the proper distribution of the total quantity of foodavailable.[950]And although we cannot enter here into the discussion whether this view be right or not, it may serve us as a guarantee that Roth had ascertained the great importance of the class taboo he describes and its prevalence over a wide area. For otherwise he would not have based such an important theory about one of the most crucial problems of ethnology on a single fact. Besides Roth's statement there is further the information of Wilhelmi about division of consumption within the family.At all events, although the evidence upon the division of consumption is rather scanty, the evidence about the division of labour is plentiful, and this latter may be regarded as one of the well-established features of Australian sociology.[951]The features of communism show us also that individual property in land has little economic meaning. If there is game, the privilege of hunting it is not an important one, since all members of the friendly group will partake of the results. To what was saidregarding the unity of the family as an exclusive land owner (above,pp. 150sqq.), there is, therefore, nothing to be added.The custom of a communistic division of game points also to the acknowledgment of family ties beyond the narrow circle of the individual family.[952]For the duty of a man in distributing the game, according to the majority of our statements (about eight in thirteen), is governed in the first place by the degree of relationship in which he stands to different people. And it is the individual, not the group relationship that is to be taken into account here. In Howitt's statements (which are the best) we see that the parents-in-law stand always in the first place. This agrees with what we read in Spencer and Gillen; and from both these statements we may conclude that these duties are a sort of continuation or equivalent of the bride-price, of which we find traces in Australia.Let us say a few words about inheritance. As inheritance implies the existence of private property, we may look for it only where there is private property in Australia. In the first place there is "private landed property." We saw that "property" must be understood in the cases of individuals much more in a mystic, magical sense than otherwise.[953]Moreover, in the few cases where there is any mention of individual property in land, we found very little information about the principles according to which it is inherited. According to Roth, whose statement on individual proprietorship is the clearest one, we know that this individual right to land is not hereditary, but determined for magical and mystical reasons. In the other cases we are not informed at all how the individual or family comes into possession, or are informed in such an inexact way[954]that we cannotattach much value to the information. From our best sources (Spencer and Gillen and Roth) we know that the ties binding an individual to a given locality are of mystical, magico-religious character, and were determined not by heredity, but by a special principle connected with their beliefs, and we may suppose that this was the rule, especially as individual land ownership seems to be on the whole more of a magico-religious than of a purely economic order. As to the inheritance of other property, there is little to say about it, unimportant as it was itself.[955]According to some writers, it passes from father to son (e. g.Fraser). Elsewhere we read that it is inherited by certain groups of men from their common relations.[956]On the whole, inheritance does not seem to form any important binding element between parents and children, either in the male or in the female line.[957]CHAPTER IXSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe aim of the foregoing pages was to give a correct description of the Australian individual family.[958]The chief practical difficulties lay in the methodological treatment of the evidence; in other words, in making the fullest possible use of the material, without inadvertently introducing conjectural elements. We established the necessity of our task by pointing out the following facts: (1) The contradictions, incompleteness and lack of precision in the descriptions of the individual family, given by field ethnographers, who sometimes even go so far as to deny the existence of this institution, such denials being based not upon observation, but upon speculative inference. (2) The discussion of the problem in question or of parts of it (marriage, relationship, descent, etc.), as usually found in ethnographical and sociological works, relates chiefly to the earlier stages of this institution, and as a rule leaves out of sight a series of important points, concerning its actual working, to draw attention to which was in part the aim of the present investigations. Now, considering that ethnological material, especially that from the Australian continent, plays a very important rôle in all general speculations on the history of marriage and the family—Australia being the best-known and the most extensive country inhabited by a very primitive race—it seemed that a careful examination of the facts of family life in Australia would be useful. (3) In the third place it appeared that a minute investigation in this direction might be interesting as an example of a correct sociological definition of the individual family in a given society. To give it, there had tobe made a careful collection and classification of material in order to show which facts play an important part in the structure and functions of this institution.An over-hasty comparative survey of social phenomena, especially if the writer is disposed to see everywhere analogies or even identities without due criticism, too often exaggerates irrelevant features and under-rates the most essential ones in a given area. To obtain an adequate picture of any social institution, even if so well marked by many physiological facts as is the individual family, it is necessary to set forth those of its features which are characteristic in a given society. Further, it appeared necessary to point out some facts, which show that the institution of the individual family is deeply connected with a whole series of customs, beliefs and fundamental phenomena of Australian society; and that it thus appears deeply rooted in its social conditions. In other words, that the individual family is the object of a set of well-determined, categorical, collective ideas. This modest task of a correct and detailed description, made on the basis of sufficient ethnographical material, was the chief aim of the present study.A few words may be said in the first place about the practical difficulties met with in dealing with the evidence, as foreseen and discussed in the chapter on methodology. The views there set out were, briefly, that it is impossible to use the statements in their crude form, and that consequently they must be submitted to criticism; and that it is necessary also to use caution and method in drawing inferences from the evidence. The results seem to confirm these views. So, for example, we often met with a great deal of inaccuracy—e. g.in expressions like tribe, tribal, community, group, family—and we had always to be cautious and to ascertain carefully their meaning when dealing with the aboriginal mode of living. Sometimes we were able to ascertain this real meaning; sometimes the statement was quite or nearly useless owing to complete confusion. Furthermore, all qualifying expressionsreferring to the treatment and behaviour of husband and wife, expressions referring to sexual morality, etc., were in the highest degree inexact. Throughout the whole study there was constant necessity for dealing critically with the text of the evidence.In the second place we had always to analyze the information and to ask a series of definite questions of it. So, for example, in the sexual side of family life we divided our problem into three main questions, and these again into sub-headings. Again the relations between husband and wife were viewed from the legal point (authority of husband), from the psychological point (affection), and in their functional aspect (behaviour and treatment). The relations between parents and children were divided into several headings (affection, treatment, education, etc.), and so forth. On some of such particular points it has been possible to obtain quite definite answers. Where there was a hopeless contradiction, it was carefully pointed out. In the same manner a reliable but apparently singular statement was carefully noted, even if it differed from all the rest of the information. In general the chief methodic rule in utilizing the evidence was to arrange the whole argument and inferences in the clearest possible manner. To this end the number of the statements for and against any opinion was always given; the compatibility of a given inference with the well-established facts of Australian sociology was investigated; and theexperimentum crucis, so much recommended by Steinmetz, was applied wherever possible. Attention also has been paid to the geographical point of view. Wherever it has been possible to ascertain local differences in customs, beliefs or institutions, or to show that such differences are localized in more extensive areas, care was taken to point it out. It is obviously an error to take "the Australian Aborigines" as an ethnic unit. Nevertheless many general, fundamental features of family life are undoubtedly common to all the tribes.The individual family involves both the individual relations between husband and wife, and between parents and children.[959]These two relationships are obviously so intimately connected that the individuality of one of them has as its consequence the individuality of the other; each characteristic feature of one of them stands in a functional relation to some characteristic feature of the other. Both these relationships were studied and their mutual dependence in several respects was indicated.A series of facts was adduced in order to prove that the individual relationship between husband and wife is unquestionably affirmed in the collective ideas of the natives. These facts, chiefly connected with the modes of obtaining wives (also with burial and mourning), implied even more detailed ideas: the affirmation that the husband has a series of individual rights and duties in regard to his wife; in other words that there is a mutual personal appropriation of husband and wife.From some of the details as to the modes of obtaining wives the idea of individual appropriation can be clearly gathered. The family disposes of the female and benefits thereby; the disposal is effected in infancy, so it appears that the majority of females are always allotted. The individual appropriation is, so to say, a permanent status, extending not only to the married women, but to all females in the tribe. Only a man deeply in love, or impelled by some other desperate reason, attempts to elope with a female or to capture one. This always constitutes a crime, and is either punished or atoned for. Nevertheless, elopement occurs pretty often and has its fixed forms of legalization. This state of things obviously expresses the idea of individual appropriation in the strongest and most certain manner. Individual appropriation is further expressed in a whole system of ties binding the families of the two contracting parties, and especially binding the man to his (future or actual)parents-in-law. In this latter case the ties consist in the first place of obligations, chiefly gifts and the duty of supplying game. These obligations and the widespread custom of exchange of females appear to be a rudimentary form of marriage by purchase. Hence, again, a confirmation that individual marital rights are well known and acknowledged. Marriage by purchase implies a fair knowledge of individual appropriation, and shows that it is highly valued in a given society. In Australia the "bride money" is paid by an individual, not by a group. We find evidence of a number of betrothal and marriage ceremonies which carry in themselves binding powers. Such ceremonies mean that the underlying ideas are deeply rooted in the society where the ceremonies are found. In this case, the underlying ideas are that man and wife are firmly bound to each other by the ceremony. All these facts appear very important. Not only do they indicate that the ideas of the legality or illegality of the marriage contract—those of personal individual appropriation and of a high value attaching to marriage rights—exist in Australia. But it is difficult to reconcile with them the view that individual marriage is in Australia something new, a kind of innovation; that it is considered by the natives as something immoral, illicit, an encroachment of the individual on the rights of the group; and as something unimportant, secondary, merely temporary. On the contrary, as we find it existing, it bears the character of a deeply-rooted institution. All these conclusions have also been drawn independently from the general character and several details of the mourning customs. So that the discussion of these customs afforded another proof that marriage ties are considered very strong, and that the institution of marriage is the object of definite collective ideas, consequently is firmly established in the social organization. It has a social sanction and appears fairly permanent.These facts suffice formally to define the individual marriage and individual rights of the husband to his wife.To give full context to this definition, and to characterize it more in detail, we must, on the one hand, investigate the general character of the behaviour of the consorts towards each other, and the feelings to which this behaviour points. On the other hand, an attempt must be made to determine the collective ideas expressing this relationship in its legal aspect. There have been, however, considerable difficulties in determining the emotional side of the relation between husband and wife. The results were rather negative; it appeared that we cannot accept either the extreme view of absolute bad treatment and want of affection, or the contrary opinion that the relations are of idyllic character. In general—allowing for a natural variety of feelings—the preponderance of feelings of attachment appears to be the rule. Much clearer are the results reached concerning the husband's actual rights over his wife. His authority is limited in some extreme cases only; and it is difficult to say who would interfere with it and what would be the legal form of such an interference. It may be said, therefore, that the treatment of females in Australia is determined much more by personal feelings than by legal norms, and that the latter only afford protection to the woman in cases of extreme illtreatment. In accordance with what has just been said as to personal feelings, it appears also that the treatment of women was not so exceedingly rough as is usually assumed.The sexual rights of the husband must rather be understood in the sense that the husband is a proprietor of his wife, who may and occasionally must dispose of her; not in the sense of an inviolable exclusiveness of sexual access. The idea of chastity is absent. And consequently jealousy is not in existence in the sense in which we use that word in our society. But it exists in the form of ideas and feelings affirming the husband's definite right of control over his wife. And the natives highly disapprove of any transgression without the husband's consent and the sanction of custom. All sexual licence is regulated and subject tostrict rules. Consequently the ideas on what is right or wrong in sexual matters are fairly well defined. In other words, there is a more or less defined code of sexual morality, which has also its legal aspect, as crimes against it are punished by society in a regulated manner.In reference to the problems of individual marriage and the individual family, it may be said, however, that the individualistic character of these institutions is not accentuated in the first place by the exclusiveness of sexual rights. In connection with sexual problems an excursus on the Pirrauru customs was made, in order to prove that the relationship involved does not possess the character of marriage. For it completely differs from marriage in nearly all the essential points by which marriage in Australia is defined. And above all the Pirrauru relation does not seem to involve the facts of family life in its true sense.In order to investigate the latter in detail on a broader basis, that is including both the relations between parents and children and between husband and wife, we entered into a discussion of the relation of the family unit to the territorial distribution of the natives. It was found that the mode of living points to a very complete isolation of each family; some of the tribes live scattered in very small groups—one to three families on an average. Other tribes live in much larger groups, but these are by no means promiscuous and undivided hordes. There are camp rules, which point to the isolation of the family within the local group; and customary rules for the arrangement of individuals within the family, round camp fires and at meals, etc. These rules and the isolation of families are reported especially from the South-Eastern tribes, where we may perhaps assume that the local groups are more numerous. So that over the whole continent the lowest unit of the tribal structure appears to be the individual family.After a long digression on the concept of familykinship,[960]the facts illustrating the relation between children and parents were surveyed. It was found that the characteristic features of this relationship are parental love and attachment of both father and mother to their children. The close tie between mother and child is set up by the fact of the first cares, suckling and carrying the child. The father is, as a rule, also extremely fond of his children; his relation to them is by no means characterized by any legal authority or tyrannical power, but by his affection. The father as well as the mother treat children of both sexes with extreme leniency, and give them some rudiments of education. Attention was drawn to the fact that the common attachment and extreme fondness of both parents for their children must constitute a strong bond of union between husband and wife. The family unit is nevertheless restricted to parents and children under the age of puberty. For although the ties between parents and children last throughout life, still after reaching puberty the children enter into new relationships, which superimpose themselves on the former ones. These new bonds result for the girl from marriage, for the boy from his entering into the tribal secret society (initiation and life in the bachelors' camp).The discussion of the economic facts shows that the sexual division of labour is considerably developed; that the man's and the woman's share in the maintenance of the household is quite well defined and diverse. Further we find that the woman's work is of first-rate importance for the economic unity and subsistence of the household.The careful survey of the facts has led to some conclusions which may be pointed out. Thus, for example, we have been driven to the conclusion that, in considering marriage, the importance of the sexual facts ought not to be exaggerated. In the majority of tribes sexual facts do not seem to play any part in the formation of bondsof kinship. Ideas of consanguinity are absent in these tribes,[961]and herewith the sexual relations between husband and wife lose their chief influence upon the unity of the family. On the other hand, the sexual rights of the husband, although very well determined, are so often crossed by other customs thatexclusiveaccess to a woman must not be made a part of the sociological definition of marriage. The importance of the economic features of family life, and of the common affection for children, is much more in the foreground.Stress has been laid throughout the investigation on the importance of bearing in mind the connection of our special problem with the general structure of society. As said above, each conclusion has been submitted to a kind of test as to whether it stands in agreement or in contradiction with well-established general facts. The main points in which the dependence of the individual family upon social facts has been traced were the connection of the individual family with the territorial and tribal structure, the mode in which land ownership in some cases distinguishes the family as a unit, the influence of economic communism upon the economics of the individual family, etc. But the manner in which society most directly influences any institution lies in the various norms, moral, customary or legal, by which society regulates different aspects of the given institution. The importance of such social rules is emphatically affirmed by Prof. Durkheim:"Une communauté de fait entre des consanguins qui se sont arrangés pour vivre ensemble, mais sans qu'aucun d'eux soit tenu à des obligations déterminées envers les autres et d'où chacun peut se retirer à volonté, ne constitue pas une famille.... Pour qu'il y ait famille, il n'est pas nécessaire qu'il y ait cohabitation et il n'est pas suffisant qu'il y ait consanguinité. Mais il faut de plus ... qu'il y ait des droits et des devoirs, sanctionnés par la société, et qui unissent les members dont la famille est composée.... La famillen'existe qu'autant qu'elle est une institution sociale, à la fois juridique et morale, placée sous la sauvegarde de la collectivité ambiante."[962]Although this opinion is certainly exaggerated,[963]it quite rightly lays stress on the importance of the social regulation of the individual family.[964]The importance of such norms, and especially of the legal ones, clearly appeared in the foregoing investigation. In order adequately to discuss this matter, the exact sense in which the concepts oflawandlegalmay be used was defined, and the legal organization in Australia was sketched. Furthermore, in all the questions discussed we have tried to ascertain whether there are any norms sanctioned by society, and what form this social enforcement assumes in any given case. And here it appears that nearly all sides of family life, far from being left to follow their own course, are more or less subject to definite norms of moral, customary or legal character. It was possible to establish beyond doubt the legal aspect of marriage by analyzing the modes of contracting marriage, and the duties of the widow, as shown in the mourning ceremonies. The relation between husband and wife, although characterized by a very extensive authority of the former, has nevertheless its legal basis. For the husband's authority is limited to a certain extent by exterior factors (tribal government, woman's kin) and must conform to certain norms (he has the right to punish her for certain crimes in a definite way); and he acquires his authority in a legal way (by a legal marriage contract). Sexual matters in general, and the sexual rights of the husband are well defined and regulated. Customary (or legal) rules govern the mode of living of a family, the distribution of food within the family, the sexual division of labour. The relation between parents and children, and especially the paternal authority, hardly presented any legal aspect. But on the whole it appears perfectly legitimate and necessary to define the individual family in Australia as a legal one, inasmuch as very many aspects of this institution are subject to legal norms. And, it would be completely erroneous to call, with Prof. Durkheim, these units"agrégat de fait, sans liens de droit, désapprouvé même le plus souvent par la loi et par l'opinion."[965]
Now we proceed to pass in survey the economic facts connected with family life in Australia. As we are dealing with the individual family, the first question that naturally presents itself is: How far in Australia is the individual family an economic unit? In other words, in what way is the individuality of the single family determined by the economic facts?
To answer this general question we are led to examine various sets of facts. In the first place, we know that in primitive societies there is already a rudimentary division of labour, or rather a division of economic functions, within the household. It is usually called the sexual division of labour; obviously it makes the household an economic unit; for it is just the division of labour which establishes the unity of a social group from the economic point of view. We must ask, therefore: Which, respectively, are the chief functions of the husband and of the wife? Who provides the food and performs the labours of the camp?
The economic unity of the family may also be constituted by other facts. It is necessary in this connection to say a few words again of individual land ownership, discussed above in connection with the mode of living; several statements must be adduced referring to the well-known features of communism and general liberality among the Australian blacks. These features throw considerable light upon native economics with reference to the constitution of the family. Let us begin by examining the evidence on the sexual division of labour.
Statements.—The question of the economic side of family life is quite correctly set forth and answered by Howitt[851]: Amongst the Kurnai, as "the pairing family is strictly established," we might expect "that the domestic life, the arrangements of the family circle, and the division of labour should conform, more or less perfectly, to that condition.... The man has to provide for his family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for their support and to fight for their protection." The woman has to build the hut, to fish, to gather fruit seeds and all vegetable food, and to weave rush bags or nets. "The supply of vegetable food procured by the woman is all devoted to her husband, her children and herself."[852]The man's contribution goes only in part to supply the wants of his own family, the rest being divided between other relatives (see below). Fishing belonged to both sexes.[853]Dawson reports the existence of permanent and temporary dwellings in his tribes. "The men share the labour of making the permanent dwelling, but the women are compelled to erect the smaller one."[854]The women carry in bags on their back all domestic utensils, as sticks, tinder for producing fire, gum for cement, shells, tools, charms and food. The custom of carrying burning fire-sticks is also reported by Dawson.[855]And in another place we read: "After marriage the women are compelled to do all the hard work of erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food, and attending to the children. The only work the men do in time of peace is to hunt for opossums and large animals of various kinds, and to make rugs and weapons."[856]A still clearer picture of the division of labour between the sexes is drawn by Curr in his Memoirs. On the march the men carried the arms and their personal effects; the women had to carry all the other implements as well as the small children. The supply of vegetable food belonged to them.[857]When several families camped together the women went in parties to procure roots, small animals and other food, carrying babies on their backs and followed by other children.The men, in parties of three or four, went out hunting. After returning to camp, each party cooked its food. The men, however, gave to their wives only the remainder of their food, sharing it first with the children; it seems, therefore, that the food supply provided by the female was much more regular and reliable, and therefore of greater importance to the family, than the man's share.[858]And again we read: "At the family fires the father generally cooked the animals which he brought home, and the woman the roots which were her contribution."[859]Speaking of all the Australian tribes in general, Curr says: "Among the Australian blacks the common occupations of the men are the manufacture of arms and implements for hunting, fishing and occasionally war. The women generally procure and cook vegetables and fish, collect wood for fire, manufacture nets and bags. On the march the woman carries child, household effects, fire-stick, and digs for roots and vegetables."[860]"Wives have to undergo all the drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the hardest work."[861]This statement gives quite clearly the division of labour, the greater share falling on the wife.Amongst the Mount Gambier tribes (West Victoria) the females have to construct the lodge, to collect firewood, and to make the fire.[862]They always carry the fire-stick when travelling.[863]They fetch water and collect all vegetable food, roots, and mushrooms, with their digging-stick.[864]The men's task is hunting; they do it generally in company.[865]Men make arms and prepare skins; women, objects of use and adornment.[866]We read in Angas that carrying all the things, digging of roots, and making the huts is woman's work.[867]Eyre says that the women had to dress the huts.[868]We read in Br. Smyth that women had to carry all the "worldly goods" of their husbands, even part of their arms.[869]The men hunt and women collect food during their march according to Protector Thomas. There exists a customary communism among them.[870]Mitchell says that because of their great skill in manufacturing all the things of daily use as "nets, cloaks, mussel-fishing, rooting, etc.; and their patient submission to labour,always carrying bags containing the whole property of the family while they follow their masters, the great value of a gin to one of these lazy fellows may be easily imagined."[871]They are, therefore, the chief objects of all their fights.Meyer states about the Encounter Bay tribes that the man regarded his wife as a slave and let her do all the hard work, employing her in all ways to his advantage.[872]He even prostituted her for objects of use.[873]But he states also the typical division of labour: "the men employ themselves ... either in fishing or hunting emus, opossums, kangaroos, etc., while the women and children search for roots and plants." It is also the women's task to arrange the encampments.[874]In the Port Lincoln tribes men provided animal and women vegetable food.[875]We read in another author, about the same tribes, that women have to collect vegetable food, while the men are hunting.[876]There is also some kind of division of consumption; men eat male, women female animals, and children the small ones.[877]Among the Wiradjuri (New South Wales): "The wife always looks after the camping arrangements."[878]Speaking of the Port Jackson tribes, Tench says that they derive their principal food supply from fishing. Both men and women take part in this; the men spearing the fish and the women catching them from land and sea. Both husband and wife bring their shares to the common household.[879]Both men and women take part in procuring the fish supply among the natives of Botany Bay.[880]According to Henderson, among some of the New South Wales tribes the women have to carry children and all burdens; they procure also roots and shellfish.[881]Gribble says: "The women always look after camp arrangements."[882]Fishing was the chief support of the aborigines of Port Jackson described by D. Collins. In procuring this food, men, women and children were employed.[883]In the compilation of Dr. Fraser, on the New South Wales tribes, we have a detailed account of the sexual division of labour. The woman has to put up the wurley; to light andkeep the fire, to carry the fire-stick, to cook the food. On the march she carries the bag containing the whole property of the family, the children and the yam-stick. Her duty is to provide fish and vegetable food.[884]The man has only to hunt.[885]All the drudgery of the camp and all the hard work was the lot of the women. They made nets and bags and they carried, on the marches, all the domestic implements as well as the children.[886]In the Arunta tribe the women have "to do a considerable part, but by no means all, of the work of the camp."[887]From a detailed description we see that the women have to procure vegetable food and small animals, marsupials, etc., which they do with their digging-sticks. The man's task is hunting.[888]In the Port Essington tribes, the digging of roots and collecting of shellfish was the woman's task.[889]"I have observed that upon the northern coasts of Australia the amount of the population upon a certain tract of country is great or small in proportion to the quantity ofvegetablefood it produces. However abundant animal food may be, a toilsome search for edible roots gives almost constant occupation to a portion of every tribe. Women and children labour for hours together, with no other implement than a pointed stick, in following up the creeping stem of the wild yam through the earth until the root is arrived at, often at a depth of six or eight feet below the surface. A certain proportion of vegetable food appears, indeed, to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and they willingly forego the use of the animal food, if this more grateful diet can be obtained in sufficient abundance."[890]We are informed that among the Bunya-Bunya people (Turrubul and kindred tribes, South East Queensland) the woman had all the heavy work to do.[891]Among the aborigines of Moreton Bay, women have to erect the huts and provide vegetable food for the whole party, as the men only have to supply fish and game.[892]We owe a good description of the division of labour on the march to Mathew: "When shifting from one campingground to another they usually moved slowly through the bush, the families separating and gathering their food on the way—opossums, bandicoots, honey, grubs, birds, and so forth. At other times they marched along singly, the lordsof creation stepping out with elastic tread and graceful bearing, carrying their light weapons with perhaps some game, the weaker vessel loaded with the chattels and possibly a baby on the back in a loop of a rug or sitting stride-leg on a shoulder. Some would carry live fire-sticks to save the trouble of producing fire by friction. Arrived at the familiar, well-chosen rendezvous, it was the duty of the women to cut the bark of the humpies (dwellings) and prepare the fires."[893]Further on we read: "The women were skilled in the manufacture of nets and of dillie-bags made of grass or twine."[894]"The man's chief home duties consisted in cooking and eating. He would also spend much time in fashioning his weapons."[895]Lumholtz speaks of the woman as the slave of her husband. "He does only what pleases himself, and leaves all work to his wives; therefore the more wives he has the richer he is."[896]We see here again the economic value of a wife directly stated. In another place: "It is the women who daily provide food," often making long excursions for this purpose, and collecting fruits, digging roots and chopping larvæ out of the tree-stems. "She must do all the hard work," carry the baby, make the fire, cook, provide water and fuel, dress the hut. She carries all the baggage on the march, as well as the children. The man carries only his arms. "The husband's contribution to the household is chiefly honey, but occasionally he provides eggs, game, lizards, and the like. He very often, however, keeps the animal food for himself, while the woman has to depend principally upon vegetables for herself and her child. Upon the whole he feels no responsibility as the father of a family."[897]It is interesting to find that the men make not only weapons but also, exclusively, baskets.[898]Among the North-West Queensland tribes: "It is the husband's business, in the main, to supply the animal food for the family, and although a particular dietary may be forbidden him he has no compunction in hunting or killing it for his kith and kin."[899]It is necessary to add that according to Roth's information each member of a given family has some special food forbidden to him; because each class has its special food taboos, and in a family the father, the mother and the children, each belong to a different class.[900]Roth sees in this institution the chief aim of the class system.[901]Vegetable food and fish seem to be supplied by womenchiefly.[902]The same general principle of sexual division of labour is reported in another place by the same author. We read there that the father's duty was to supply his family with animal food, whereas the mother had to provide the vegetable food. On the wanderings the wife follows her husband at a considerable distance, carrying all the implements and often the children.[903]Among the natives of Cape York the woman has to procure practically all food for herself and her husband.[904]Moore describes the women in West Australia as being almost the slaves of their husbands. They have to attend upon the men and to carry all their property. They construct the hut, kindle the fire, and have to provide all the vegetable food.[905]The digging of the yams is a very laborious task.[906]In return they often do not get even their share of game.[907]John Forrest writes in his account: "The women are nearly slaves, having to do most of the hard work, such as making huts, carrying wood, and also carrying all the baggage, which includes many weapons, grease, 'wilgie,' and a host of articles, wooden dishes, etc., besides often a child. The man does not generally carry much except his spears, etc."[908]Among some of the West Australian blacks, a female, before she is married, has under certain circumstances to provide "individuals of a certain degree of relationship to herself with a certain amount of vegetable food."[909]After her marriage her husband is entitled "to the chief part of her services. While she has to supply him with unlimited quantities of yams and other roots, he does very little towards providing for her wants, merely giving her the offal of game." The woman is thus the chief caterer of the family. She is "a slave in the strictest sense of the word, being a beast of burden, a provider of food."[910]In South-West Australia the woman carries all the domestic implements on her back."Pendant que la femme chemine avec toute cette charge, l'homme marche devant sa famille, portant seulement ses armes de la main gauche."He looks for animals,[911]the chase is his task.[912]The woman has to light the fire, carry the fire-stick,[913]fetch the water[914]; she has also to construct the hut.[915]We are informed by Browne that all the hard work, the carrying of heavy burdens, camp arrangements, etc., is done by the women among the natives of King George's Sound.[916]The economic division of labour, based upon the co-operation of both sexes, is stated by Scott Nind. The women and men go out in search of food, or hunting, in separate parties. The women chiefly collect roots and small animals; men go out hunting. Each sex reserves a part of its share for the family. "The women are very useful for them (their husbands), not only in procuring food, but also in preparing their cloaks, building their huts and other menial offices."[917]
Statements.—The question of the economic side of family life is quite correctly set forth and answered by Howitt[851]: Amongst the Kurnai, as "the pairing family is strictly established," we might expect "that the domestic life, the arrangements of the family circle, and the division of labour should conform, more or less perfectly, to that condition.... The man has to provide for his family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for their support and to fight for their protection." The woman has to build the hut, to fish, to gather fruit seeds and all vegetable food, and to weave rush bags or nets. "The supply of vegetable food procured by the woman is all devoted to her husband, her children and herself."[852]The man's contribution goes only in part to supply the wants of his own family, the rest being divided between other relatives (see below). Fishing belonged to both sexes.[853]
Dawson reports the existence of permanent and temporary dwellings in his tribes. "The men share the labour of making the permanent dwelling, but the women are compelled to erect the smaller one."[854]The women carry in bags on their back all domestic utensils, as sticks, tinder for producing fire, gum for cement, shells, tools, charms and food. The custom of carrying burning fire-sticks is also reported by Dawson.[855]And in another place we read: "After marriage the women are compelled to do all the hard work of erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food, and attending to the children. The only work the men do in time of peace is to hunt for opossums and large animals of various kinds, and to make rugs and weapons."[856]
A still clearer picture of the division of labour between the sexes is drawn by Curr in his Memoirs. On the march the men carried the arms and their personal effects; the women had to carry all the other implements as well as the small children. The supply of vegetable food belonged to them.[857]When several families camped together the women went in parties to procure roots, small animals and other food, carrying babies on their backs and followed by other children.The men, in parties of three or four, went out hunting. After returning to camp, each party cooked its food. The men, however, gave to their wives only the remainder of their food, sharing it first with the children; it seems, therefore, that the food supply provided by the female was much more regular and reliable, and therefore of greater importance to the family, than the man's share.[858]And again we read: "At the family fires the father generally cooked the animals which he brought home, and the woman the roots which were her contribution."[859]
Speaking of all the Australian tribes in general, Curr says: "Among the Australian blacks the common occupations of the men are the manufacture of arms and implements for hunting, fishing and occasionally war. The women generally procure and cook vegetables and fish, collect wood for fire, manufacture nets and bags. On the march the woman carries child, household effects, fire-stick, and digs for roots and vegetables."[860]"Wives have to undergo all the drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the hardest work."[861]This statement gives quite clearly the division of labour, the greater share falling on the wife.
Amongst the Mount Gambier tribes (West Victoria) the females have to construct the lodge, to collect firewood, and to make the fire.[862]They always carry the fire-stick when travelling.[863]They fetch water and collect all vegetable food, roots, and mushrooms, with their digging-stick.[864]The men's task is hunting; they do it generally in company.[865]Men make arms and prepare skins; women, objects of use and adornment.[866]
We read in Angas that carrying all the things, digging of roots, and making the huts is woman's work.[867]
Eyre says that the women had to dress the huts.[868]
We read in Br. Smyth that women had to carry all the "worldly goods" of their husbands, even part of their arms.[869]
The men hunt and women collect food during their march according to Protector Thomas. There exists a customary communism among them.[870]
Mitchell says that because of their great skill in manufacturing all the things of daily use as "nets, cloaks, mussel-fishing, rooting, etc.; and their patient submission to labour,always carrying bags containing the whole property of the family while they follow their masters, the great value of a gin to one of these lazy fellows may be easily imagined."[871]They are, therefore, the chief objects of all their fights.
Meyer states about the Encounter Bay tribes that the man regarded his wife as a slave and let her do all the hard work, employing her in all ways to his advantage.[872]He even prostituted her for objects of use.[873]But he states also the typical division of labour: "the men employ themselves ... either in fishing or hunting emus, opossums, kangaroos, etc., while the women and children search for roots and plants." It is also the women's task to arrange the encampments.[874]
In the Port Lincoln tribes men provided animal and women vegetable food.[875]
We read in another author, about the same tribes, that women have to collect vegetable food, while the men are hunting.[876]There is also some kind of division of consumption; men eat male, women female animals, and children the small ones.[877]
Among the Wiradjuri (New South Wales): "The wife always looks after the camping arrangements."[878]
Speaking of the Port Jackson tribes, Tench says that they derive their principal food supply from fishing. Both men and women take part in this; the men spearing the fish and the women catching them from land and sea. Both husband and wife bring their shares to the common household.[879]
Both men and women take part in procuring the fish supply among the natives of Botany Bay.[880]
According to Henderson, among some of the New South Wales tribes the women have to carry children and all burdens; they procure also roots and shellfish.[881]
Gribble says: "The women always look after camp arrangements."[882]
Fishing was the chief support of the aborigines of Port Jackson described by D. Collins. In procuring this food, men, women and children were employed.[883]
In the compilation of Dr. Fraser, on the New South Wales tribes, we have a detailed account of the sexual division of labour. The woman has to put up the wurley; to light andkeep the fire, to carry the fire-stick, to cook the food. On the march she carries the bag containing the whole property of the family, the children and the yam-stick. Her duty is to provide fish and vegetable food.[884]The man has only to hunt.[885]
All the drudgery of the camp and all the hard work was the lot of the women. They made nets and bags and they carried, on the marches, all the domestic implements as well as the children.[886]
In the Arunta tribe the women have "to do a considerable part, but by no means all, of the work of the camp."[887]From a detailed description we see that the women have to procure vegetable food and small animals, marsupials, etc., which they do with their digging-sticks. The man's task is hunting.[888]
In the Port Essington tribes, the digging of roots and collecting of shellfish was the woman's task.[889]
"I have observed that upon the northern coasts of Australia the amount of the population upon a certain tract of country is great or small in proportion to the quantity ofvegetablefood it produces. However abundant animal food may be, a toilsome search for edible roots gives almost constant occupation to a portion of every tribe. Women and children labour for hours together, with no other implement than a pointed stick, in following up the creeping stem of the wild yam through the earth until the root is arrived at, often at a depth of six or eight feet below the surface. A certain proportion of vegetable food appears, indeed, to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and they willingly forego the use of the animal food, if this more grateful diet can be obtained in sufficient abundance."[890]
We are informed that among the Bunya-Bunya people (Turrubul and kindred tribes, South East Queensland) the woman had all the heavy work to do.[891]
Among the aborigines of Moreton Bay, women have to erect the huts and provide vegetable food for the whole party, as the men only have to supply fish and game.[892]
We owe a good description of the division of labour on the march to Mathew: "When shifting from one campingground to another they usually moved slowly through the bush, the families separating and gathering their food on the way—opossums, bandicoots, honey, grubs, birds, and so forth. At other times they marched along singly, the lordsof creation stepping out with elastic tread and graceful bearing, carrying their light weapons with perhaps some game, the weaker vessel loaded with the chattels and possibly a baby on the back in a loop of a rug or sitting stride-leg on a shoulder. Some would carry live fire-sticks to save the trouble of producing fire by friction. Arrived at the familiar, well-chosen rendezvous, it was the duty of the women to cut the bark of the humpies (dwellings) and prepare the fires."[893]Further on we read: "The women were skilled in the manufacture of nets and of dillie-bags made of grass or twine."[894]"The man's chief home duties consisted in cooking and eating. He would also spend much time in fashioning his weapons."[895]
Lumholtz speaks of the woman as the slave of her husband. "He does only what pleases himself, and leaves all work to his wives; therefore the more wives he has the richer he is."[896]We see here again the economic value of a wife directly stated. In another place: "It is the women who daily provide food," often making long excursions for this purpose, and collecting fruits, digging roots and chopping larvæ out of the tree-stems. "She must do all the hard work," carry the baby, make the fire, cook, provide water and fuel, dress the hut. She carries all the baggage on the march, as well as the children. The man carries only his arms. "The husband's contribution to the household is chiefly honey, but occasionally he provides eggs, game, lizards, and the like. He very often, however, keeps the animal food for himself, while the woman has to depend principally upon vegetables for herself and her child. Upon the whole he feels no responsibility as the father of a family."[897]It is interesting to find that the men make not only weapons but also, exclusively, baskets.[898]
Among the North-West Queensland tribes: "It is the husband's business, in the main, to supply the animal food for the family, and although a particular dietary may be forbidden him he has no compunction in hunting or killing it for his kith and kin."[899]It is necessary to add that according to Roth's information each member of a given family has some special food forbidden to him; because each class has its special food taboos, and in a family the father, the mother and the children, each belong to a different class.[900]Roth sees in this institution the chief aim of the class system.[901]Vegetable food and fish seem to be supplied by womenchiefly.[902]The same general principle of sexual division of labour is reported in another place by the same author. We read there that the father's duty was to supply his family with animal food, whereas the mother had to provide the vegetable food. On the wanderings the wife follows her husband at a considerable distance, carrying all the implements and often the children.[903]
Among the natives of Cape York the woman has to procure practically all food for herself and her husband.[904]
Moore describes the women in West Australia as being almost the slaves of their husbands. They have to attend upon the men and to carry all their property. They construct the hut, kindle the fire, and have to provide all the vegetable food.[905]The digging of the yams is a very laborious task.[906]In return they often do not get even their share of game.[907]
John Forrest writes in his account: "The women are nearly slaves, having to do most of the hard work, such as making huts, carrying wood, and also carrying all the baggage, which includes many weapons, grease, 'wilgie,' and a host of articles, wooden dishes, etc., besides often a child. The man does not generally carry much except his spears, etc."[908]
Among some of the West Australian blacks, a female, before she is married, has under certain circumstances to provide "individuals of a certain degree of relationship to herself with a certain amount of vegetable food."[909]After her marriage her husband is entitled "to the chief part of her services. While she has to supply him with unlimited quantities of yams and other roots, he does very little towards providing for her wants, merely giving her the offal of game." The woman is thus the chief caterer of the family. She is "a slave in the strictest sense of the word, being a beast of burden, a provider of food."[910]
In South-West Australia the woman carries all the domestic implements on her back."Pendant que la femme chemine avec toute cette charge, l'homme marche devant sa famille, portant seulement ses armes de la main gauche."He looks for animals,[911]the chase is his task.[912]The woman has to light the fire, carry the fire-stick,[913]fetch the water[914]; she has also to construct the hut.[915]
We are informed by Browne that all the hard work, the carrying of heavy burdens, camp arrangements, etc., is done by the women among the natives of King George's Sound.[916]
The economic division of labour, based upon the co-operation of both sexes, is stated by Scott Nind. The women and men go out in search of food, or hunting, in separate parties. The women chiefly collect roots and small animals; men go out hunting. Each sex reserves a part of its share for the family. "The women are very useful for them (their husbands), not only in procuring food, but also in preparing their cloaks, building their huts and other menial offices."[917]
We see that our thirty-five statements agree pretty well as to the general features of the division of labour. Certain of the economic functions, like hunting, making of weapons and, undoubtedly, the important function of protecting the family, are allotted to the men. Other work—the providing of roots, bulbs and other vegetable food, camp work and carrying heavy burdens, manufacturing nets and usually fishing—all this is the duty of the woman. Our statements more or less agree upon this division of labour. The more detailed ones (Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Mathew, B. Field, Oldfield, Moore) depict to us the occupations of the man and of his wife in nearly the same words. Only in the statements of Collins, Tench and Phillips is fishing mentioned as a common occupation of men and women. But these statements (probably not independent of each other) are not so explicit and reliable as to lead us to make exceptions of the Port Jackson tribes. We may, therefore, affirm the existence of a very marked sexual division of labour, which seems to present everywhere the same features and to be nearly identical over the whole continent.Prima faciethis division of labour consists only in each sex having its different occupations prescribed by custom. But more careful analysis shows that there are other features which more deeply differentiate the economic activities of the sexes.
It is easy to see that the amount of work allotted to women isconsiderably greaterand that their labour is muchharderthan the men's work. This is directly affirmed by a series of statements (Curr, Dawson, Stanbridge, Tom Petrie, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest, Salvado, Scott Nind, Moore). This is also undoubtedly a reason why so many authors designate the wife's position as that of a slave and drudge. But it also results directly from a comparison of the occupations allotted to women with those allotted to men. A woman had to carry all the heavy things, all the objects of domestic use, her own as well as her husband's; for the man carried only his weapons (Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Angas, Br. Smyth, Thomas, Phillips, Fraser, Lumholtz, Salvado). The woman had to construct huts and look after camping arrangements (Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Stanbridge, Meyer, Schürmann, Angas, Howitt on the Wiradjuri, Gribble, Henderson, Fraser, Field, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest, Salvado, Browne). All this was rather hard work, especially when compared with the man's share of work, which was mainly hunting and fashioning weapons. It must not be forgotten that women were often encumbered in their work by suckling, carrying their children, and by the various cares demanded by the latter. The digging for roots is also exceedingly hard work (Moore, Earl).
More regularandsystematickind of labour is also called for by the nature of the woman's tasks. These are intimately connected with the wandering mode of life of the aborigines. Obviously in a people which was forced by natural conditions to lead a roaming life, such tasks must necessarily have required regular labour. The other chief female occupation—collecting roots and small animals—required also a regular kind of labour. All these occupations—being, as just said, harder and more systematic than men's work, clearly appear also to be much more wearing and tiresome; compared with the men's occupations they appear much less in the light ofsport and amusement. The man makes his weapons and hunts, and this is a natural and pleasant sport for him. There are no elements of excitement or variety in the women's work; it is just this element of system and of regularity which makes work repulsive and hard to man, and especially to primitive man. Work of this kind is usually done only under a strong compulsion; and woman's work in Australia appears also to be compulsory. This is directly stated in several places (Dawson, Curr, Mitchell, Forrest, Moore, Oldfield). This compulsory character is undoubtedly another reason why the women's position is described in other statements as that of a slave and drudge.
A very important point is that the woman's share in labour was of much morevital importanceto the maintenance of the household than man's work. This is quite obvious, seeing that the general occupations of camp life were of essential necessity for a roving people. But even the food supply, contributed by the women, was far more important than the man's share. We read that the chief resource of the natives, especially in bad seasons, is vegetable food (Oldfield). And the interesting statement of Earl confirms this in a still stronger manner. So that it appears fairly probable that, on the whole, food collected by women was the staple food of the natives. But not only does the kind of food supplied by the man appear on the whole to be less important than that contributed by the woman, but it seems as if the man's contribution, which in the main was reduced to his hunting products, was devoted much less exclusively to his family's benefit. In order to understand this, let us adduce some statements relating to communism of food, and giving besides some interesting details about aboriginal economics.
Statements.—Among the Kurnai[918]the hunter who killed a big piece of game gave some of it to the men who assisted him in killing, cooking or carving. The chief parts weredivided among his wives' parents and his own parents. These in return supplied their son and son-in-law respectively with meat the next day. Similar rules, varying according to the game and tribe, obtained also among the Murring tribes of New South Wales.[919]Important for us is the general feature of communism; the preponderancy given to the parents of a man and his wife. If the man be unmarried he provides chiefly his parents and his brother and sister.[920]The grandparents cared especially for their grandchildren.[921]In the Wurrunjeri tribe a kangaroo was distributed among those present in camp and the hunter's family. The man had (even in case of a limited food supply) to provide for his own and his wife's parents. They cared in turn for him.[922]Communism obtained among the Kulin tribes.[923]A communism, similar to that of the Kurnai, prevailed among the Narran-ga.[924]The same is related about the tribes of the Karamundi[925]; the Wolgal tribe,[926]amongst whom the woman was provided for with food by her parents; the Wiradjuri; Wotjobaluk; Mukjarawaint.[927]Among the Gournditch-Mara game was divided amongst all present in camp.[928]J. Dawson states that food brought by a hunter to the camp was distributed so that he and even his brother gets the worst part of it. "The best pieces of birds and quadrupeds and the finest eels" were given away. An anecdote is told in support of this statement which appears trustworthy.[929]It may be pointed out that this apparently refers only to food brought by men; and that this statement only says that the shares of the individual and his brother were neglected; but it does not make clear how the shares of the other relations (family, wife, parents) were regulated, if they were favoured or the reverse.In the Chepara tribe, the men, women and children went out every morning to hunt and search for food. It was a man's duty to provide food. This food was divided equally amongst all those present by the old men. A man had special duties towards his wife's parents if they were sick and unable to hunt.[930]Here we see a communism which gives no preference to any relation, and apparently treats equally all the members of the local group.Curious customs obtained among the Narrinyeri, when an emu was killed. It was first divided by an old man with some ceremonies, apart from the camp, and then carried to the camp and eaten by men, women and children alike.[931]This shows, by the way, that big game like emu, or kangaroo, must be rather an exceptional feast; and as all the communistic customs in this connection refer to bigger game, they do not affect, perhaps, so much the everyday food supply, which is due chiefly to females.Among the Port Lincoln tribes "the custom of dividing their food amongst each other is so common that he who fails to observe this rule is branded as a sort of miser."[932]Among the Yerkla-Mining tribe, all present in camp shared equally the animal killed. The slayer had to distribute it. Women and children had also their equal share.[933]In his book about the New South Wales aborigines, the Rev. J. B. Gribble writes: "Food is distributed on the principle of community of goods."[934]Amongst the Port Stephens blacks each family provided for its own subsistence, "except in a general kangaroo hunt, where the game is impounded and taken in large quantities, when it is fairly distributed."[935]Game was divided according to customary rules among the Euahlayi.[936]We are informed also of some other interesting details in this tribe: stones, used to grind seed, are kept in family possession.[937]There seems also to be a kind of harvest, and the storing up of some kinds of food is known.[938]A series of interesting regulations as to how game is distributed among several New South Wales tribes is given by Mr. R. H. Mathews.[939]We read in Spencer and Gillen[940]that a man shares his food with his father-in-law and other relatives. It is there explicitly stated that he shares it not only with his actual but also with his tribal relations; in another place, however, the same subject is treated as if the father-in-law in question were the actual one, not a group of them. So we read[941]that if the man or boy neglected his father-in-law the latter would take revenge at the initiation ceremony; and that the giving of food may be considered as a form of payment for his wife.[942]Among the Bunya people (Turrubul tribe, near Brisbane),the trees belonged to the people of the place. Visitors might be invited to the feast; but they "purchased bags of the seeds when they returned home."[943]Exact rules of division of game are followed among some Queensland blacks (North-West Central), "the best part going to the father's camp, the next to the father's brother."[944]The man himself goes often very short, being with his gin quite neglected.Among some of the West Australian tribes (Murchison District, Watchandee tribe) a very high degree of communism in food is reached among the men. If a man was unlucky at the chase he was sure to receive food in the evening at camp from all the other hunters. Was a man pre-eminently successful, he divided his booty with all his friends.[945]We find also another testimonial to the high liberality of the natives and their sense of communism, in a passage of the same writer,[946]where we are informed that a native supplied a party of white settlers with game for many days, being told that they were short of food.
Statements.—Among the Kurnai[918]the hunter who killed a big piece of game gave some of it to the men who assisted him in killing, cooking or carving. The chief parts weredivided among his wives' parents and his own parents. These in return supplied their son and son-in-law respectively with meat the next day. Similar rules, varying according to the game and tribe, obtained also among the Murring tribes of New South Wales.[919]Important for us is the general feature of communism; the preponderancy given to the parents of a man and his wife. If the man be unmarried he provides chiefly his parents and his brother and sister.[920]The grandparents cared especially for their grandchildren.[921]
In the Wurrunjeri tribe a kangaroo was distributed among those present in camp and the hunter's family. The man had (even in case of a limited food supply) to provide for his own and his wife's parents. They cared in turn for him.[922]Communism obtained among the Kulin tribes.[923]
A communism, similar to that of the Kurnai, prevailed among the Narran-ga.[924]The same is related about the tribes of the Karamundi[925]; the Wolgal tribe,[926]amongst whom the woman was provided for with food by her parents; the Wiradjuri; Wotjobaluk; Mukjarawaint.[927]Among the Gournditch-Mara game was divided amongst all present in camp.[928]
J. Dawson states that food brought by a hunter to the camp was distributed so that he and even his brother gets the worst part of it. "The best pieces of birds and quadrupeds and the finest eels" were given away. An anecdote is told in support of this statement which appears trustworthy.[929]It may be pointed out that this apparently refers only to food brought by men; and that this statement only says that the shares of the individual and his brother were neglected; but it does not make clear how the shares of the other relations (family, wife, parents) were regulated, if they were favoured or the reverse.
In the Chepara tribe, the men, women and children went out every morning to hunt and search for food. It was a man's duty to provide food. This food was divided equally amongst all those present by the old men. A man had special duties towards his wife's parents if they were sick and unable to hunt.[930]Here we see a communism which gives no preference to any relation, and apparently treats equally all the members of the local group.
Curious customs obtained among the Narrinyeri, when an emu was killed. It was first divided by an old man with some ceremonies, apart from the camp, and then carried to the camp and eaten by men, women and children alike.[931]This shows, by the way, that big game like emu, or kangaroo, must be rather an exceptional feast; and as all the communistic customs in this connection refer to bigger game, they do not affect, perhaps, so much the everyday food supply, which is due chiefly to females.
Among the Port Lincoln tribes "the custom of dividing their food amongst each other is so common that he who fails to observe this rule is branded as a sort of miser."[932]
Among the Yerkla-Mining tribe, all present in camp shared equally the animal killed. The slayer had to distribute it. Women and children had also their equal share.[933]
In his book about the New South Wales aborigines, the Rev. J. B. Gribble writes: "Food is distributed on the principle of community of goods."[934]
Amongst the Port Stephens blacks each family provided for its own subsistence, "except in a general kangaroo hunt, where the game is impounded and taken in large quantities, when it is fairly distributed."[935]
Game was divided according to customary rules among the Euahlayi.[936]We are informed also of some other interesting details in this tribe: stones, used to grind seed, are kept in family possession.[937]There seems also to be a kind of harvest, and the storing up of some kinds of food is known.[938]
A series of interesting regulations as to how game is distributed among several New South Wales tribes is given by Mr. R. H. Mathews.[939]
We read in Spencer and Gillen[940]that a man shares his food with his father-in-law and other relatives. It is there explicitly stated that he shares it not only with his actual but also with his tribal relations; in another place, however, the same subject is treated as if the father-in-law in question were the actual one, not a group of them. So we read[941]that if the man or boy neglected his father-in-law the latter would take revenge at the initiation ceremony; and that the giving of food may be considered as a form of payment for his wife.[942]
Among the Bunya people (Turrubul tribe, near Brisbane),the trees belonged to the people of the place. Visitors might be invited to the feast; but they "purchased bags of the seeds when they returned home."[943]
Exact rules of division of game are followed among some Queensland blacks (North-West Central), "the best part going to the father's camp, the next to the father's brother."[944]The man himself goes often very short, being with his gin quite neglected.
Among some of the West Australian tribes (Murchison District, Watchandee tribe) a very high degree of communism in food is reached among the men. If a man was unlucky at the chase he was sure to receive food in the evening at camp from all the other hunters. Was a man pre-eminently successful, he divided his booty with all his friends.[945]We find also another testimonial to the high liberality of the natives and their sense of communism, in a passage of the same writer,[946]where we are informed that a native supplied a party of white settlers with game for many days, being told that they were short of food.
Let us apply these statements in the first place to the question of the division of labour. We see that in all this evidence, the question is merely one of communism in game. With the exception, perhaps, of the summary statements of Mrs. Parker, J. B. Gribble and Wilhelmi, all the others speak clearly of communism in game only. And, on the other hand, we can conclude, as so many statements report the customary division of any large hunting products, that game was practically always divided more or less equally among those present in camp, the relatives of the hunter receiving the major part, but he himself and his wife being probably neglected.[947]The valuable statement of R. Dawson expresses this directly: in other respects each family provided for its own subsistence, but if big game were killed it became the property of the whole group. Wesee that in all probability the results of the man's labour—the big game—did not go to the exclusive use of his family. This is stated emphatically by some authors, who say that the woman did not get even her share of the results of the man's work (Moore, Curr, Lumholtz, Oldfield). But some say, on the other hand, that both husband and wife shared equally in providing food. From several statements of the authors (Roth, Spencer and Gillen, Howitt) it must probably be assumed that the husband also gave in his share to the common household. But on summing up all the data here brought forward, it may be considered positively certain that the woman's part is of vital importance for the maintenance of the family, while the husband's share is quite secondary.
To sum up, it may be said that the sexual division of labour consists not only in different occupations being laid upon the man and the woman by custom. This division of labour is much deeper rooted, viz. in the fact that man's and woman's work is of quite different kind. The woman's work is on the whole much heavier than that done by the man; her work is much more regular; it is compulsory, and it forms the chief support of the household. These features of the division of labour are of great sociological importance.
1. It appears that the sexual division of labour is based only partly on differences in the natural capacities of the sexes. Heavier work ought naturally to be performed by men; here the contrary obtains. Only so far as the hunting is allotted to men and collecting to women, do natural gifts appear to be taken into account. But even here the woman's work appears to be much more exacting, inasmuch as it requires a steady strain, patience and regularity. Such work is the most repulsive; it differs most essentially from sport, and it is carried on only under strong compulsion. Compulsion is therefore, as we saw, the chief basis of this division of labour, and it may be said that in the Australian aboriginal society theeconomic fact of division of labour is rooted in a sociological status—viz. the compulsion of the weaker sex by the "brutal" half of society. This fact gains a deeper and more general aspect if brought into connection with the "terrorism produced upon women"[948]by the members of the tribal secret society,i. e.by all the initiated men.
2. From its compulsory character it follows that the distribution of economic functions does not correspond to true co-operation, but that the relation of a husband to his wife is, in its economic aspect, that of a master to his slave.[949]And this throws also some light on the value of a wife to a man. (Compare the statements of Mitchell, Br. Smyth, Lumholtz.)
3. The woman's work appears as the chief basis of the economy of the Australian household. Her work goes exclusively towards the benefit of the individual family, and this latter economically is entirely dependent upon woman's work. It is her work which, taking to itself the most considerable share in the sexual division of labour, plays the main part in giving to the individual family its economic unity.
There is still to be noted the statement of Roth, who reports the existence of class taboos which establish what we would call a division of consumption between the father, mother and children; each of these three parties belonging to a different class. That this statement is a result of careful and frequent and not merely casual observation, further, that this division of consumption plays an important part in the native family life, may be accepted as very probable. For the author, who is undoubtedly among our best, most exact and conscientious ethnographers, builds upon the rule in question a theory of the origin of classes. The whole class system has been devised by a process of natural selection, to regulate the proper distribution of the total quantity of foodavailable.[950]And although we cannot enter here into the discussion whether this view be right or not, it may serve us as a guarantee that Roth had ascertained the great importance of the class taboo he describes and its prevalence over a wide area. For otherwise he would not have based such an important theory about one of the most crucial problems of ethnology on a single fact. Besides Roth's statement there is further the information of Wilhelmi about division of consumption within the family.
At all events, although the evidence upon the division of consumption is rather scanty, the evidence about the division of labour is plentiful, and this latter may be regarded as one of the well-established features of Australian sociology.[951]The features of communism show us also that individual property in land has little economic meaning. If there is game, the privilege of hunting it is not an important one, since all members of the friendly group will partake of the results. To what was saidregarding the unity of the family as an exclusive land owner (above,pp. 150sqq.), there is, therefore, nothing to be added.
The custom of a communistic division of game points also to the acknowledgment of family ties beyond the narrow circle of the individual family.[952]For the duty of a man in distributing the game, according to the majority of our statements (about eight in thirteen), is governed in the first place by the degree of relationship in which he stands to different people. And it is the individual, not the group relationship that is to be taken into account here. In Howitt's statements (which are the best) we see that the parents-in-law stand always in the first place. This agrees with what we read in Spencer and Gillen; and from both these statements we may conclude that these duties are a sort of continuation or equivalent of the bride-price, of which we find traces in Australia.
Let us say a few words about inheritance. As inheritance implies the existence of private property, we may look for it only where there is private property in Australia. In the first place there is "private landed property." We saw that "property" must be understood in the cases of individuals much more in a mystic, magical sense than otherwise.[953]Moreover, in the few cases where there is any mention of individual property in land, we found very little information about the principles according to which it is inherited. According to Roth, whose statement on individual proprietorship is the clearest one, we know that this individual right to land is not hereditary, but determined for magical and mystical reasons. In the other cases we are not informed at all how the individual or family comes into possession, or are informed in such an inexact way[954]that we cannotattach much value to the information. From our best sources (Spencer and Gillen and Roth) we know that the ties binding an individual to a given locality are of mystical, magico-religious character, and were determined not by heredity, but by a special principle connected with their beliefs, and we may suppose that this was the rule, especially as individual land ownership seems to be on the whole more of a magico-religious than of a purely economic order. As to the inheritance of other property, there is little to say about it, unimportant as it was itself.[955]According to some writers, it passes from father to son (e. g.Fraser). Elsewhere we read that it is inherited by certain groups of men from their common relations.[956]On the whole, inheritance does not seem to form any important binding element between parents and children, either in the male or in the female line.[957]
The aim of the foregoing pages was to give a correct description of the Australian individual family.[958]The chief practical difficulties lay in the methodological treatment of the evidence; in other words, in making the fullest possible use of the material, without inadvertently introducing conjectural elements. We established the necessity of our task by pointing out the following facts: (1) The contradictions, incompleteness and lack of precision in the descriptions of the individual family, given by field ethnographers, who sometimes even go so far as to deny the existence of this institution, such denials being based not upon observation, but upon speculative inference. (2) The discussion of the problem in question or of parts of it (marriage, relationship, descent, etc.), as usually found in ethnographical and sociological works, relates chiefly to the earlier stages of this institution, and as a rule leaves out of sight a series of important points, concerning its actual working, to draw attention to which was in part the aim of the present investigations. Now, considering that ethnological material, especially that from the Australian continent, plays a very important rôle in all general speculations on the history of marriage and the family—Australia being the best-known and the most extensive country inhabited by a very primitive race—it seemed that a careful examination of the facts of family life in Australia would be useful. (3) In the third place it appeared that a minute investigation in this direction might be interesting as an example of a correct sociological definition of the individual family in a given society. To give it, there had tobe made a careful collection and classification of material in order to show which facts play an important part in the structure and functions of this institution.
An over-hasty comparative survey of social phenomena, especially if the writer is disposed to see everywhere analogies or even identities without due criticism, too often exaggerates irrelevant features and under-rates the most essential ones in a given area. To obtain an adequate picture of any social institution, even if so well marked by many physiological facts as is the individual family, it is necessary to set forth those of its features which are characteristic in a given society. Further, it appeared necessary to point out some facts, which show that the institution of the individual family is deeply connected with a whole series of customs, beliefs and fundamental phenomena of Australian society; and that it thus appears deeply rooted in its social conditions. In other words, that the individual family is the object of a set of well-determined, categorical, collective ideas. This modest task of a correct and detailed description, made on the basis of sufficient ethnographical material, was the chief aim of the present study.
A few words may be said in the first place about the practical difficulties met with in dealing with the evidence, as foreseen and discussed in the chapter on methodology. The views there set out were, briefly, that it is impossible to use the statements in their crude form, and that consequently they must be submitted to criticism; and that it is necessary also to use caution and method in drawing inferences from the evidence. The results seem to confirm these views. So, for example, we often met with a great deal of inaccuracy—e. g.in expressions like tribe, tribal, community, group, family—and we had always to be cautious and to ascertain carefully their meaning when dealing with the aboriginal mode of living. Sometimes we were able to ascertain this real meaning; sometimes the statement was quite or nearly useless owing to complete confusion. Furthermore, all qualifying expressionsreferring to the treatment and behaviour of husband and wife, expressions referring to sexual morality, etc., were in the highest degree inexact. Throughout the whole study there was constant necessity for dealing critically with the text of the evidence.
In the second place we had always to analyze the information and to ask a series of definite questions of it. So, for example, in the sexual side of family life we divided our problem into three main questions, and these again into sub-headings. Again the relations between husband and wife were viewed from the legal point (authority of husband), from the psychological point (affection), and in their functional aspect (behaviour and treatment). The relations between parents and children were divided into several headings (affection, treatment, education, etc.), and so forth. On some of such particular points it has been possible to obtain quite definite answers. Where there was a hopeless contradiction, it was carefully pointed out. In the same manner a reliable but apparently singular statement was carefully noted, even if it differed from all the rest of the information. In general the chief methodic rule in utilizing the evidence was to arrange the whole argument and inferences in the clearest possible manner. To this end the number of the statements for and against any opinion was always given; the compatibility of a given inference with the well-established facts of Australian sociology was investigated; and theexperimentum crucis, so much recommended by Steinmetz, was applied wherever possible. Attention also has been paid to the geographical point of view. Wherever it has been possible to ascertain local differences in customs, beliefs or institutions, or to show that such differences are localized in more extensive areas, care was taken to point it out. It is obviously an error to take "the Australian Aborigines" as an ethnic unit. Nevertheless many general, fundamental features of family life are undoubtedly common to all the tribes.
The individual family involves both the individual relations between husband and wife, and between parents and children.[959]These two relationships are obviously so intimately connected that the individuality of one of them has as its consequence the individuality of the other; each characteristic feature of one of them stands in a functional relation to some characteristic feature of the other. Both these relationships were studied and their mutual dependence in several respects was indicated.
A series of facts was adduced in order to prove that the individual relationship between husband and wife is unquestionably affirmed in the collective ideas of the natives. These facts, chiefly connected with the modes of obtaining wives (also with burial and mourning), implied even more detailed ideas: the affirmation that the husband has a series of individual rights and duties in regard to his wife; in other words that there is a mutual personal appropriation of husband and wife.
From some of the details as to the modes of obtaining wives the idea of individual appropriation can be clearly gathered. The family disposes of the female and benefits thereby; the disposal is effected in infancy, so it appears that the majority of females are always allotted. The individual appropriation is, so to say, a permanent status, extending not only to the married women, but to all females in the tribe. Only a man deeply in love, or impelled by some other desperate reason, attempts to elope with a female or to capture one. This always constitutes a crime, and is either punished or atoned for. Nevertheless, elopement occurs pretty often and has its fixed forms of legalization. This state of things obviously expresses the idea of individual appropriation in the strongest and most certain manner. Individual appropriation is further expressed in a whole system of ties binding the families of the two contracting parties, and especially binding the man to his (future or actual)parents-in-law. In this latter case the ties consist in the first place of obligations, chiefly gifts and the duty of supplying game. These obligations and the widespread custom of exchange of females appear to be a rudimentary form of marriage by purchase. Hence, again, a confirmation that individual marital rights are well known and acknowledged. Marriage by purchase implies a fair knowledge of individual appropriation, and shows that it is highly valued in a given society. In Australia the "bride money" is paid by an individual, not by a group. We find evidence of a number of betrothal and marriage ceremonies which carry in themselves binding powers. Such ceremonies mean that the underlying ideas are deeply rooted in the society where the ceremonies are found. In this case, the underlying ideas are that man and wife are firmly bound to each other by the ceremony. All these facts appear very important. Not only do they indicate that the ideas of the legality or illegality of the marriage contract—those of personal individual appropriation and of a high value attaching to marriage rights—exist in Australia. But it is difficult to reconcile with them the view that individual marriage is in Australia something new, a kind of innovation; that it is considered by the natives as something immoral, illicit, an encroachment of the individual on the rights of the group; and as something unimportant, secondary, merely temporary. On the contrary, as we find it existing, it bears the character of a deeply-rooted institution. All these conclusions have also been drawn independently from the general character and several details of the mourning customs. So that the discussion of these customs afforded another proof that marriage ties are considered very strong, and that the institution of marriage is the object of definite collective ideas, consequently is firmly established in the social organization. It has a social sanction and appears fairly permanent.
These facts suffice formally to define the individual marriage and individual rights of the husband to his wife.To give full context to this definition, and to characterize it more in detail, we must, on the one hand, investigate the general character of the behaviour of the consorts towards each other, and the feelings to which this behaviour points. On the other hand, an attempt must be made to determine the collective ideas expressing this relationship in its legal aspect. There have been, however, considerable difficulties in determining the emotional side of the relation between husband and wife. The results were rather negative; it appeared that we cannot accept either the extreme view of absolute bad treatment and want of affection, or the contrary opinion that the relations are of idyllic character. In general—allowing for a natural variety of feelings—the preponderance of feelings of attachment appears to be the rule. Much clearer are the results reached concerning the husband's actual rights over his wife. His authority is limited in some extreme cases only; and it is difficult to say who would interfere with it and what would be the legal form of such an interference. It may be said, therefore, that the treatment of females in Australia is determined much more by personal feelings than by legal norms, and that the latter only afford protection to the woman in cases of extreme illtreatment. In accordance with what has just been said as to personal feelings, it appears also that the treatment of women was not so exceedingly rough as is usually assumed.
The sexual rights of the husband must rather be understood in the sense that the husband is a proprietor of his wife, who may and occasionally must dispose of her; not in the sense of an inviolable exclusiveness of sexual access. The idea of chastity is absent. And consequently jealousy is not in existence in the sense in which we use that word in our society. But it exists in the form of ideas and feelings affirming the husband's definite right of control over his wife. And the natives highly disapprove of any transgression without the husband's consent and the sanction of custom. All sexual licence is regulated and subject tostrict rules. Consequently the ideas on what is right or wrong in sexual matters are fairly well defined. In other words, there is a more or less defined code of sexual morality, which has also its legal aspect, as crimes against it are punished by society in a regulated manner.
In reference to the problems of individual marriage and the individual family, it may be said, however, that the individualistic character of these institutions is not accentuated in the first place by the exclusiveness of sexual rights. In connection with sexual problems an excursus on the Pirrauru customs was made, in order to prove that the relationship involved does not possess the character of marriage. For it completely differs from marriage in nearly all the essential points by which marriage in Australia is defined. And above all the Pirrauru relation does not seem to involve the facts of family life in its true sense.
In order to investigate the latter in detail on a broader basis, that is including both the relations between parents and children and between husband and wife, we entered into a discussion of the relation of the family unit to the territorial distribution of the natives. It was found that the mode of living points to a very complete isolation of each family; some of the tribes live scattered in very small groups—one to three families on an average. Other tribes live in much larger groups, but these are by no means promiscuous and undivided hordes. There are camp rules, which point to the isolation of the family within the local group; and customary rules for the arrangement of individuals within the family, round camp fires and at meals, etc. These rules and the isolation of families are reported especially from the South-Eastern tribes, where we may perhaps assume that the local groups are more numerous. So that over the whole continent the lowest unit of the tribal structure appears to be the individual family.
After a long digression on the concept of familykinship,[960]the facts illustrating the relation between children and parents were surveyed. It was found that the characteristic features of this relationship are parental love and attachment of both father and mother to their children. The close tie between mother and child is set up by the fact of the first cares, suckling and carrying the child. The father is, as a rule, also extremely fond of his children; his relation to them is by no means characterized by any legal authority or tyrannical power, but by his affection. The father as well as the mother treat children of both sexes with extreme leniency, and give them some rudiments of education. Attention was drawn to the fact that the common attachment and extreme fondness of both parents for their children must constitute a strong bond of union between husband and wife. The family unit is nevertheless restricted to parents and children under the age of puberty. For although the ties between parents and children last throughout life, still after reaching puberty the children enter into new relationships, which superimpose themselves on the former ones. These new bonds result for the girl from marriage, for the boy from his entering into the tribal secret society (initiation and life in the bachelors' camp).
The discussion of the economic facts shows that the sexual division of labour is considerably developed; that the man's and the woman's share in the maintenance of the household is quite well defined and diverse. Further we find that the woman's work is of first-rate importance for the economic unity and subsistence of the household.
The careful survey of the facts has led to some conclusions which may be pointed out. Thus, for example, we have been driven to the conclusion that, in considering marriage, the importance of the sexual facts ought not to be exaggerated. In the majority of tribes sexual facts do not seem to play any part in the formation of bondsof kinship. Ideas of consanguinity are absent in these tribes,[961]and herewith the sexual relations between husband and wife lose their chief influence upon the unity of the family. On the other hand, the sexual rights of the husband, although very well determined, are so often crossed by other customs thatexclusiveaccess to a woman must not be made a part of the sociological definition of marriage. The importance of the economic features of family life, and of the common affection for children, is much more in the foreground.
Stress has been laid throughout the investigation on the importance of bearing in mind the connection of our special problem with the general structure of society. As said above, each conclusion has been submitted to a kind of test as to whether it stands in agreement or in contradiction with well-established general facts. The main points in which the dependence of the individual family upon social facts has been traced were the connection of the individual family with the territorial and tribal structure, the mode in which land ownership in some cases distinguishes the family as a unit, the influence of economic communism upon the economics of the individual family, etc. But the manner in which society most directly influences any institution lies in the various norms, moral, customary or legal, by which society regulates different aspects of the given institution. The importance of such social rules is emphatically affirmed by Prof. Durkheim:"Une communauté de fait entre des consanguins qui se sont arrangés pour vivre ensemble, mais sans qu'aucun d'eux soit tenu à des obligations déterminées envers les autres et d'où chacun peut se retirer à volonté, ne constitue pas une famille.... Pour qu'il y ait famille, il n'est pas nécessaire qu'il y ait cohabitation et il n'est pas suffisant qu'il y ait consanguinité. Mais il faut de plus ... qu'il y ait des droits et des devoirs, sanctionnés par la société, et qui unissent les members dont la famille est composée.... La famillen'existe qu'autant qu'elle est une institution sociale, à la fois juridique et morale, placée sous la sauvegarde de la collectivité ambiante."[962]Although this opinion is certainly exaggerated,[963]it quite rightly lays stress on the importance of the social regulation of the individual family.[964]
The importance of such norms, and especially of the legal ones, clearly appeared in the foregoing investigation. In order adequately to discuss this matter, the exact sense in which the concepts oflawandlegalmay be used was defined, and the legal organization in Australia was sketched. Furthermore, in all the questions discussed we have tried to ascertain whether there are any norms sanctioned by society, and what form this social enforcement assumes in any given case. And here it appears that nearly all sides of family life, far from being left to follow their own course, are more or less subject to definite norms of moral, customary or legal character. It was possible to establish beyond doubt the legal aspect of marriage by analyzing the modes of contracting marriage, and the duties of the widow, as shown in the mourning ceremonies. The relation between husband and wife, although characterized by a very extensive authority of the former, has nevertheless its legal basis. For the husband's authority is limited to a certain extent by exterior factors (tribal government, woman's kin) and must conform to certain norms (he has the right to punish her for certain crimes in a definite way); and he acquires his authority in a legal way (by a legal marriage contract). Sexual matters in general, and the sexual rights of the husband are well defined and regulated. Customary (or legal) rules govern the mode of living of a family, the distribution of food within the family, the sexual division of labour. The relation between parents and children, and especially the paternal authority, hardly presented any legal aspect. But on the whole it appears perfectly legitimate and necessary to define the individual family in Australia as a legal one, inasmuch as very many aspects of this institution are subject to legal norms. And, it would be completely erroneous to call, with Prof. Durkheim, these units"agrégat de fait, sans liens de droit, désapprouvé même le plus souvent par la loi et par l'opinion."[965]