[299]Comp.Chap. II., and Chap. VII.p. 257.
[299]Comp.Chap. II., and Chap. VII.p. 257.
[300]Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., chap. iii., andNor. Tr., chap. iv. Roth,Ethnol. Stud., p. 174, § 305.
[300]Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., chap. iii., andNor. Tr., chap. iv. Roth,Ethnol. Stud., p. 174, § 305.
[301]See Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., p. 133, where this is explicitly mentioned. The names of both ceremonies in the Arunta seem to indicate this analogy;atna—ariltha—kumaandpura—ariltha—kuma(for their meaning see the place just quoted).
[301]See Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., p. 133, where this is explicitly mentioned. The names of both ceremonies in the Arunta seem to indicate this analogy;atna—ariltha—kumaandpura—ariltha—kuma(for their meaning see the place just quoted).
[302]Idem, p. 96, apply this concept, due to Lord Avebury, to this special case.
[302]Idem, p. 96, apply this concept, due to Lord Avebury, to this special case.
[303]Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., pp. 96, 97.
[303]Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., pp. 96, 97.
[304]Seeibid., pp. 96-99 (for the Arunta tribe).
[304]Seeibid., pp. 96-99 (for the Arunta tribe).
[305]Nor. Tr., p. 138.
[305]Nor. Tr., p. 138.
[306]Ibid., p. 139.
[306]Ibid., p. 139.
[307]Ibid.
[307]Ibid.
[308]Ibid., p. 140.
[308]Ibid., p. 140.
[309]ThePirraurucustom excepted.
[309]ThePirraurucustom excepted.
[310]For a detailed enumeration and description of all tribes among whom practices of thePirraurutype exist, see Howitt,J.A.I., xx. pp. 31-34. In this article, which is nearly exactly reproduced in Howitt's last work (Nat. Tr.), we possess, undoubtedly, the best information about thePirraurucustom. In another place (Folk-Lore, xviii. p. 184), Howitt assigns a still wider area to thePirraurupractice. "Altogether, Dr. Howitt reckons that the tribes which practised a form of group marriage like thePirrauruof the Dieri must have occupied an area of some 500,000 square miles, extending for a distance of 850 miles from Oodnadatta, the northern boundary of the Urabunna, to the eastern frontier of the Dieri, or of the Mardala tribe between the Flinders Range and the Barrier Range."—Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i. p. 371.
[310]For a detailed enumeration and description of all tribes among whom practices of thePirraurutype exist, see Howitt,J.A.I., xx. pp. 31-34. In this article, which is nearly exactly reproduced in Howitt's last work (Nat. Tr.), we possess, undoubtedly, the best information about thePirraurucustom. In another place (Folk-Lore, xviii. p. 184), Howitt assigns a still wider area to thePirraurupractice. "Altogether, Dr. Howitt reckons that the tribes which practised a form of group marriage like thePirrauruof the Dieri must have occupied an area of some 500,000 square miles, extending for a distance of 850 miles from Oodnadatta, the northern boundary of the Urabunna, to the eastern frontier of the Dieri, or of the Mardala tribe between the Flinders Range and the Barrier Range."—Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i. p. 371.
[311]We have reasons to doubt whether these authors were as well informed about the Urabunna tribe as about the Arunta nation. Anyhow, the information they give about thePiraungarucustom is much inferior as well in respect of quantity as quality (the inconsistency of their statement is shown above) than that about the Arunta, and the conclusions they draw therefrom are not quite in accord with the facts as they relate them (see below,p. 118).
[311]We have reasons to doubt whether these authors were as well informed about the Urabunna tribe as about the Arunta nation. Anyhow, the information they give about thePiraungarucustom is much inferior as well in respect of quantity as quality (the inconsistency of their statement is shown above) than that about the Arunta, and the conclusions they draw therefrom are not quite in accord with the facts as they relate them (see below,p. 118).
[312]J.A.I., xx. p. 53,Smith. Rep., p. 807,Trans. R.S.V., p. 100. InJ.A.I., xx. p. 53, Howitt says that among all these tribes there are two forms of marriage. "There is a marriage ... which may be spoken of as 'individual marriage.'" "There is also a marital relation existing between a man and a number of women, or between a woman and number of men. This latter connection may be spoken of as group marriage." We see that Howitt uses here the word "marriage" only to design the individual union, and speaking about thePirrauru, correctly employs the words "marital relations." This sounds quite differently from the repeated denial that the "individual marriage does not exist in the tribes" made by Spencer and Gillen (Nat. Tr., pp. 63, 109;Nor. Tr., p. 140). And again Howitt says (Trans. R.S.V., p. 115), "Individual marriage in Australian tribes has been evident to every one, but beside it exist also group marriages."
[312]J.A.I., xx. p. 53,Smith. Rep., p. 807,Trans. R.S.V., p. 100. InJ.A.I., xx. p. 53, Howitt says that among all these tribes there are two forms of marriage. "There is a marriage ... which may be spoken of as 'individual marriage.'" "There is also a marital relation existing between a man and a number of women, or between a woman and number of men. This latter connection may be spoken of as group marriage." We see that Howitt uses here the word "marriage" only to design the individual union, and speaking about thePirrauru, correctly employs the words "marital relations." This sounds quite differently from the repeated denial that the "individual marriage does not exist in the tribes" made by Spencer and Gillen (Nat. Tr., pp. 63, 109;Nor. Tr., p. 140). And again Howitt says (Trans. R.S.V., p. 115), "Individual marriage in Australian tribes has been evident to every one, but beside it exist also group marriages."
[313]Howitt,J.A.I., xx. p. 56.Smith. Rep., p. 807.
[313]Howitt,J.A.I., xx. p. 56.Smith. Rep., p. 807.
[314]See above,p. 41.
[314]See above,p. 41.
[315]Collective ideas which closely correspond to our ideas of monogamy, of monopolization of the marital rights and relationship in the widest sense of the word; special stress being laid on the point, that by the word "marital" relations I do not mean sexual relations, either exclusively or even in the first place.
[315]Collective ideas which closely correspond to our ideas of monogamy, of monopolization of the marital rights and relationship in the widest sense of the word; special stress being laid on the point, that by the word "marital" relations I do not mean sexual relations, either exclusively or even in the first place.
[316]Points to which attention was drawn by Mr. N. W. Thomas,loc. cit., p. 129.
[316]Points to which attention was drawn by Mr. N. W. Thomas,loc. cit., p. 129.
[317]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 187.J.A.I., xx. p. 56. Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., p. 73;Nat. Tr., p. 64. Howitt,Smith. Rep., p. 197.
[317]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 187.J.A.I., xx. p. 56. Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., p. 73;Nat. Tr., p. 64. Howitt,Smith. Rep., p. 197.
[318]The same was argued from a different point of view by Mr. N. W. Thomas,loc. cit., pp. 127sqq.
[318]The same was argued from a different point of view by Mr. N. W. Thomas,loc. cit., pp. 127sqq.
[319]J.A.I., xx. p. 56.
[319]J.A.I., xx. p. 56.
[320]Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 181, 187.
[320]Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 181, 187.
[321]Ibid., pp. 181, 182, 187.
[321]Ibid., pp. 181, 182, 187.
[322]See below,pp. 255sqq.
[322]See below,pp. 255sqq.
[323]Howitt says, explicitly (Nat. Tr., p. 184), that "the leading men in the tribe have usually more Tippa Malku andPirrauruwives than other men." The Pinnaru, Jalina Piramurana had over a dozen wives, and to get one of them asPirrauruwas a great honour for a man.
[323]Howitt says, explicitly (Nat. Tr., p. 184), that "the leading men in the tribe have usually more Tippa Malku andPirrauruwives than other men." The Pinnaru, Jalina Piramurana had over a dozen wives, and to get one of them asPirrauruwas a great honour for a man.
[324]J.A.I., xx. p. 56;Nat. Tr., p. 184;Smith. Rep., p. 807, under 5.
[324]J.A.I., xx. p. 56;Nat. Tr., p. 184;Smith. Rep., p. 807, under 5.
[325]J.A.I., xx. p. 56.
[325]J.A.I., xx. p. 56.
[326]Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 173, 174, beginning of chap. v.
[326]Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 173, 174, beginning of chap. v.
[327]Compare above, p. 108,note 2.
[327]Compare above, p. 108,note 2.
[328]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 182.
[328]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 182.
[329]Idem, J.A.I., xx. p. 57.
[329]Idem, J.A.I., xx. p. 57.
[330]Ibid., p. 58.
[330]Ibid., p. 58.
[331]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 183.
[331]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 183.
[332]See below,p. 243.
[332]See below,p. 243.
[333]J.A.I., xx. p. 58.
[333]J.A.I., xx. p. 58.
[334]See below,pp. 195,238and243.
[334]See below,pp. 195,238and243.
[335]Compare, however, the definition given by N.W. Thomas,loc. cit., p. 128, who shows also how misleading an indiscriminate use of such terms may be.
[335]Compare, however, the definition given by N.W. Thomas,loc. cit., p. 128, who shows also how misleading an indiscriminate use of such terms may be.
[336]And some others. For instance, Prof. Frazer in his new work,loc. cit., i. pp. 363sqq., where the theories and views of these authorities onPirrauruare accepted without any criticism.
[336]And some others. For instance, Prof. Frazer in his new work,loc. cit., i. pp. 363sqq., where the theories and views of these authorities onPirrauruare accepted without any criticism.
[337]Loc. cit., p. 136.
[337]Loc. cit., p. 136.
[338]Nat. Tr., p. 109.
[338]Nat. Tr., p. 109.
[339]Mr. Thomas has also remarked (loc. cit., p. 128) that Spencer and Gillen, who speak on page 109 of the real and not pretended group marriage among the Urabunna, say on the next page, that in the same tribe group marriage preceded the present state of things—and so contradict themselves. Such a carelessness is remarkable in a work, which in all other respects is a masterpiece; and all these reasons induce us to suspect that the subject in question must have been in theory as well as in facts not very familiar to our authors.
[339]Mr. Thomas has also remarked (loc. cit., p. 128) that Spencer and Gillen, who speak on page 109 of the real and not pretended group marriage among the Urabunna, say on the next page, that in the same tribe group marriage preceded the present state of things—and so contradict themselves. Such a carelessness is remarkable in a work, which in all other respects is a masterpiece; and all these reasons induce us to suspect that the subject in question must have been in theory as well as in facts not very familiar to our authors.
[340]Nor. Tr., p. 140.
[340]Nor. Tr., p. 140.
[341]Trans. R.S.V., p. 115.
[341]Trans. R.S.V., p. 115.
[342]In order to appreciate my argument, the reader is requested to peruse the passages referred to from the works of Howitt, and from Spencer and Gillen, and judge from their full text whether I am not right. The full quotations of these passages would have encumbered the present work. As polemics are always rather barren, I preferred to abstain from them.
[342]In order to appreciate my argument, the reader is requested to peruse the passages referred to from the works of Howitt, and from Spencer and Gillen, and judge from their full text whether I am not right. The full quotations of these passages would have encumbered the present work. As polemics are always rather barren, I preferred to abstain from them.
[343]This is an instance of the general truth that descriptive ethnography is highly dependent on the theories known and accepted by the investigator, and that information may be useful or useless according to whether the theoretical principles are correct or not. It is impossible for an observer to go below the surface if he does not discuss the phenomena and theorize on them. On the other hand such speculations, if carried on by the untrained faculties and unaided efforts of the writers, or under the influence of a theoretical prepossession, may be entirely misleading.
[343]This is an instance of the general truth that descriptive ethnography is highly dependent on the theories known and accepted by the investigator, and that information may be useful or useless according to whether the theoretical principles are correct or not. It is impossible for an observer to go below the surface if he does not discuss the phenomena and theorize on them. On the other hand such speculations, if carried on by the untrained faculties and unaided efforts of the writers, or under the influence of a theoretical prepossession, may be entirely misleading.
[344]Unless we give to the word marriage a new meaning, which would be hardly useful.
[344]Unless we give to the word marriage a new meaning, which would be hardly useful.
[345]Nat. Tr., pp. 99, 100.
[345]Nat. Tr., pp. 99, 100.
[346]This expression is perhaps inexact. But this is not the place for psychological and biological analyses. The reader may be referred to Dr. Westermarck's conclusion that there is a strong instinct of sexual jealousy among primitive races of men, both in males (H.H.M., pp. 117-132) and in females (ibid., pp. 495-500). This instinct is inherited from our animal ancestors (compare Darwin,Descent of Man, ii. p. 395). Important for us are the examples of female jealousy, quoted by Westermarck from the Australian material; Narrinyeri, Taplin, p. 11; Palmer, p. 282; Lumholtz, p. 213; Waitz Gerland, pp. 758, 781.
[346]This expression is perhaps inexact. But this is not the place for psychological and biological analyses. The reader may be referred to Dr. Westermarck's conclusion that there is a strong instinct of sexual jealousy among primitive races of men, both in males (H.H.M., pp. 117-132) and in females (ibid., pp. 495-500). This instinct is inherited from our animal ancestors (compare Darwin,Descent of Man, ii. p. 395). Important for us are the examples of female jealousy, quoted by Westermarck from the Australian material; Narrinyeri, Taplin, p. 11; Palmer, p. 282; Lumholtz, p. 213; Waitz Gerland, pp. 758, 781.
[347]Compare above,p. 83.
[347]Compare above,p. 83.
[348]Custom referring to a certain point—heree. g.to the question whether it is honourable or ignominious to waive one's marital rights—stands in the relation of correspondence to the collective ideas and collective feelings on this point. The expression of Spencer and Gillen that the feeling of jealousy is "subservient to that of the influence of tribal custom" is therefore incorrect (Nat. Tr., p. 99). It would be obviously quite erroneous to assert that there is any collective feeling which would not be subservient to the tribal custom. It is consequently meaningless to affirm that the given feeling here is subservient. We may, therefore, discard also the logical conclusion at which Messrs. Spencer and Gillen arrive from these premisses: viz. that jealousy is a matter of no importance when dealing with the Central Australians (ibid., p. 100). A certain tribal or national custom expresses or formulates public feelings, and, on the other hand, if there is a certain type of collective feelings or ideas, they must have their legal or customary forms wherein to express themselves. We should say: the Australian customs show that there is no such collective feeling as jealousy in our sense, which would obviously object to such customs as theirs. The collective feelings in Australia which correspond to our jealousy do not imply, therefore, the idea of absolute exclusiveness; the idea of inviolable personal access of a man to a woman does not exist there; that is proved by the custom in question. But outside the limits prescribed by tribal custom there is little adultery; jealousy seems to be exceedingly strong, and the same tribal law, which in some cases compels the man to give up his marital rights, in other cases justifies him in the utmost brutalities, and allows him even to inflict death with impunity upon his wife. Owing to the scantiness of our information we can hardly say whether sexual jealousy is stronger or weaker in Australian than in other societies; we can safely affirm that it is different.
[348]Custom referring to a certain point—heree. g.to the question whether it is honourable or ignominious to waive one's marital rights—stands in the relation of correspondence to the collective ideas and collective feelings on this point. The expression of Spencer and Gillen that the feeling of jealousy is "subservient to that of the influence of tribal custom" is therefore incorrect (Nat. Tr., p. 99). It would be obviously quite erroneous to assert that there is any collective feeling which would not be subservient to the tribal custom. It is consequently meaningless to affirm that the given feeling here is subservient. We may, therefore, discard also the logical conclusion at which Messrs. Spencer and Gillen arrive from these premisses: viz. that jealousy is a matter of no importance when dealing with the Central Australians (ibid., p. 100). A certain tribal or national custom expresses or formulates public feelings, and, on the other hand, if there is a certain type of collective feelings or ideas, they must have their legal or customary forms wherein to express themselves. We should say: the Australian customs show that there is no such collective feeling as jealousy in our sense, which would obviously object to such customs as theirs. The collective feelings in Australia which correspond to our jealousy do not imply, therefore, the idea of absolute exclusiveness; the idea of inviolable personal access of a man to a woman does not exist there; that is proved by the custom in question. But outside the limits prescribed by tribal custom there is little adultery; jealousy seems to be exceedingly strong, and the same tribal law, which in some cases compels the man to give up his marital rights, in other cases justifies him in the utmost brutalities, and allows him even to inflict death with impunity upon his wife. Owing to the scantiness of our information we can hardly say whether sexual jealousy is stronger or weaker in Australian than in other societies; we can safely affirm that it is different.
[349]See below,pp. 209sqq.and 226.
[349]See below,pp. 209sqq.and 226.
[350]Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., pp. 146sqq.
[350]Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., pp. 146sqq.
[351]Roth,Ethnol. Stud., p. 174. Beveridge, p. 53, Latin note.
[351]Roth,Ethnol. Stud., p. 174. Beveridge, p. 53, Latin note.
[352]The idea of a radical difference in the psychological aspect of jealousy among lower races of men is set forth by Dr. Westermarck: "Jealousy ... is far from being the same feeling in the mind of a savage as in that of a civilized man."—H.H.M., p. 30.
[352]The idea of a radical difference in the psychological aspect of jealousy among lower races of men is set forth by Dr. Westermarck: "Jealousy ... is far from being the same feeling in the mind of a savage as in that of a civilized man."—H.H.M., p. 30.
[353]Under the term "family unit" I understand in this study only the group constituted by husband, wife and their children.
[353]Under the term "family unit" I understand in this study only the group constituted by husband, wife and their children.
[354]"In the study of population ... the facts of aggregation or grouping are the first to claim our attention." (F. H. Giddings,Princ. of Sociology, p. 79). In fact all the social phenomena of higher order corresponding to differentiation and constitution depend upon the facts of grouping. In the lowest societies, as the Australian, the mode of living in very small groups precludesa priorithe possibility of any higher social formations. We may say that the social horizon of a community extends as far as the contact of its members. In higher societies this contact need not necessarily be an actual one; as a rule in more developed communities members of a social unit (nation, town, association) only come exceptionally and in a diminutive degree into immediate contact. But there are innumerable ways of mental contact. On the contrary there is no other form of contact but the personal one among the Australian blacks, and it is the first condition for the formation of any social bonds amongst them. In the discussion of all kinship bonds we should never lose sight of the fact that it is highly improbable that people who never were in personal contact could feel more closely related than people who usually live together.
[354]"In the study of population ... the facts of aggregation or grouping are the first to claim our attention." (F. H. Giddings,Princ. of Sociology, p. 79). In fact all the social phenomena of higher order corresponding to differentiation and constitution depend upon the facts of grouping. In the lowest societies, as the Australian, the mode of living in very small groups precludesa priorithe possibility of any higher social formations. We may say that the social horizon of a community extends as far as the contact of its members. In higher societies this contact need not necessarily be an actual one; as a rule in more developed communities members of a social unit (nation, town, association) only come exceptionally and in a diminutive degree into immediate contact. But there are innumerable ways of mental contact. On the contrary there is no other form of contact but the personal one among the Australian blacks, and it is the first condition for the formation of any social bonds amongst them. In the discussion of all kinship bonds we should never lose sight of the fact that it is highly improbable that people who never were in personal contact could feel more closely related than people who usually live together.
[355]The importance of the aboriginal mode of living in the study of family life and kinship bonds has been well brought out by Dr. Westermarck (H.H.M., pp. 42sqq., especially pp. 43-47). His general inference—that in low societies the scattered mode of living brings into prominence individual kinship bonds, and isolates the family unit—will be corroborated by our conclusions drawn from the Australian material. The few Australian examples—quoted and interpreted by Dr. Westermarck—have been vehemently disputed by Herr Cunow (loc. cit., p. 122, footnote). His criticism, if compared with the data presented in this chapter, will appear quite unfounded. Herr Cunow's book does not, by the way, deserve its good reputation. There are many statements in it, given without references, which I have been unable to verify in the first hand evidence.
[355]The importance of the aboriginal mode of living in the study of family life and kinship bonds has been well brought out by Dr. Westermarck (H.H.M., pp. 42sqq., especially pp. 43-47). His general inference—that in low societies the scattered mode of living brings into prominence individual kinship bonds, and isolates the family unit—will be corroborated by our conclusions drawn from the Australian material. The few Australian examples—quoted and interpreted by Dr. Westermarck—have been vehemently disputed by Herr Cunow (loc. cit., p. 122, footnote). His criticism, if compared with the data presented in this chapter, will appear quite unfounded. Herr Cunow's book does not, by the way, deserve its good reputation. There are many statements in it, given without references, which I have been unable to verify in the first hand evidence.
[356]See Wheeler,loc. cit., pp. 15sqq., and the references given there.
[356]See Wheeler,loc. cit., pp. 15sqq., and the references given there.
[357]Ibid., pp. 45, 46.
[357]Ibid., pp. 45, 46.
[358]To guard against misunderstanding I wish to emphasize that such words and expressions as "proprietor," "ownership," "landed property," "rights to a tract of country," etc., are not to be taken in the sense which they possess in application to higher societies, to our own society in particular. Their correct meaning will be gathered from the following discussion. For the sake of clearness and brevity it was sometimes needful, in the text, to use the above expressions, instead of the more correct ones like "possession," "claims to a country," etc. The term "property" has a definite legal meaning, which makes it impossible to apply it in its full sense to the low society with which we are concerned.
[358]To guard against misunderstanding I wish to emphasize that such words and expressions as "proprietor," "ownership," "landed property," "rights to a tract of country," etc., are not to be taken in the sense which they possess in application to higher societies, to our own society in particular. Their correct meaning will be gathered from the following discussion. For the sake of clearness and brevity it was sometimes needful, in the text, to use the above expressions, instead of the more correct ones like "possession," "claims to a country," etc. The term "property" has a definite legal meaning, which makes it impossible to apply it in its full sense to the low society with which we are concerned.
[359]According to Howitt's terminology.
[359]According to Howitt's terminology.
[360]Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 73, 74.
[360]Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 73, 74.
[361]We would saylocal group, as we reserve the termfamilyfor an undivided group living in the closest unity, and consisting of a man, his wife and his children.
[361]We would saylocal group, as we reserve the termfamilyfor an undivided group living in the closest unity, and consisting of a man, his wife and his children.
[362]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 74.
[362]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 74.
[363]Idem,Kam. and Kurn., p. 215.
[363]Idem,Kam. and Kurn., p. 215.
[364]Ibid.
[364]Ibid.
[365]Compare chapter on initiations in Howitt'sNat. Tr., andKam. and Kurn.,passim.
[365]Compare chapter on initiations in Howitt'sNat. Tr., andKam. and Kurn.,passim.
[366]Kam. and Kurn., p. 232 footnote.
[366]Kam. and Kurn., p. 232 footnote.
[367]Nat. Tr., p. 82.
[367]Nat. Tr., p. 82.
[368]Nat. Tr., p. 83.
[368]Nat. Tr., p. 83.
[369]Howitt,Smith. Rep.83, p. 816.
[369]Howitt,Smith. Rep.83, p. 816.
[370]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 311.
[370]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 311.
[371]Ibid.
[371]Ibid.
[372]Curr,Recollections, pp. 231, 240.
[372]Curr,Recollections, pp. 231, 240.
[373]Local exogamous moieties, not phratries!
[373]Local exogamous moieties, not phratries!
[374]Curr,Recollections, p. 243.
[374]Curr,Recollections, p. 243.
[375]Ibid., p. 231.
[375]Ibid., p. 231.
[376]Ibid., p. 234.
[376]Ibid., p. 234.
[377]It is never said clearly; but compare the story told in XIII, of the meeting of two tribes, andpassimthrough the work, p. 174 and others.
[377]It is never said clearly; but compare the story told in XIII, of the meeting of two tribes, andpassimthrough the work, p. 174 and others.
[378]Ibid., pp. 243, 244.
[378]Ibid., pp. 243, 244.
[379]Ibid., p. 243.
[379]Ibid., p. 243.
[380]It is used here in agreement with G. C. Wheeler, Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, etc.
[380]It is used here in agreement with G. C. Wheeler, Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, etc.
[381]Curr,A.R., i. pp. 61, 62.
[381]Curr,A.R., i. pp. 61, 62.
[382]Ibid., pp. 64, 65.
[382]Ibid., pp. 64, 65.
[383]Loc. cit., i. p. 74.
[383]Loc. cit., i. p. 74.
[384]Loc. cit., i. p. 81.
[384]Loc. cit., i. p. 81.
[385]Eyre, ii. p. 297.
[385]Eyre, ii. p. 297.
[386]Ibid., pp. 218, 297.
[386]Ibid., pp. 218, 297.
[387]Ibid., p. 297.
[387]Ibid., p. 297.
[388]Ibid., ii. p. 297.
[388]Ibid., ii. p. 297.
[389]Ibid., p. 218.
[389]Ibid., p. 218.
[390]Ibid., ii. p. 317.
[390]Ibid., ii. p. 317.
[391]Mitchell,loc. cit., ii. p. 92.
[391]Mitchell,loc. cit., ii. p. 92.
[392]H. E. A. Meyer,loc. cit., p. 198.
[392]H. E. A. Meyer,loc. cit., p. 198.
[393]H. E. A. Meyer,loc. cit., pp. 191, 192.
[393]H. E. A. Meyer,loc. cit., pp. 191, 192.
[394]Taplin,loc. cit., p. 35.
[394]Taplin,loc. cit., p. 35.
[395]Ibid., p. 36.
[395]Ibid., p. 36.
[396]T. M. Sutton,loc. cit., p. 17.
[396]T. M. Sutton,loc. cit., p. 17.
[397]Schürmann,loc. cit., p. 221.
[397]Schürmann,loc. cit., p. 221.
[398]Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 178.
[398]Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 178.
[399]Ibid., p. 165.
[399]Ibid., p. 165.
[400]Compare T. Gill,loc. cit., p. 223, on the authority of Dr. Moorhouse.
[400]Compare T. Gill,loc. cit., p. 223, on the authority of Dr. Moorhouse.
[401]G. S. Lang,loc. cit., p. 5.
[401]G. S. Lang,loc. cit., p. 5.
[402]G. S. Lang,loc. cit., p. 14.
[402]G. S. Lang,loc. cit., p. 14.
[403]Refers probably to the Murrumbidgee tribes.Op. cit., iii. p. 9.
[403]Refers probably to the Murrumbidgee tribes.Op. cit., iii. p. 9.
[404]Chas. Wilkes (larger edition), ii. p. 187.
[404]Chas. Wilkes (larger edition), ii. p. 187.
[405]Loc. cit., p. 89.
[405]Loc. cit., p. 89.
[406]Loc. cit., i. p. 599.
[406]Loc. cit., i. p. 599.
[407]Henderson,loc. cit., p. 108.
[407]Henderson,loc. cit., p. 108.
[408]Loc. cit., p. 36.
[408]Loc. cit., p. 36.
[409]Loc. cit., p. 37.
[409]Loc. cit., p. 37.
[410]Port Stephens tribe. R. Dawson, pp. 326, 327.
[410]Port Stephens tribe. R. Dawson, pp. 326, 327.
[411]Ibid., compare also p. 63.
[411]Ibid., compare also p. 63.
[412]Hodgkinson,loc. cit., p. 222.
[412]Hodgkinson,loc. cit., p. 222.
[413]Science of Man, 1900, p. 116, article by A. C. McDougall.
[413]Science of Man, 1900, p. 116, article by A. C. McDougall.
[414]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 46.
[414]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 46.
[415]Gason,loc. cit., p. 258.
[415]Gason,loc. cit., p. 258.
[416]Nat. Tr., pp. 9, 16 andpassimthroughout both works, especially in connection with the description of totemism and totemic cult.
[416]Nat. Tr., pp. 9, 16 andpassimthroughout both works, especially in connection with the description of totemism and totemic cult.
[417]Nor. Tr., p. 27.
[417]Nor. Tr., p. 27.
[418]Ibid.
[418]Ibid.
[419]Nat. Tr., p. 16.
[419]Nat. Tr., p. 16.
[420]Nor. Tr., p. 31.
[420]Nor. Tr., p. 31.
[421]The ties between a totemic local group and its hunting-grounds are based on the whole cycle of totemic ideas on reincarnation, supernatural conception; on the Oknanikilla and Ertnatulunga. The reader must be referred to the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and Strehlow and to what is said about these points below in connection with the native ideas on conception (Chap. VI.).
[421]The ties between a totemic local group and its hunting-grounds are based on the whole cycle of totemic ideas on reincarnation, supernatural conception; on the Oknanikilla and Ertnatulunga. The reader must be referred to the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and Strehlow and to what is said about these points below in connection with the native ideas on conception (Chap. VI.).
[422]J. and Pr. R.S.N.S.W., xl. p. 108.
[422]J. and Pr. R.S.N.S.W., xl. p. 108.
[423]Moreton Bay. J.D. Lang, p. 335, 336.
[423]Moreton Bay. J.D. Lang, p. 335, 336.
[424]J. Mathew, i. p. 128.
[424]J. Mathew, i. p. 128.
[425]J. Mathew, i. p. 129.
[425]J. Mathew, i. p. 129.
[426]E. Palmer,J.A.I., xiii. pp. 278, 279.
[426]E. Palmer,J.A.I., xiii. pp. 278, 279.
[427]Roth,Eth. Stud., p. 133, § 226.
[427]Roth,Eth. Stud., p. 133, § 226.
[428]Idem, Bull. viii. p. 8.
[428]Idem, Bull. viii. p. 8.
[429]Ibid.andProc. R.S.Q., pp. 50, 51.
[429]Ibid.andProc. R.S.Q., pp. 50, 51.
[430]Bull. v. pp. 18, 23.
[430]Bull. v. pp. 18, 23.
[431]Idem,Proc. R.S.Q., p. 69.
[431]Idem,Proc. R.S.Q., p. 69.
[432]Loc. cit., pp. 241, 242.
[432]Loc. cit., pp. 241, 242.
[433]Loc. cit., pp. 156, 157.
[433]Loc. cit., pp. 156, 157.
[434]J. G. Withnell,loc. cit., p. 8.
[434]J. G. Withnell,loc. cit., p. 8.
[435]Ibid.
[435]Ibid.
[436]Idem, p. 31.
[436]Idem, p. 31.
[437]Loc. cit., pp. 5, 6.
[437]Loc. cit., pp. 5, 6.
[438]Loc. cit., i. p. 252.
[438]Loc. cit., i. p. 252.
[439]Loc. cit., p. 265.
[439]Loc. cit., p. 265.
[440]Loc. cit., p. 266.
[440]Loc. cit., p. 266.
[441]Loc. cit., p. 267.
[441]Loc. cit., p. 267.
[442]Loc. cit., p. 53.
[442]Loc. cit., p. 53.
[443]Loc. cit., p. 52.
[443]Loc. cit., p. 52.
[444]Loc. cit., p. 53.
[444]Loc. cit., p. 53.