Chapter 23

[445]Browne,loc. cit., pp. 476, 478.

[446]Loc. cit., p. 28.

[447]Ibid.

[448]Ibid.; compare also p. 44.

[449]Loc. cit., p. 36.

[450]Compare G. C. Wheeler,loc. cit., pp. 62-67. In the above statements I did not include explicitly all the contexts referring to this point, as it lies outside our proper field of investigation. It may be found, more or less explicitly, in some of them (J. D. Lang,e. g.). I mentioned it here only to give a fuller account of all aspects under which possession of land presents itself in Australia.

[451]Compare Wheeler,loc. cit., where this question is thoroughly discussed, and also Curr, pp. 244sqq., Roth, Bull. 8, p. 9; Salvado, p. 265; Grey, ii. p. 272; Browne,loc. cit., p. 445; G. S. Lang, p. 5.

[452]This mystic character of some individual claims to a particular tract of country appears also from Roth's statement, and from a passage of Oldfield (loc. cit., p. 252). "Every male is bound to visit the place of his nativity three times a year." But this writer could not ascertain the purpose of it.

[453]Compare Grey, ii. p. 233, and the letter of G. S. Lang quoted by him therein. It appears that both these writers were to a certain extent inspired by a humanitarian tendency, namely to show that the Australian aborigines were not quite without ideas of property in land, and that they were wronged by the white settlers, and thus deserved compensation for the loss of their hunting-grounds. The letter mentioned was written to some humanitarian society. We may, therefore, still more distrust these statements. We have seen that the idea of possession of land, of an exclusive right to use a certain tract of country, was well known to our aborigines, but that they conceived of it as vested in a group, not in individuals.

[454]It is well to remember that there cannot be drawn a sharp line of distinction between a "family" and a "local group"; moreover, in the use of these terms our authorities are mostly careless and indiscriminate. As to the individual possession of land, it has been pointed out in connection with Howitt's statement on the Wurunjerri, that the individual rights of some influential man (headman) might be the expression of the rights of his local group.

[455]In agreement with Mr. Wheeler.

[456]Compare nearly all of our statements, especially those of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Curr. Mr. Wheeler writes in his conclusions (loc. cit., p. 161). "Territorial conquest is never sought, for the absolute right of the local group to its district is fully recognized." The respect for boundaries is also stated: inScience of Man, xi. (1910), p. 197 ("tribal" area sharply marked; death is the punishment for trespass).Ibid.(1900), p. 85.Ibid.(1901), p. 9.

[457]It is impossible to enlarge here upon this interesting subject, which would require a separate study to itself. The two volumes of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen especially are full of facts, showing that the tribal traditions, the totemic cult, the initiation ceremonies, and all other magical (or religious) functions were intimately bound up with the locality in which a local group lived. The local group itself was, so to say, an offshoot of the local totem centre, theOknanikilla; the "spiritual parts" of its member, closely associated each with itsChuringa, are enshrined in theErtnatulunga. That the local group is intimately connected with its territory is no wonder. Such a form of possession, although it involves an extremely strong bond of union between man and land, is evidently something quite different from more developed forms of proprietorship.

[458]The difference in physical geography between the coastal regions and the Central parts, the greater variety in the South-East region in general, and the relations of these physiographical features to the social features of the Australian aboriginal society, are well brought out by Prof. Frazer in his beautifully written chapter on Physical Geography (Tot. andExog., chap. v. § 1, pp. 314-339). Prof. Frazer's conclusion that the coastal and South-Eastern tribes are more advanced involves the assertion set forth here that coastal tribes, and in general tribes living in more fertile regions, live in more numerous, stable and permanent aggregations. Many of the instances and quotations of Prof. Frazer's chapter directly confirm our results, and the reader is referred to this chapter, which reviews nearly all the geographical differences that can be traced in Australia. That I do not agree with Prof. Frazer's views as to group marriage, etc., and with all his conclusions referring to prehistoric times, hardly needs to be pointed out, and does not affect the importance for my argument of his splendid collection and exposition of facts. Especially the two passages from Grey, quoted by Prof. Frazerin extenso, which had escaped my attention, are very valuable. They show that on the coast, where the soil is more fertile, the natives lived in larger bodies.

[459]Tom Petrie,Reminiscences, chap. i. Besides, compare gatherings at initiation. R. H. Mathews,Proc. R.S.N.S.W., 1904, pp. 114-123.Science of Man, xi., 1910, p. 192. Bunya-Bunya gatherings.

[460]Compare G. C. Wheeler,loc. cit., p. 161, and chap. ix. on War, pp. 148sqq.

[461]Howitt,Kam. and Kurn., pp. 208-210, andNat. Tr., pp. 773-776.

[462]I use the word family only in the sense of a man, his wife or wives, and their offspring before reaching puberty.

[463]As in the example;Kam. and Kurn., p. 209.

[464]See this example and diagram inNat. Tr., p. 774.

[465]Kam. and Kurn., pp. 209, 210, andNat. Tr., p. 774.

[466]Idem,Nat. Tr., pp. 774, 775. CompareKam. and Kurn., p. 209.

[467]Kam. and Kurn., p. 210.

[468]Nat. Tr., p. 775.

[469]Rev. Stähle inKam. and Kurn., pp. 277, 278.

[470]Recollections, p. 250, refers to the Bangerang tribe. Compare alsoibid., p. 256 andA.R., i. pp. 65, 98, 100.

[471]Recollections, p. 259.

[472]CompareA.R., i. pp. 109, 110.

[473]Recollections, p. 133.

[474]Loc. cit., pp. 10, 11.

[475]Loc. cit., pp. 17, 20.

[476]Ibid.

[477]Eyre, ii. p. 302.

[478]Compare Curr,A.R., i. p. 97, and Prof. Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i. pp. 321, 322.

[479]Loc. cit., p. 124.

[480]Br. Smyth, ii. 318, refers to New South Wales.

[481]Loc. cit., p. 24.

[482]Loc. cit., p. 23.

[483]Beveridge seems to have been in long contact with the aborigines, but he never says in what state of social decomposition they were. In all he writes, although there is some interesting information, there may be seen a lack of accuracy of observation and expression.

[484]Loc. cit., i. p. 555.

[485]Loc. cit., i. p. 560 andpassim.

[486]Loc. cit., p. 555.

[487]Rev. W. J. Kühn inKam. and Kurn., p. 287.

[488]Woods, p. 222.

[489]Loc. cit., p. 109.

[490]Loc. cit., p. 82.

[491]R. Dawson, p. 327. Port Stephens Blacks.

[492]Loc. cit., p. 249.

[493]Nat. Tr., p. 18.

[494]J.A.I., xxiv. p. 183 (W. H. Willshire in Prof. Frazer'sQuestions).

[495]J. D. Lang,loc. cit., p. 337.

[496]Loc. cit., p. 153.

[497]Loc. cit., p. 84.

[498]Eth. Stud., p. 182, § 327.

[499]Bull. iii. p. 7.

[500]Proc. R.S.Q., p. 48.

[501]Eth. Stud., §§ 159, 160, 161, pp. 105-107.

[502]Loc. cit., ii. p. 252.

[503]Ibid.

[504]Ibid.

[505]Loc. cit., pp. 252, 253.

[506]Loc. cit., p. 253.

[507]Loc. cit., pp. 242, 253, 255.

[508]Loc. cit., p. 279.

[509]Loc. cit., p. 280.

[510]Salvado,loc. cit., p. 317.

[511]Loc. cit., p. 448.

[512]It is well to notice here that the isolation of families was closely connected with the isolation of both sexes. The men were in contact only with their wives and perhaps with their near female relatives. That this isolation cannot be due to motives of sexual jealousy is certain; it is in great part due to the dread of evil magic. But to work out this question would lead us too far. Compare Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 776, 777.

[513]Compare, for instance, Morgan,Systems, pp. 108sqq.For other examples see below,pp. 199sqq.Sir Laurence Gomme writes: "One of our greatest difficulties, indeed, is the indiscriminate use of kinship terms by our descriptive authorities."—Loc. cit., p. 235.

[514]This would be the place to point out the biological meaning of the social aspects of kinship and family; whether,e. g.the different social regulations of sexual intercourse, which in higher societies afford the basis to kinship, the different forms of family and kinship are the expression of biological laws. How far such would be possible could only be decided on the basis of a biological knowledge which the present writer does not possess.

[515]Of course by result is meant a general formula for kinship.

[516]In reference to Dr. Rivers' article, comparepp. 6, 7.

[517]In some cases, when the position of the father is very subordinate in the family and his relation to the mother and her children is a very loose one—it seems doubtful whether the existence of the individual family (in the sense here defined) can be accepted (compare, for examples of such peoples, Dr. Westermarck,H.H.M., p. 109, and Sir Laurence Gomme,loc. cit., pp. 231, 232). In these cases the necessary condition for individualpaternalkinship according to our theory would be lacking.

[518]This definition may appear a commonplace and a truism, a mere formulation of what is obvious to every one at first sight. But it is liable to this objection only when taken formally,i. e.when only itsformis considered, because it contains in the wordsparental group(individual family) the substance of all that has been said in the preceding pages about this social unit; and the other terms of the definition (collective ideasandcollective feelings) will be determined more in detail in the following discussion.

[519]Legal adoption being set apart as a case which only partly establishes the kinship relations.

[520]It seems hardly necessary to emphasize that for physiological consanguinityas such, pure and simple, there is no room in sociological science.

[521]Keeping to the definition of this word as given above. It is a question of mere convention whether we call the general relationship not necessarily based upon ideas of community of bloodkinship, as is done here, or whether we call itsocialin opposition tophysical kinship, as does M. A. van Gennep. What is essential is to point out that our peculiarly European idea of kinship, which necessarily involves consanguinity, cannot be applied to other societies without discussion, but that it is only a special case of a more general concept of kinship which may be made up of quite different elements. It would seem convenient to reserve the word consanguinity for relationship based upon community of blood, and to use the word kinship to denote the parental relationship in general.

[522]Dr. Westermarck writes: "There are numerous savage and barbarous peoples among whom sexual intercourse out of wedlock is of rare occurrence; unchastity at least on the part of the woman being looked upon as a disgrace and even as a crime" (Westermarck,H.H.M., p. 61). In support of his opinion he adduces some forty cases where chastity is considered a virtue. Besides, the Veddas (according to Sarrazins and Seligmann) and the Andamanese (according to Man) may be quoted as peoples by whom absolute marital fidelity is required.

[523]For various examples of various peoples besides the Australians, see Westermarck, pp. 71, 81. Compare also Post,Ethnologische Jurisprudenz, i. pp. 17sqq., and Dargun,loc. cit., pp. 9sqq.

[524]Which are dealt with at length in the second part of this chapter.

[525]Westermarck,loc. cit., p. 105.

[526]Ibid., p. 106.

[527]Ibid.

[528]Loc. cit., pp. 9-18.

[529]Rivers,The Todas, pp. 517sqq.

[530]Mr. Sidney Hartland has given an exceedingly exhaustive collection of stories "of birth other than what we know as the only natural cause"; of customs in which the "means to which in these stories birth is attributed are or have been actually adopted for the production of children"; and he has compared this folkloristic material with the Australian beliefs. Besides this weight of facts, the author adduces other important reasons why it is extremely probable that "such ignorance was once greater and more widespread than now." The book of Mr. Sidney Hartland is undoubtedly the most thorough and most scientific discussion of the present problem. The strength of his arguments and the mass of evidence strongly support his conclusions. The contrary opinion, viz. that the Australian nescience is an accidental result of some animistic beliefs, an opinion chiefly represented by Mr. A. Lang, seems to be based more on speculation than on facts. The view that the ignorance of paternity was widespread in primitive mankind is shared by Prof. Frazer, M. A. van Gennep, and Frhr. von Reitzenstein. (For references, see below, p. 208,footnote 1.)

[531]How far Mr. Hartland's results appear incomplete on the sociological side will be discussed hereafter.

[532]Sir Laurence Gomme writes: "There is a wide difference between the mere physical fact of having a mother and father, and the political fact of using this kinship for social organization. Savages who have not learned the political significance have but the scantiest appreciation of the physical fact. The Australians, for instance, have no term to express the relationship between mother and child. This is because the physical fact is of no significance...." (loc. cit., p. 232).

[533]The termschild,fatherandmotherbeing defined first broadly as explained above,pp. 172sqq.

[534]As an example may be quoted the "functions of kinship" described by Dr. Rivers for the Torres Straits Islanders.Cambridge Exp. to Torres Straits, v. pp. 144sqq., and vi. pp. 100, 101. Also by Dr. Seligmann for the Melanesians of New Guinea, see passage under this heading in chap. iii. and chap. xxxvii.op. cit.

[535]Perhaps the best one is given by Dargun,loc. cit., pp. 22sqq., where many other opinions are also quoted and criticized.

[536]The word descent is often used without any definition. Mr. E. S. Hartland,op. cit., i. p. 258, uses it in a sense synonymous with kinship. Mr. Thomas, too, does not define the meaning of this word, but he uses it more or less in the same way as is done in the text. Compare Thomas,loc. cit., pp. 11, 12sqq.

[537]It is impossible to develop here this thought, which would require a volume if regard be had to the complexity of the fact. The references to higher societies are given by way of illustration only.

[538]See above,p. 11.

[539]Comparing what we have saidaboveon consanguinity.

[540]pp. 238sqq.; andpp. 254-256.

[541]The italics are mine.

[542]Loc. cit., p. 5.

[543]Loc. cit., p. 2.

[544]Ibid.

[545]See above,p. 182.

[546]Loc. cit., p. 2.

[547]Loc. cit., p. 7.

[548]Ibid.

[549]Loc. cit., p. 8.

[550]"Fatherhood to a Central Australian savage is a very different thing from fatherhood to a civilized European. To the European father it means that he has begotten a child on a woman; to the Central Australian father it means that the child is the offspring of a woman with whom he has a right to cohabit, whether he has actually had intercourse with her or not. To the European mind the tie between a father and his child is physical; to the Central Australian it is social."—Loc. cit., i. p. 236.

[551]pp. 186,254.

[552]pp. 11sqq.

[553]In our society, if parents wish to abandon their progeny while still dependent, they would be prevented by the law from doing it, and compelled to perform a series of duties and services, which usually spring from the natural parental love. Thus we see that in our society the relation between parents and children has much more of a legal character than in Australia. Nevertheless it would seem quite absurd to style this relation in our society as essentially a legal one. It has only its legal sides, which, comparatively, are seldom put into action, especially while the children are not yet grown up,i. e.just during the period when the relationship in question is the most important.

[554]Comparepp. 254sqq.

[555]The legal norms are an essential object of study also from the standpoint that they may be the expression of some important ideas held about kinship. Especially the motivation of these norms, as given by the aborigines, may be of high value in this respect. But obviously this does not mean that kinship is a legal category.

[556]As is well known, we are indebted for the concept ofcollective ideasto the French school of Prof. Durkheim and his associates. Throughout this study, and especially in this chapter, I have done my best to avail myself of this valuable methodological standpoint.

[557]It seems needless to add that the deep connection and mutual dependence of both feelings and ideas is perfectly acknowledged. This is not the place, of course, to pursue any detailed psychological investigations. I would like to remind the reader that all that is said here must be judged by its application to the Australian facts given below. In higher societies where art, poetry and thought lend themselves much more to the expression of feelings, the former afford objective documents of the latter. In low societies we must look for such objective documents elsewhere, in different sets of facts.

[558]Compare below,p. 250.

[559]Conys.Statements,pp. 238sqq.

[560]Br. Smyth, ii. p. 311.

[561]Loc. cit., pp. 92, 93.

[562]Kam. and Kurn., p. 189.

[563]Comparepp. 248,249; and269sqq.

[564]The importance of the emotional character of parental kinship has already been theoretically studied. Prof. K. Buecher (loc. cit., p. 19) represents the primitive parents as selfish, heartless, with no love or attachment for the child, and draws important conclusions from this. Dr. Steinmetz has subjected this assumption to a thorough criticism; taking his stand on a rich collection of ethnological data, he shows that this assumption is without any ground; he fully acknowledges the importance in sociological researches of behaviour, treatment and emotional attitude in the parental relation. Compare his important article inZeitschr. f.Soziologie, i. pp. 608sqq., andEthnologische Studien, ii. pp. 186sqq.

[565]Compare thefootnote above, p. 174.

[566]Compare also above,p. 171.

[567]Compare especiallySystems, etc., chap. ii. pp. 10sqq."The family relationships are as ancient as thefamily. They exist in virtue of the law of derivation, which is expressed by the perpetuation of the species through the marriage relations. A system ofconsanguinity, which isfounded upon a community of blood, is but the formal expression and recognition of these relationships." (The italics are mine.) This is in other words the assumption that kinship was always conceived as consanguinity, or community of blood through procreation. Compare alsoAncient Society, pp. 393, 395.

[568]Systems, etc., pp. 474sqq., where the only source of the classificatory system is attributed to different "customs" referring to the sexual aspect of marriage. As we saw, precisely this aspect is quite irrelevant to the formation of primitive kinship ideas, consequently also of primitive kinship terms.

[569]Seeloc. cit., pp. 83sqq.It is difficult to pick out any one clear statement to show that the author identifies kinship with consanguinity. But a glance at the pages quoted is enough to prove this. I quote a phrase from the table of contents: "The most ancient system in which theidea of blood relationshipwas embodied was a system of kinship through females only." (The italics are mine.)

[570]Men are always "bound together by a feeling of kindred. The filial and paternal affections may be instinctive. They are obviously independent of any theory of kinship, its origin and consequences ... they may have existed long before kinship became an object of thought,"op. cit., p. 83. From these remarks it is only one step to say that feelings ought to be considered as determining elements, and that even if ideas corresponding to them did not exist, kinship could not be denied.

Back to Index Next