Chapter 24

[571]"No advocate of innate ideas will maintain their existence on relationship by blood,"op. cit., p. 83.

[572]Primitive Paternity, i. pp. 257-258.

[573]Sidney Hartland, ii. p. 99.

[574]Of course I insist here only upon the logical and methodological priority of the psychological determination of kinship over the genealogical. In reality, wherever individual paternal kinship exists, the genealogies may be drawn first, and they possess an independent value, even if we did not know what is the content of the aboriginal idea of kinship. There is a series of highly valuable sociological conclusions that may be drawn from a system of genealogies (compare Dr. Rivers' article on this subject inSociological Review, 1910, pp. 1sqq.).I do not, therefore, agree with the following remark of Sir Laurence Gomme (op. cit., p. 232): "It is of no use preparing a genealogical tree on the basis of civilized knowledge of genealogy if such a document is beyond the ken of the people to whom it relates. The information for it may be correctly collected, but if the whole structure is not within the compass of savage thought it is a misleading anthropological document." If it is possible at all to collect a genealogy, that means that individual kinship exists in such a community; in other words the "structure is within the compass of savage thought," only it is not apprehended by them in the same manner as by us. It is certainly true that in many cases the knowledge of this aboriginal apprehension is essentially needful for a sociologist. This has been argued in the text.

I do not, therefore, agree with the following remark of Sir Laurence Gomme (op. cit., p. 232): "It is of no use preparing a genealogical tree on the basis of civilized knowledge of genealogy if such a document is beyond the ken of the people to whom it relates. The information for it may be correctly collected, but if the whole structure is not within the compass of savage thought it is a misleading anthropological document." If it is possible at all to collect a genealogy, that means that individual kinship exists in such a community; in other words the "structure is within the compass of savage thought," only it is not apprehended by them in the same manner as by us. It is certainly true that in many cases the knowledge of this aboriginal apprehension is essentially needful for a sociologist. This has been argued in the text.

[575]Camb. Univ. Exp., v. chap. iii. on Kinship, pp. 129sqq.In particular, pp. 142-152, under the headings "The Functions of certain Kin," and "Kinship Taboos."

[576]Recorded by Dr. Haddon,loc. cit., v. p. 210.

[577]Kam. and Kurn.

[578]A.S., i. p. 316.

[579]Ibid., p. 318.

[580]Loc. cit., p. lxiii. (of the Introduction).

[581]"L'indépendance réciproque du point de vue biologique et du point de vue social chez les Australiens."(Ibid., p. lxv.)

[582]H.H.M., p. 89.

[583]Loc. cit., pp. 232, 233; compare also above p. 182,footnote. Apart from the naturally somewhat loose terminology (the passage about kinship is intended as an example only, and does not aim at a full treatment of the subject)—the passages quoted express the same ideas which served as a starting-point for this chapter.I came across the paragraph in question unfortunately only after the MS. of the present chapter had been finished and the foregoing chapters had been printed. The opinion of Sir Laurence Gomme would also have been of value in support of the views expressed in the Introduction,pp. 6,7, where I try to show that it is meaningless to use the word "family" as a rigidly determined concept of universal application. "The family as seen in savage society, and the family as it appears among the antiquities of the Indo-European people, are totally distinct in origin, in compass and in force" (Sir Laurence Gomme,loc. cit., pp. 236, 237). And the author applies his criticism to the same two writers who have been the objects of my attacks (Mr. A. Lang and Mr. N. W. Thomas, seeop. cit., p. 236, footnote 1). And, again, Sir Laurence Gomme argues that the unqualified use of the term "family" is very harmful, "because of the universal application of this term to the smallest social unit of the civilized world, and because of the fundamental difference of structure of the units which roughly answer to the definition of family in various parts of the world" (op. cit., p. 235). Certainly there is also afundamental analogyof structure between all forms of human family; but the problem must be set forth and it must be acknowledged that this social unit undergoes deep changes as other elements of social structure change.

I came across the paragraph in question unfortunately only after the MS. of the present chapter had been finished and the foregoing chapters had been printed. The opinion of Sir Laurence Gomme would also have been of value in support of the views expressed in the Introduction,pp. 6,7, where I try to show that it is meaningless to use the word "family" as a rigidly determined concept of universal application. "The family as seen in savage society, and the family as it appears among the antiquities of the Indo-European people, are totally distinct in origin, in compass and in force" (Sir Laurence Gomme,loc. cit., pp. 236, 237). And the author applies his criticism to the same two writers who have been the objects of my attacks (Mr. A. Lang and Mr. N. W. Thomas, seeop. cit., p. 236, footnote 1). And, again, Sir Laurence Gomme argues that the unqualified use of the term "family" is very harmful, "because of the universal application of this term to the smallest social unit of the civilized world, and because of the fundamental difference of structure of the units which roughly answer to the definition of family in various parts of the world" (op. cit., p. 235). Certainly there is also afundamental analogyof structure between all forms of human family; but the problem must be set forth and it must be acknowledged that this social unit undergoes deep changes as other elements of social structure change.

[584]pp. 198sqq.

[585]Here in the first place must be mentioned the works of Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., pp. 123-127, 255;Nor. Tr., pp. 144, 163sqq., 169sqq., 174-176, 150, 330, 331; Mrs. Parker, pp. 50sqq., 61, 98.Strehlow,loc. cit., i., on the second and third pages of the Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi (there is no pagination), ii. pp. 51sqq., iii. pp. x.-xi. of the Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi. A short notice on totemic conception and on local distribution of spirit-children is communicated by Rev. L. Schultze,Trans. and Proc. R.S.S.A., xiv. p. 237 (1891). R. H. Mathews communicated in several places beliefs in reincarnation and totemic conception. SeeJour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W., xl. pp. 108sqq.,ibid., xli. p. 147. AndQueensland Geographical Journal, xx. p. 73, and xxii. pp. 75, 76.Am.Anthr., xxviii. p. 144.Bull. Soc. ofAnthr., Paris, vii. serie v. p. 171. Herbert Basedow,Trans. R.S.S.A., xxxi. (1907), p. 4. (Short communication concerning the Larrekiya tribe of the Northern territory, South Australia.) Amongst the sources must be quoted the communications given by Prof. Frazer on the authority of Dr. Frodsham, Bishop of North Queensland, and the Rev. C. W. Morrison, which refer to the Northern and North-Eastern tribes in general. Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i., p. 577.In fact, the theory of totemic conception is so closely connected with the whole of the aboriginal totemic beliefs that it is necessary to be acquainted with the latter in order to understand the former; and for this the perusal of both the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and of Strehlow is necessary.Among the theoretical works dealing with primitive views of conception and paternity (in Australia and in general), we must place first the treatise of Mr. E. S. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, which is the most extensive and thorough examination of all beliefs, referring to a supernatural cause of birth and all its social consequences. The beliefs in question play an important rôle in Prof. Frazer's work onTotemism and Exogamy. See especially vol. iv., on origins of Totemism.We may mention also the works of van Gennep,Mythes et Légendes d'Australie, especially chaps. v. and vi. of the Introduction, pp. 44-67, in which the ignorance of the natives is illustrated by several interesting remarks and inferences from other facts (for example, the beliefs of the aborigines about the rôle and nature of the sexual organs, pp. 111sqq.). Compare also the article of Frhr. v. Reitzenstein,Z.f.E., xli., pp. 644sqq.Mr. A. Lang's views (comp. above, p. 181,footnote 1) are expounded inAnthrop. Essays, pp. 203sqq., and inThe Secret of the Totem, chap. xi.

[585]Here in the first place must be mentioned the works of Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., pp. 123-127, 255;Nor. Tr., pp. 144, 163sqq., 169sqq., 174-176, 150, 330, 331; Mrs. Parker, pp. 50sqq., 61, 98.

Strehlow,loc. cit., i., on the second and third pages of the Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi (there is no pagination), ii. pp. 51sqq., iii. pp. x.-xi. of the Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi. A short notice on totemic conception and on local distribution of spirit-children is communicated by Rev. L. Schultze,Trans. and Proc. R.S.S.A., xiv. p. 237 (1891). R. H. Mathews communicated in several places beliefs in reincarnation and totemic conception. SeeJour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W., xl. pp. 108sqq.,ibid., xli. p. 147. AndQueensland Geographical Journal, xx. p. 73, and xxii. pp. 75, 76.Am.Anthr., xxviii. p. 144.Bull. Soc. ofAnthr., Paris, vii. serie v. p. 171. Herbert Basedow,Trans. R.S.S.A., xxxi. (1907), p. 4. (Short communication concerning the Larrekiya tribe of the Northern territory, South Australia.) Amongst the sources must be quoted the communications given by Prof. Frazer on the authority of Dr. Frodsham, Bishop of North Queensland, and the Rev. C. W. Morrison, which refer to the Northern and North-Eastern tribes in general. Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i., p. 577.

In fact, the theory of totemic conception is so closely connected with the whole of the aboriginal totemic beliefs that it is necessary to be acquainted with the latter in order to understand the former; and for this the perusal of both the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and of Strehlow is necessary.

Among the theoretical works dealing with primitive views of conception and paternity (in Australia and in general), we must place first the treatise of Mr. E. S. Hartland,Primitive Paternity, which is the most extensive and thorough examination of all beliefs, referring to a supernatural cause of birth and all its social consequences. The beliefs in question play an important rôle in Prof. Frazer's work onTotemism and Exogamy. See especially vol. iv., on origins of Totemism.

We may mention also the works of van Gennep,Mythes et Légendes d'Australie, especially chaps. v. and vi. of the Introduction, pp. 44-67, in which the ignorance of the natives is illustrated by several interesting remarks and inferences from other facts (for example, the beliefs of the aborigines about the rôle and nature of the sexual organs, pp. 111sqq.). Compare also the article of Frhr. v. Reitzenstein,Z.f.E., xli., pp. 644sqq.Mr. A. Lang's views (comp. above, p. 181,footnote 1) are expounded inAnthrop. Essays, pp. 203sqq., and inThe Secret of the Totem, chap. xi.

[586]This refers to the whole Central and North Central area. Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., p. 330. In a short note of recent date (Athenæum, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562), we read that Prof. B. Spencer has found the same absence of physiological knowledge in the tribes living North-West of the "Northern Tribes" (from Roper River to Port Darwin). According to his opinion this belief obtains from the South Coast of Australia over a broad belt right through the Centre to the North Coast. (Ibid.)

[587]It may be remembered here that this is not in contradiction with the passage in M. A. von Gennep's work,Mythes and Légendes d'Australie, p. lxiii, implying that there is social but not physiological consanguinity between father and child in the Central Australian tribes. The difference in terminology is explained above, p. 178,footnote 1, and reasons are given explaining why I did not adopt M. A. von Gennep's terminology, although I completely share his views.

[588]Loc. cit., ii. p. 52, footnote 7.

[589]Attention was drawn to this phrase by P. W. Schmidt in his article inZeitschrift für Ethnologie(1908), p. 866sqq., where the theory of conception among the Arunta is discussed. He doubts:"Ob wirklich eine vollständige Unkenntniss des Zusammenhanges von Koitus und Konzeption in primitivem Zustande vorhanden ist."—Loc. cit., p. 883.

[590]Strehlow, iii. pp. x., xi.

[591]Frhr. von Reitzenstein shares the view here accepted; comp. his review of Mr. Hartland's "Primitive Paternity" inZeitschr. f. Ethnologie, 43 Jhg. (1911), p. 175.

[592]Nat. Tr., p. 265.

[593]Loc. cit., ii. p. 52, footnote 7.

[594]Loc. cit., iii. p. xi.

[595]Nor. Tr., p. xi. Compare also pp. 145, 606. Spencer and Gillen's statement is corroborated by various other independent authors, some of them being even critically disposed. The reincarnation of ancestors is asserted by the missionaries Teichelmann and Schürmann, in reference to the Adelaide tribe (compare below, p. 217,note 4). Mr. Thomas has shown (Man, 1904, § 68, pp. 99, 100) that the belief in reincarnation is implied in the Rev. L. Schultze's statement. Mrs. Parker quotes also beliefs containing the idea of reincarnation (loc. cit., pp. 50, 56, 73, 89; quoted by Mr. E. S. Hartland,loc. cit., i. p. 243). Mr. R. H. Mathews also emphatically affirms the existence of a belief in reincarnation amongst the Central and even all the other Australian tribes (Trans. R.S.N.S.W., 1906, xi. pp. 110sqq.). He says: "In all aboriginal tribes there is a deeply-seated belief in the reincarnation of their ancestors." And he gives illustrations of this belief among the Arunta. Mr. Mathews also draws attention to a series of analogous statements from older authors (Taplin,loc. cit., p. 88, Schürmann,loc. cit., p. 235). Prof. B. Spencer has ascertained the existence of ideas about reincarnation in his recent investigations among the natives of the extreme North Roper River to Port Darwin.Athenæum, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562.

[596]Bn. Leonhardi in Strehlow, i. Introduction (third page; there is no pagination).

[597]Strehlow, ii. p. 57, end of the long footnote.

[598]Comparep. 216.

[599]Loc. cit., ii. p. 56.

[600]M. Lévy-Bruhl writes:"En appelant la mentalité primitive 'prélogique,' je veux seulement dire qu'elle ne s'astreint pas avant tout comme notre pensée, à s'abstenir de la contradiction. Elle obéit d'abord a la loi de participation."—Loc. cit., p. 79.

[601]In primitive thinking the identification is accomplished not according to logical categories, but according to theloi de participationintroduced by M. Lévy-Bruhl. (Compare foregoing footnote.) To this work the reader must be referred for a deeper insight into the standpoint adopted in the present discussion.

[602]This assertion ought to be proved by a detailed analysis of the beliefs mentioned. As the problem is of no immediate importance, this discussion cannot be undertaken. The aboriginal ideas of reincarnation have been treated from the point of view of theloi de participationby M. Lévy-Bruhl.—Loc. cit., pp. 396sqq.

[603]Spencer and Gillen themselves in many places make statements that stand in direct contradiction with a theory of reincarnationliterallyunderstood. Frhr. von Leonhardi takes the trouble to adduce several instances of these contradictions (ii. p. 56, footnote 1). They might easily be multiplied, but as argued in the text they do not affect in the least the value of the information. The description of these beliefs given by Strehlow (loc. cit., ii. pp. 51sqq.), does not differ radically from what we know about them from Spencer and Gillen, although Strehlow's account is more detailed.

[604]Loc. cit., ii. p. 56.

[605]Loc. cit., i. 16, ii. 7.

[606]The Altjira is the "good god (?) of the Aranda," i. p. 2.

[607]I cannot help feeling that this very belief in future rewards (by thegood god) and punishment appears somewhat tinged by Christian teachings.

[608]Nat. Tr., p. 51.

[609]Nor. Tr., p. 506.

[610]Ibid., p. 609.

[611]Ibid., p. 148.

[612]Nor. Tr., p. 358, footnote, and p. 530.

[613]And probably among the Australian tribes in general.

[614]Nat. Tr., p. 515.

[615]Compare Mr. Thomas' article inMan(1904), p. 99, § 68, where he quotes Teichelman and Schürmann. The widespread belief that white men are dead people returned to life is a proof of the existence of beliefs in reincarnation.

[616]Including the tribes recently investigated by Prof. B. Spencer.

[617]Compare above,pp. 176sqq., for discussion of this term.

[618]SeeSpencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., pp. 169sqq.

[619]Nor. Tr., p. 174. The same is related in the recent note of Prof. B. Spencer (Athenæum, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562). We read there: "The spirit-children know into what woman they must enter."

[620]Nor. Tr., pp. 119, 172. Compare N. W. Thomas,loc. cit.Map No. 1, facing p. 40.

[621]Compare above,p. 216.

[622]J. Morgan,Life and Adventures of William Buckley(Hobart, 1852). The value of this book and especially of the ethnographic information contained in it, has been disputed by Bonwick. See J. Bonwick,William Buckley, the Wild White Man(Melbourne, 1856), p. 7. I have not used Morgan's book as a source. The life-story of Morgan told therein is admittedly authentic.

[623]Stokes, quoted by M. Lévy-Bruhl,loc. cit., p. 400.

[624]Another instance where a white woman was received by a man as his daughter and accepted into the tribe and into all her rights and relationships, is told by Macgillivray,loc. cit., i., p. 303. She was shipwrecked, came into the power of the natives, and, of course, lived in a very miserable condition. Her only comfort was derived from the man who imagined that she was his reborn daughter. Henderson says that among the blacks of New South Wales the belief in white men being dead relatives who had returned was quite general. Such white men were accepted into the tribe and cordially treated.Loc. cit., p. 161.For other statements about white men being reincarnated dead relatives see Wilhelmi,Trans. R.S.V., v. p. 189. Br. Smyth,Aborigines of Victoria, ii. p. 224. (Article by Chauncy)ibid., p. 307 (article by Howitt). R. H. Mathews,Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W., xxxviii. (1905), p. 349. W. E. Roth, Bull. 5th, p. 16. R. H. Mathews,Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W., xl. pp. 113, 114. Earl,loc. cit., p. 241. Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 445, 446. The latter says that the natives were "ready to do anything" for the white people, once they recognized in them their relatives.

For other statements about white men being reincarnated dead relatives see Wilhelmi,Trans. R.S.V., v. p. 189. Br. Smyth,Aborigines of Victoria, ii. p. 224. (Article by Chauncy)ibid., p. 307 (article by Howitt). R. H. Mathews,Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W., xxxviii. (1905), p. 349. W. E. Roth, Bull. 5th, p. 16. R. H. Mathews,Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W., xl. pp. 113, 114. Earl,loc. cit., p. 241. Howitt,Nat. Tr., pp. 445, 446. The latter says that the natives were "ready to do anything" for the white people, once they recognized in them their relatives.

[625]Similar ideas have been enunciated by M. Lévy-Bruhl,loc. cit., pp. 388-402. Some of the Australian facts are quoted and interpreted there in an analogous way. M. Lévy-Bruhl naturally does not enter into as many particulars as has been necessary here, but his conclusion,"l'enfant-esprit qui se réincarne est déjà dans une relation determinée avec le père et la mère qui lui donnent naissance,"is nearly identical with what we have endeavoured to prove here. Perhaps the word "relation" does not quite coincide with what we are especially concerned with in this place,i. e.individual kinship, and has a wider, more general meaning.

[626]Nat. Tr., pp. 466, 467.

[627]Nor. Tr., pp. 344, 607.

[628]Nat. Tr., p. 250.

[629]Trans. R.S.N.S.W.(1907), p. 75.

[630]Ibid., p. 77.

[631]Nat. Tr., p. 10.

[632]Nor. Tr., p. 23.

[633]Ibid., p. 330.

[634]H. Basedow, inTrans. R.S.S.A., xxxi. p. 4, of the reprint quoted by Prof. Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i. p. 576. This has been recently verified by Prof. B. Spencer; compare above, p. 209,footnote 1.

[635]Tot. and Exog., i. pp. 576, 577.

[636]That the ignorance in question was complete is also the opinion of Mr. E. S. Hartland,loc. cit., ii. pp. 275, 276. He adduces several reasons and statements in support of it. Compare also what we said above about the completeness of this ignorance among the Central tribes.

[637]Loc. cit., pp. 50, 61, 98.

[638]SeeMan(1906), p. 180.

[639]Roth,Bull.V. p. 22, § 81.

[640]Roth,Bull.V. p. 18, § 68. This refers to the Pennefather River tribes.

[641]Ibid.

[642]J. G. Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i. p. 577, on the authority of Bishop Frodsham.

[643]H. Basedow,loc. cit., quoted by Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i. p. 576.

[644]Howitt,J.A.I., xii. p. 502.

[645]Cameron,J.A.I., xiv. p. 351.

[646]Aboriginal phrase quoted by Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 198.

[647]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 255.

[648]Ibid.

[649]Ibid., p. 263.

[650]It has been already remarked above onpage 179, that there can be no question of physiological consanguinity for other reasons.

[651]Defined at first only as members of the sameindividualfamily.

[652]Compare above,p. 6.

[653]Bonney,J.A.I., xiii. p. 125.

[654]Meyer in Woods, pp. 186, 187.

[655]Wyatt in Woods, p. 162.

[656]Chas. Wilhelmi, quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 51. (Port Lincoln Tribes.)

[657]Schürmann in Woods, p. 224.

[658]Loc. cit., i. pp. 123, 124.

[659]Collins, i. pp. 607, 608.

[660]In Woods, p. 258.

[661]Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., p. 264.

[662]Ibid., p. 51.

[663]Mathew, p. 166.

[664]Loc. cit., p. 50.

[665]It is very important to note that this individual rearing is, in all probability, deeply connected with the aboriginal mode of life; viz. their scattered manner of living in small groups and their roaming habits. Both these latter seem to be, on the other hand, dependent upon the economic conditions of the stage of primitive hunting and fishing, and it may be assumed that all lower races have passed through, broadly speaking, the same circumstances of life; it is, therefore, probable that the fact of common nursing can never have taken place in very low societies. I do not think, consequently, that Dr. Rivers's hypothesis, basing group motherhood on communism in suckling and rearing, can be accepted even in its general form.

[666]Howitt,Kam. and Kurn., p. 189.

[667]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 766.

[668]Recollections, p. 278.

[669]Curr,A.R., i. p. 76.

[670]A similar statement is given by Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., p. 51.

[671]Recollections, p. 252.

[672]A.R., i. p. 71.

[673]Loc. cit., p. 75.

[674]Kam. and Kurn., p. 244.

[675]Loc. cit., i. p. 47.

[676]Ibid.

[677]Mr. John Green (superintendent of a station, see vol. i. p. vi.), quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 78.

[678]Ibid., p. 48. Another description of the mode of child-carrying is given by Basedow,Jour. and Proc. R.S.S.A.(1907), xxxi.

[679]Br. Smyth, i. p. 51.

[680]J. Moore Davis in Br. Smyth, ii. p. 311. He speaks in this article indiscriminately of South Australians.

[681]Referring to natives of Victoria.

[682]Br. Smyth, ii. p. 290. Note on Australians, by A. Le Souëf. It refers, probably, to the Victorian blacks.

[683]Bonney,J.A.I., xiii. p. 126.

[684]Ibid.

[685]Ibid.

[686]Vol. i. pp. 332, 333.

[687]Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer,loc. cit., pp. 186, 187.

[688]Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer,loc. cit., p. 187.

[689]Ibid., p. 186.

[690]Loc. cit., p. 162.

[691]Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 181.

[692]Nat. Tr., p. 748; informant: H. Williams.

[693]Ibid., pp. 748-750.

[694]Bennett, i. p. 123.

[695]Ibid., pp. 125, 126.

[696]p. 33. The author knew personally some tribes of New South Wales and Queensland.

[697]Chas. Wilkes (smaller ed.), i. p. 225.

[698]p. 100.

[699]p. 244 (N. S. Wales).

[700]Henderson, p. 121.

[701]pp. 239, 268. Port Stephens blacks.

Back to Index Next