Chapter 26

[882]Loc. cit., p. 117.

[883]Collins, i. p. 556.

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

[885]Loc. cit., p. 60.

[886]Port Stephens tribes. R. Dawson, p. 67.

[887]Spencer and Gillen,Nat. Tr., p. 50.

[888]Ibid., p. 19.

[889]Macgillivray, i. p. 148.

[890]Earl, p. 251.

[891]Petrie, p. 61.

[892]B. Field, p. 75.

[893]Loc. cit., p. 83.

[894]Ibid., p. 82.

[895]Ibid., p. 86.

[896]Loc. cit., p. 100.

[897]Loc. cit., p. 160, 161.

[898]Ibid., p. 193.

[899]Eth. Stud., p. 184.

[900]Ibid., p. 57.

[901]Ibid., p. 69.

[902]Eth. Stud., ch. v.passim, especially pp. 91, 94, 95.

[903]N.Q. Eth. Bull.8, p. 9, § 2.

[904]Macgillivray,loc. cit., ii. p. 9.

[905]Loc. cit., p. 80.

[906]Ibid., p. 74.

[907]Ibid., p. 80.

[908]Loc. cit., p. 319.

[909]Murchison District, Oldfield, p. 249.

[910]Ibid., p. 250.

[911]Swan District, Salvado, p. 295.

[912]Ibid., see ch. viii.passim.

[913]p. 317.

[914]Ibid., p. 315.

[915]Ibid., p. 321.

[916]Loc. cit., p. 450.

[917]Loc. cit., pp. 36, 37. Refers to the tribes of King George's Sound.

[918]Howitt,Kam. and Kurn., App. D, p. 261. CompareIdem,Nat. Tr., pp. 756-759.

[919]Kam. and Kurn., pp. 264-267, andNat. Tr., pp. 759-760 (refers to the Ngarigo tribe of the Murring nation).

[920]Kam. and Kurn., pp. 259.

[921]Ibid., pp. 262, 263.

[922]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 765.

[923]Ibid., p. 767.

[924]Of South Australia, Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 762.

[925]Ibid.

[926]Ibid., p. 764.

[927]Ibid.

[928]Kam. and Kurn., p. 277 andNat. Tr., p. 765.

[929]Dawson, p. 22.

[930]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 768.

[931]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 763.

[932]Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 192.

[933]Howitt,Nat. Tr., p. 762.

[934]Loc. cit., p. 117.

[935]R. Dawson, p. 327.

[936]Mrs. Parker,loc. cit., p. 117.

[937]Ibid.

[938]Ibid., p. 118.

[939]J.R.S.N.S.W.(1904), p. 258.

[940]Nat. Tr., p. 469.

[941]Nor. Tr., pp. 610, 611.

[942]Compare above,ch. ii.

[943]Petrie, Howitt'sNat. Tr., p. 768.

[944]Palmer,J.A.I., xiii. p. 285.

[945]Oldfield, p. 271.

[946]Ibid., p. 226.

[947]This communism and liberality stand in close connection with the fact that the natives did not lay in provisions. They have to partake with their neighbours of any large booty, since otherwise it would perish.

[948]Hutton Webster,loc. cit., pp. 99, 100 (ch. vi.).

[949]Compare Niboer,loc. cit., p. 23.

[950]In a paper read before the Royal Society of Queensland, December 11, 1897,Proc., p. 10. Quoted by Frazer,Tot. and Exog., i. p. 137. Also inEth. Stud., p. 69.

[951]Prof. Durkheim has pointed out (D. Tr. S., pp. 19sqq.) that the division of social functions has a most important share in creating the unity of a given group, and amongst other things in creating the solidarity of marriage:"C'est la division du travail sexuel qui est la source de la solidarité conjugal"(loc. cit., p. 19). This view is fully appreciated in the present study where the sexual division of functions is represented as being of foremost importance in defining individual family and marriage in Australia. But Prof. Durkheim says that in low or primitive societies division of sexual labour and conjugal solidarity are both quite rudimentary:"plus nous remontons dans le passé, plus elle se réduit à peu de chose"(loc. cit., p. 20). The same applies to the persistence of marriage—"la solidarité conjugale y est même très faible"(loc. cit., p. 22). If Prof. Durkheim applies both his assertions to hypothetical prehistoric societies, then this is not the place to discuss his views. But if he has had before his mind actually existing primitive societies, then the evidence here collected, on both these points, might possibly compel him to discuss his views more in detail, as far as the Australian society is concerned. Prof. Durkheim lays the stress of his argument on the small sexual differentiation in respect to physiology and anatomy of primitive and prehistoric men and women. But sexual division of labour may have as wellsocialasphysiologicalsources, as shown above.

[952]It will be remembered that individual family means throughout this book: husband, wife and their young children living with them.

[953]Compare above,pp. 150,153.

[954]Compare Eyre's and Grey's statements, where heredity appears to be in the male line. Also Salvado, p. 265.

[955]Compare Wheeler,loc. cit., p. 36.

[956]Spencer and Gillen,Nor. Tr., pp. 615-617.

[957]Compare also the statements collected by Wheeler on this point,loc. cit., pp. 36sqq.

[958]Seep. 290,note 1.

[959]In the more restricted sense used throughout this book. Extended family,Grossfamilie, involves more remote relationship.

[960]As this chapter is of a more theoretical character, it is omitted in this summary, where, on the whole, only actual facts and results are dealt with. The reader is referred to the conclusions and summaries of the said chapter (pp. 198and232).

[961]Compare above,Chap. VI., esp.pp. 182,209sqq.and226.

[962]A.S., i. pp. 329, 330.

[963]Because "cohabitation," community of life, is one of theessentialconstituents of the family. Besides, there cannot exist a"communauté de fait"; a social group cannot exist without the sanction of the surrounding society, and this creates obligations between the members of the group.

[964]We obviously cannot agree with Prof. Durkheim when he says further (loc. cit., p. 331), speaking of the Australian family:"Ce sont des associations de fait, non de droit. Elles dépendent du gré des particuliers, se forment comme elles veulent, sans être tenues de s'astreindre à aucune norme préalable."The Australian family is not a casual but a legal association, for it does not depend upon the whim of individuals; neither is it formed when and how they choose. There are norms governing its formation, duties and obligations while it lasts, and even afterwards when it has been dissolved by a natural cause, such as the death of the husband. All these norms, duties and obligations are legal (compare the definition of legal,p. 11), for non-compliance with them leads to the interference of society; and they directly show that society approves of this institution. The reasoning of Prof. Durkheim—who enumerates four domestic rights and obligations (vendette, law of inheritance, name and cult), and says that those four functions are attached to theclan—is open to very serious objections. In the first place it is dubious whether those four duties constitute the main body of primitive domestic law. The economic functions, the duties and rules of cohabitation, the various duties towards children, the mourning duties of religious character—all these legal functions, which are domestic rights and obligations even in our society, were shown to exist in Australia. They belong to the family and not to the clan. On the other hand, when revenge is to be taken on members of another local group, then it is the local group offended which carries it out. The cases of intergroup justice are very few, for evil magic is always looked for at a distance, and we have hardly any information about justice within the local group. (For all particulars compare Wheeler, chap. viii. pp. 116sqq.) It is not the clan, but the local group about which we know most in this respect. Inheritance, owing to the unimportance of private property (compare Wheeler, p. 36) plays a very subordinate rôle. From the six instances collected by Wheeler (pp. 37, 38), three point to inheritance according to class, three to inheritance according to family. Land was not a clan property, as we saw. There remains of Prof. Durkheim's legal customs the name and the cult. Cult may be obviously as well a public as a domestic institution; the name is not enough to show that the clan was the only legal form of family.

[965]A.S., i. p. 330.

[966]The writer hopes to return to this subject on another occasion. The material for the description ofsocial functionsof the exogamous class and totemic clan is comparatively scanty, although so much has been written on this subject.

Corrections:

Back to Index Next