FOREWORDThe importance of the subject treated in this study, as well as the prominent part played by the Australian evidence in the problem of kinship, will, it is believed, amply justify a detailed inquiry into the institution of the family in Australia. It is, however, always desirable for a monograph like the present one, besides being a mere collection and description of facts, to have a sufficiently wide theoretical scope. It ought to demonstrate some general principle upon the particular example treated, and to approach the problem from a new standpoint.I wish here shortly to indicate how far a slight and imperfect attempt in this direction has been made. In describing the facts of family life in Australia I have tried to show that even if the problems of origins and development of an institution be put aside and the inquiry be limited to the actual facts (in this case to the actual working of the aboriginal kinship organization), there are plenty of subjects of great theoretical importance, some of which, as yet not fully considered by sociologists. On the other hand, I have tried to show that in dealing with purely sociological problems it is necessary, in order to do justice to the complexity and fulness of social phenomena, to draw into the field of inquiry a series of facts often hitherto partially or completely neglected. The facts of daily life, the emotional side of family relations, the magico-religious ideas of the aborigines about kinship and sexual relations, customary as well as legal norms—all these factors must be taken impartially into careful consideration in order to give the full picture of an institution as it embraces living man ina living society. In other words each social institution must be studied in all its complex social functions as well as in its reflexion in the collective psychology.As a matter of fact, by a certain tendency to fanciful construction, natural in all early speculations about a new domain of facts, many problems in the study of primitive kinship have been artificially simplified, others unduly complicated and obscured. Thus, for instance, when in the discussion of primitive forms of marriage the whole problem of the position of the children and of the emotional attitude of the parents towards them has been neglected; or when different legal terms have been applied to undifferentiated societies and legal ideas attributed to primitive man, without asking how far and under what conditions this may be done; or, again, when the sexual aspect has been treated as the only essential feature of marriage. On the other hand, the concepts of "primitive promiscuity," "descent through females only," "mother-right" and "father-right" have proved meaningless and abstruse; the two latter, of course, as far only as they have been used in the majority of cases without a satisfactory definition.It is easy to see why such somewhat artificial conceptions have found their way into the study of primitive marriage and kinship. In the early days of these studies work had been done not by specialists, who would try to apply to a new set of problems new methods, but by men learned in other branches of science, who looked at the facts, not full in the face, but from a peculiar and often remote standpoint. The illustrious founder of these studies on the Continent, the SwisssavantBachofen, was a student of history of law and classical culture, and he was chiefly concerned with establishing the primitive mother-right of the prehistoric Greeks and Romans. The chief theoretical interest of the eminent ethnographer Morgan was the unravelling of the riddle of primitive forms of marriage out of the invaluable material contained in his tables of kinship terms.McLennan assigns a prominent place in his investigations to factors which had hardly ever played a very important part in primitive society, as, for instance, marriage by capture, female infanticide and levirate. It is evident that in all these and similar speculations the chief attention was not drawn to the actual working of the social mechanism, but to survivals, rudiments and fictitious primeval conditions. And the method of sociological thinking has not been developed upon living social forms, but upon shadows and petrified remains. Whenever concrete institutions have been theoretically treated, they were approached with preconceived ideas, as, for instance, in the well-known monograph of Fison and Howitt, and in the book of Herr H. Cunow—both works relating to Australian kinship organization. When reading the theoretical chapters of the latter, one has the impression that the Australian tribes were a museum of sociological fossils from various ancient epochs of which the petrified form has been rigidly preserved, but into whose inner nature it is quite hopeless to inquire. The understanding of actual facts is sacrificed to sterile speculation upon a hypothetical earlier state of things.Prof. Tylor's well-known article (Journ. Anthrop. Inst.xviii.) was, perhaps, the first protest against this loose and far-fetched treatment of the subject. He based his method of research on the firm ground of a statistical survey of facts, and his method of reasoning on the philosophically sound principle of inquiring into the mutual dependence of phenomena.The whole problem has been set on a new basis and its treatment recast in the fundamental treatise of Prof. Westermarck on theHistory of Human Marriage. Several of the most important aspects of the question which had been omitted in the speculations of the previous writers have received in it their full treatment; in taking into account, in its manifold aspects, the biological basis of the problem he has shown how many of the current conceptions about primitive marriage and kinship could nothold good in the light of a closer criticism. Besides this merely critical contribution, and besides the biological argument, theHistory of Human Marriageconstitutes a valuable addition to the purely sociological treatment of the problem. By resolving the problem of marriage into that of family, by pointing to the importance of the relations between parents and children, of the mode of living, etc., the author has shown that marriage is rooted in a complex of sociological conditions, and that there are many points to be treated before we arrive at definite conclusions and broad generalizations.Another important aspect of the problem has received its full treatment by Mr. Crawley in his study of primitive marriage (theMystic Rose; compare the note in the Addenda at the end of this volume). Working out thoroughly some conceptions suggested already by Prof. Frazer in hisGolden Bough, the author has shown the social importance of the ideas about human relations and in particular about sexual relations as held by primitive man.The tendency towards a reform in the method of sociological treatment of kinship and family has been shown not only from the side of purely theoretical writers. Some of the modern field workers, who happily for our science are at the same time distinguished scholars, have achieved a considerable advance in the method of collecting evidence. This refers in the first place to the Cambridge School of Ethnology, whose members under the lead of Dr. Haddon have obtained such remarkable results from their work in the Torres Straits Islands. Dr. Rivers, who specially worked out the chapter on kinship in the joint publication of this Expedition, has, by the introduction of the genealogical method of inquiry as well as by the systematic study of the functions of kin, given perhaps the most useful instruments of inquiry into the social working of family and kinship organization. Thus both our theoretical conceptions and our methods of getting at the facts are certainly approaching more andmore the first postulate of scientific study: the possibility of an adequate description of facts and their mutual dependences as they exist now in living primitive societies. Only on a basis of such knowledge are further speculations fruitful.As regards the general principles of sociological method much has been done in recent times by the French school of sociology, grouped round the editor of theAnnée Sociologique. The important question, how methodically to present evidence, has received its full attention in the excellent works of Dr. Steinmetz and his pupil, Dr. Nieboer, which are examples of a clear and conclusive way of utilizing ethnological sources. I am glad to acknowledge my intellectual indebtedness to both these schools.I have tried to collect sufficiently complete evidence, and in this endeavour have used some of the older sources whose trustworthiness might perhaps be disputed. But many of their observations are highly valuable if properly interpreted; and moreover it was necessary to bring their statements into line with the newer evidence for the sake of critical comparison, as much of what they say has been uncritically accepted and given without reference by some secondhand compilers (for instance, Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi.; Cunow) and hence found its way into the newer sociological literature.The statements I have taken from the different authors are quoted at length, and I do not think that I have thus uselessly increased the bulk of the volume. By an unprejudiced collection of evidence, which is, moreover, presented in a manner independent of, and accessible without reference to, the theoretical discussion, I hope to have given a useful compilation of observations which may serve for further theoretical purposes other than those of the present writer.In order to make short and yet clear references possible a list of the works quoted is given at the end. With its help the short indications in the footnotes will be perfectly plain.In this place I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mr. J. Martin White, whose munificence has made the publication of this book possible. As a student of sociology at the University of London I am indebted to Mr. Martin White, who, as it is well known, has founded the chairs of Sociology at this university, and furthers these studies in various ways—not the least by his personal contact with and interest shown in the students and their work.I had, while working on the present book, the privilege of personal intercourse with Prof. Westermarck, a privilege I value more than I can express. I owe much to Dr. Rivers for the constant aid and counsel generously given me during my studies. Much assistance was given to me by Mr. Wheeler, who freely put at my disposal his extensive knowledge of the subject. I have to thank Dr. Tallqvist for several important remarks upon some pages of my proofs.But my debt is the greatest to Miss Helena Hadley, without whose kind help I could not have overcome the difficulties of writing in what is for me an acquired tongue. Her advice and criticism, both as regards style and thought, were quite invaluable for me, and this is only a feeble acknowledgment of my indebtedness and feelings of gratitude.B. M.
The importance of the subject treated in this study, as well as the prominent part played by the Australian evidence in the problem of kinship, will, it is believed, amply justify a detailed inquiry into the institution of the family in Australia. It is, however, always desirable for a monograph like the present one, besides being a mere collection and description of facts, to have a sufficiently wide theoretical scope. It ought to demonstrate some general principle upon the particular example treated, and to approach the problem from a new standpoint.
I wish here shortly to indicate how far a slight and imperfect attempt in this direction has been made. In describing the facts of family life in Australia I have tried to show that even if the problems of origins and development of an institution be put aside and the inquiry be limited to the actual facts (in this case to the actual working of the aboriginal kinship organization), there are plenty of subjects of great theoretical importance, some of which, as yet not fully considered by sociologists. On the other hand, I have tried to show that in dealing with purely sociological problems it is necessary, in order to do justice to the complexity and fulness of social phenomena, to draw into the field of inquiry a series of facts often hitherto partially or completely neglected. The facts of daily life, the emotional side of family relations, the magico-religious ideas of the aborigines about kinship and sexual relations, customary as well as legal norms—all these factors must be taken impartially into careful consideration in order to give the full picture of an institution as it embraces living man ina living society. In other words each social institution must be studied in all its complex social functions as well as in its reflexion in the collective psychology.
As a matter of fact, by a certain tendency to fanciful construction, natural in all early speculations about a new domain of facts, many problems in the study of primitive kinship have been artificially simplified, others unduly complicated and obscured. Thus, for instance, when in the discussion of primitive forms of marriage the whole problem of the position of the children and of the emotional attitude of the parents towards them has been neglected; or when different legal terms have been applied to undifferentiated societies and legal ideas attributed to primitive man, without asking how far and under what conditions this may be done; or, again, when the sexual aspect has been treated as the only essential feature of marriage. On the other hand, the concepts of "primitive promiscuity," "descent through females only," "mother-right" and "father-right" have proved meaningless and abstruse; the two latter, of course, as far only as they have been used in the majority of cases without a satisfactory definition.
It is easy to see why such somewhat artificial conceptions have found their way into the study of primitive marriage and kinship. In the early days of these studies work had been done not by specialists, who would try to apply to a new set of problems new methods, but by men learned in other branches of science, who looked at the facts, not full in the face, but from a peculiar and often remote standpoint. The illustrious founder of these studies on the Continent, the SwisssavantBachofen, was a student of history of law and classical culture, and he was chiefly concerned with establishing the primitive mother-right of the prehistoric Greeks and Romans. The chief theoretical interest of the eminent ethnographer Morgan was the unravelling of the riddle of primitive forms of marriage out of the invaluable material contained in his tables of kinship terms.McLennan assigns a prominent place in his investigations to factors which had hardly ever played a very important part in primitive society, as, for instance, marriage by capture, female infanticide and levirate. It is evident that in all these and similar speculations the chief attention was not drawn to the actual working of the social mechanism, but to survivals, rudiments and fictitious primeval conditions. And the method of sociological thinking has not been developed upon living social forms, but upon shadows and petrified remains. Whenever concrete institutions have been theoretically treated, they were approached with preconceived ideas, as, for instance, in the well-known monograph of Fison and Howitt, and in the book of Herr H. Cunow—both works relating to Australian kinship organization. When reading the theoretical chapters of the latter, one has the impression that the Australian tribes were a museum of sociological fossils from various ancient epochs of which the petrified form has been rigidly preserved, but into whose inner nature it is quite hopeless to inquire. The understanding of actual facts is sacrificed to sterile speculation upon a hypothetical earlier state of things.
Prof. Tylor's well-known article (Journ. Anthrop. Inst.xviii.) was, perhaps, the first protest against this loose and far-fetched treatment of the subject. He based his method of research on the firm ground of a statistical survey of facts, and his method of reasoning on the philosophically sound principle of inquiring into the mutual dependence of phenomena.
The whole problem has been set on a new basis and its treatment recast in the fundamental treatise of Prof. Westermarck on theHistory of Human Marriage. Several of the most important aspects of the question which had been omitted in the speculations of the previous writers have received in it their full treatment; in taking into account, in its manifold aspects, the biological basis of the problem he has shown how many of the current conceptions about primitive marriage and kinship could nothold good in the light of a closer criticism. Besides this merely critical contribution, and besides the biological argument, theHistory of Human Marriageconstitutes a valuable addition to the purely sociological treatment of the problem. By resolving the problem of marriage into that of family, by pointing to the importance of the relations between parents and children, of the mode of living, etc., the author has shown that marriage is rooted in a complex of sociological conditions, and that there are many points to be treated before we arrive at definite conclusions and broad generalizations.
Another important aspect of the problem has received its full treatment by Mr. Crawley in his study of primitive marriage (theMystic Rose; compare the note in the Addenda at the end of this volume). Working out thoroughly some conceptions suggested already by Prof. Frazer in hisGolden Bough, the author has shown the social importance of the ideas about human relations and in particular about sexual relations as held by primitive man.
The tendency towards a reform in the method of sociological treatment of kinship and family has been shown not only from the side of purely theoretical writers. Some of the modern field workers, who happily for our science are at the same time distinguished scholars, have achieved a considerable advance in the method of collecting evidence. This refers in the first place to the Cambridge School of Ethnology, whose members under the lead of Dr. Haddon have obtained such remarkable results from their work in the Torres Straits Islands. Dr. Rivers, who specially worked out the chapter on kinship in the joint publication of this Expedition, has, by the introduction of the genealogical method of inquiry as well as by the systematic study of the functions of kin, given perhaps the most useful instruments of inquiry into the social working of family and kinship organization. Thus both our theoretical conceptions and our methods of getting at the facts are certainly approaching more andmore the first postulate of scientific study: the possibility of an adequate description of facts and their mutual dependences as they exist now in living primitive societies. Only on a basis of such knowledge are further speculations fruitful.
As regards the general principles of sociological method much has been done in recent times by the French school of sociology, grouped round the editor of theAnnée Sociologique. The important question, how methodically to present evidence, has received its full attention in the excellent works of Dr. Steinmetz and his pupil, Dr. Nieboer, which are examples of a clear and conclusive way of utilizing ethnological sources. I am glad to acknowledge my intellectual indebtedness to both these schools.
I have tried to collect sufficiently complete evidence, and in this endeavour have used some of the older sources whose trustworthiness might perhaps be disputed. But many of their observations are highly valuable if properly interpreted; and moreover it was necessary to bring their statements into line with the newer evidence for the sake of critical comparison, as much of what they say has been uncritically accepted and given without reference by some secondhand compilers (for instance, Waitz-Gerland, vol. vi.; Cunow) and hence found its way into the newer sociological literature.
The statements I have taken from the different authors are quoted at length, and I do not think that I have thus uselessly increased the bulk of the volume. By an unprejudiced collection of evidence, which is, moreover, presented in a manner independent of, and accessible without reference to, the theoretical discussion, I hope to have given a useful compilation of observations which may serve for further theoretical purposes other than those of the present writer.
In order to make short and yet clear references possible a list of the works quoted is given at the end. With its help the short indications in the footnotes will be perfectly plain.
In this place I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mr. J. Martin White, whose munificence has made the publication of this book possible. As a student of sociology at the University of London I am indebted to Mr. Martin White, who, as it is well known, has founded the chairs of Sociology at this university, and furthers these studies in various ways—not the least by his personal contact with and interest shown in the students and their work.
I had, while working on the present book, the privilege of personal intercourse with Prof. Westermarck, a privilege I value more than I can express. I owe much to Dr. Rivers for the constant aid and counsel generously given me during my studies. Much assistance was given to me by Mr. Wheeler, who freely put at my disposal his extensive knowledge of the subject. I have to thank Dr. Tallqvist for several important remarks upon some pages of my proofs.
But my debt is the greatest to Miss Helena Hadley, without whose kind help I could not have overcome the difficulties of writing in what is for me an acquired tongue. Her advice and criticism, both as regards style and thought, were quite invaluable for me, and this is only a feeble acknowledgment of my indebtedness and feelings of gratitude.
B. M.
CHAPTER IEXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM AND METHOD
I.Exposition of the problem and justification of the task(pp.1sqq.).
Some contradictions and obscurities concerning family and kinship in Australia (pp.1-6).—Necessity of a careful and detailed description of all the features of theindividual familyamong the Australian aborigines (pp.6-9).—The sense in which the conception oflawandlegalshould be applied to the Australian native society indicated (pp.9-17).
II.Method of dealing with the evidence(pp.17sqq.).
At the outset only a general definition of "family" adopted; on the other hand raw ethnographical material given. Necessity of continually checking these two data with each other (p.17).—In dealing with the ethnographical evidencethreepoints to be taken into consideration (pp.17sqq.).—(1) Criticisms of each statement (pp.18sqq.).—Verbal criticism (hermeneutic) (pp.18-19).—Criticism of contents (pp.19sqq.).—Different elements which might possibly have been the source of errors; and upon an analysis of which criticism in question may in part be based; (a) Material which the author had under observation (pp.20-22).—(b) Circumstances and method of obtaining information (pp.22,23).—(c) Personal character and profession of the writer (pp.23,24).—(d) Purpose for which the book was written (p.24).—(e) Form and quality of the writer's generalizations and abstract formulation (pp.24,25).—(2) Geographical localization of statements (pp.26sqq.).—Condition under which local differences may be safely assumed (pp.26,27).—(3) Final inferences from the evidence (pp.27sqq.).—Character of this operation; analytical division of the information on a given subject under different headings. Separate discussion of each point. Contradictions emphasized and not concealed (pp.27-29).—Conclusion drawn (pp.29,30).—Its confrontation with kindred facts (pp.30,31).—The chief methodological aim: general and complete clearness of all the operations of inference and argument (pp.31-33).
CHAPTER IIMODES OF OBTAINING WIVES
Prof. Westermarck's definition of marriage and family accepted at the outset as starting-point (pp.34,35).—Inquiry first directed towards the legal aspect of marriage and ideas on marriage, as expressed and embodied in the aboriginal modes of obtainingwives (pp.35,36).—Statements concerning these facts (pp.36-47).—Rough survey (pp.47,48).—(1)Normal forms of marriage(pp.48sqq.).—Chief features and forms of the normal methods: betrothal in infancy (p.48);—exchange of sisters or relatives (pp.48,49);—obligations of contracting parties (pp.49,50);—some traces of marriage by purchase (pp.50-52);—public, tribal character of marriage arrangements (p.52);—betrothal and marriage ceremonies (pp.52-53).—(2)The violent forms of marriage(pp.53-55).—Capture (pp.54,55).—Elopement (pp.55,56).—Theoretical inferences drawn from these facts(pp.56sqq.).—The legal aspect of marriage (pp.56-58).—The elements enforcingipso factothe validity of marriage (pp.58,59).—Collective ideas expressed by the facts analyzed (pp.60-62).—Marital bonds not lax, but on the whole strong and permanent (pp.62-66).—Summary (p.66).
CHAPTER IIIHUSBAND AND WIFE
Exposition of the problem (pp.67,68).—Statements (pp.68-74).—Numerous contradictions extant on this subject. Some apparently trustworthy statements, affirming a very extensive authority on the part of the husband, combined with a certain mutual attachment (pp.74,75).—Division of the subject under three headings for the purpose of securing more definite answers (pp.76,77).—(1) The authority of the husband over his wife nearly absolute, limited only in cases of wilful murder (pp.77-79).—(2) Ill-treatment not the rule; from this, combined with the foregoing point, follows (pp.79-82).—(3) Existence of some affection and attachment between the aboriginal married couples (pp.82-84).—On the whole the information in this chapter very contradictory (p.84).—Strength of marital bond, as expressed by mourning and burial ceremonies and customs (pp.84-88).
CHAPTER IVSEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE
General character of the information on this subject indicated, and some controversy contained in this chapter justified (pp.89-91).—Problem set forth (pp.91,92).—Statements (pp.92-100).—Local differences between different groups of tribes in sexual matters (pp.100,101).—Three points investigated: (1) The husband's definite sexual over-right and control over his wife involving his consent in all cases. Otherwise adultery considered a crime (pp.101-103).—(2) Chastity in general; its slight recognition (pp.104,105).—(3) Regulated licence (pp.105-107).—Its chief form: the Pirrauru practice (pp.108,109).—A detailed discussion of the latter showing its lack of the features of "group marriage" (pp.109-123).—In general all sexual licenceregulatedand devoid of the character of promiscuity and disorder (pp.123,124).—Digression on sexual jealousy among the Australian aborigines (pp.124-131).
CHAPTER VMODE OF LIVING
I.The relation of the family unit to the tribal and territorial organization of the aboriginal society(pp.132sqq.).
Terminology (pp.134,135).—Statements (pp.136-149).—Rough survey (pp.149,150).—Theterritorialunit, thelocal groupa body of people possessing in common a tract of country and inhabiting it to the exclusion of anybody else (pp.150-152).—Three different forms of possession of land in Australia (pp.152,153).—Idea of rights in a portion of land probably to a great extent of magico-religious character (p.153).—The mode of living, the tribal division varying according to local conditions and with opportunities of food-supply. In the majority of tribes (especially those of the arid regions) small groupings of about one to three families usual (pp.150-157).
II.The internal structure of the local group, with reference to single families(pp.158sqq.).
Statements (pp.158-165).—Disposition of camps, the mode of occupying the huts and other functions of daily life subject to strict rules pointing to the isolation of the single families (pp.165-167).
CHAPTER VIDISCUSSION OF KINSHIP
I.Theoretical analysis of this concept(pp.168sqq.).
Importance of adapting sociological concepts to those social conditions to which they are applied, exemplified on the concept of kinship (pp.168,169).—Necessity of giving a definition of kinship for scientific use (pp.169-171).—The present discussion specially directed to suit the Australian evidence (pp.171,172).—Necessary and sufficient conditions for admitting theexistenceofindividual parental kinshipin any given society (pp.172-174).—Further features thereof to be looked for in the variable social conditions and in the data of "collective psychology"; "collective ideas" held about kinship and "collective feelings" referring to it (pp.174-176).—Preliminary definition of kinship (p.176).—Analysis of the concept of consanguinity(pp.176sqq.).—Modern European idea of kinship conceived in terms of consanguinity (p.177).—Physiological and social consanguinity (pp.178-182).—Exact definition of the latter (p.182).—Kinship not always based upon ideas of community of blood. Common features of the ideas underlying kinship (pp.182,183).—Normative ideas referring to kinship. Descent (pp.183-185).—Analysis of the legal side of kinship(pp.185,sqq.).—Legalonly one of the aspects of kinship (p.185).—In primitive societies in particular kinship not a legal relationship (pp.185,186).—Discussion of some opinions thereon (Mr. Thomas, Prof. Dargun, Prof. Frazer) (pp.186-190).—Restricted use of the termlegalin the Australian aboriginal society (pp.190,191).—Justification of the study of the emotional characteristics of kinship(pp.191sqq.).—Importance of feelings in the task of characterizing any personal relationship. "Collective feelings" (pp.191,192).—The presence in the Australian ethnographic material of objectivefacts which express the collective feelings referring to kinship (pp.192-194).—Analysis of these facts (pp.194-197).—Mutual dependence of collective ideas and collective feelings referring to kinship (pp.197,198).—Summary (pp.198,199).—Critical survey of some definitions of kinship given by other authors (Morgan, MacLennan, Mr. E. S. Hartland, Dr. Rivers, Fison and Howitt, M. von Gennep, Prof. Durkheim, Prof. Westermarck, Sir Laurence Gomme) (pp.199-206).—Two additional remarks (pp.206,207).
II.Some examples of kinship ideas suggested by the Australian folklore(pp.207sqq.).
Introductory remarks (p.207).—Belief in totemic conception existing among the Central tribes (pp.208,209).—Absence of knowledge concerning physiological procreation (pp.209,210).—Some important points discussed (pp.210sqq.)—(1) The ignorance in question complete (pp.210,211).—(2) In particular no idea ofindividual paternalconsanguinity (pp.211,212).—(3) Analysis of the aboriginal ideas about reincarnation (pp.212-217).—Conclusion: absence of "consanguinity" (in the social sense) among the Central tribes (pp.217,218).—Beliefs in which some kinship ideas are expressed(pp.218sqq.).—Among the Northern tribes special close tie between spirit-child and father (Gnanji, Umbaia and other Northern-Central tribes) (pp.218-220).—Pre-established kinship involved in the belief concerning reincarnation and return of dead people (pp.220-225).—Customs of thecouvadetype (pp.225,226).—Geographical extension of the nescience of physiological fatherhood (pp.226,227).—Two North Queensland beliefs involving a clear idea of spiritual tie between a father and his child (pp.227-229).—Other examples (pp.229,230).—Survey of the beliefs of the South-Eastern tribes possessing the idea of paternal consanguinity (in the social sense) (pp.230-232).—Summary (pp.232,233).
CHAPTER VIIPARENTS AND CHILDREN
I.The first maternal cares and suckling of the infant(pp.234sqq.).
Statements (pp.235,236).—Close ties between mother and her offspring during infancy and early childhood (pp.236,237).
II.The relation between parents and children during childhood(pp.238sqq.).
Statements (pp.238-249).—Affirmation of a close tie of affection and devotion between parents and children (pp.249,250).—Illustrations drawn from concrete facts (pp.250,251).—Applicable to both the father and mother; to female as well as to male children (p.251).—Great leniency of treatment (pp.252,253).—Bearing of the affection of both parents to their children upon the relation between husband and wife (pp.253,254).—No data for assuming the existence in Australia ofpatria potestasas a legal form (p.254).—Lack of information as to the actual character of the paternal authority in Australia (pp.254-256).—Rudiments of education (pp.256,257).
III.Children at puberty removed from their parents' camp, and consequent weakening of the relationship(pp.257sqq.).
Marriage of females at puberty (pp.257-259).—Great disparity of age between husband and wife (pp.259,260).—Statements (pp.260-262).—Boysat puberty and afterwards (pp.262sqq.).—Statements (pp.262-267).—Boys undergoing initiation; their life in a special camp ("bachelors' camp") (pp.267-269).
IV.The life-long permanence, nevertheless, of the tie between parents and children(pp.269sqq.).
Statements (pp.269-272).—Lack of information as to the relationship between sisters and brothers (pp.272,273).
CHAPTER VIIIECONOMICS
The individual family an economic unit (p.274).—Statements (pp.275-281).—Sexual division of labour a marked feature of Australian marriage (p.281).—The woman's share of work harder, more important and indispensable than the man's (pp.282-283).—The man's share not devoted to the exclusive benefit of his family (p.283). Statements concerning the aboriginal communism in food (pp.283-286).—Their bearing upon the economics of the household (pp.286,287).—Sociological features of this sexual division of labour (pp.287,288).—Division of consumption within the family (pp.288,289).—Description of some minor economic features concerning the household (pp.289-291).
CHAPTER IXSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSpp.292-304
ADDENDA"305-309
BIBLIOGRAPHY"310-316
INDEX"317-326
THE FAMILY AMONG THEAUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES