IIThe second part of our problem must now be faced: whenever there is a certain number of families aggregated (permanently or temporarily), what are the features of their social contact in daily life? What are their dwellings? Do they belong to several families or only to one? Are there any rules of camping, or do they camp quite promiscuously? And if there are any customary rules, of what status are they the expression? Besides the answers to these questions, we shall find also that there are rules for occupying the huts, for eating, etc. In general, all our questions will tend to elucidate whether there is a quite unlimited, promiscuous social contact among the members of an aggregate, or whether there are facts pointing to the isolation and separation of the individual families. Undoubtedly there is a difference between aggregation which is merely temporary and that which is permanent; we shall try to find traces of this difference indicated in the statements. These latter are not very rich in information. The facts themselves seemed perhaps to the majority of our informants much too commonplace and unimportant. But we owe to some of the deeper and more conscientious observers highly interesting details in this connection. More especially this remark applies to Howitt and some of his correspondents. We begin with these statements.Statements.—We have a clear and detailed description of the mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461]As a rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some families[462]were closely related,[463]a certain distance was kept between their camps, which increasedas the consanguinity diminished.[464]A man's parents could occasionally sleep with him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465]We see, therefore, that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the little girl";[466]bigger children camped separately. We shall find this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South Wales (Murring)[467]as to the Wurunjerri[468]of East Victoria.Amongst the Gournditsh-Mara Tribe (Lake Condah, West Victoria) "each family camped by itself." During the meals "each wife was ... obliged to sit beside her own husband," and not "near any other man unless her husband sat between them."[469]It is a statement pointing to isolation of females from sex jealousy. We shall meet in the future with a few statements referring to the way in which meals are taken.Customs pointing to the isolation of families, on the ground of sex jealousy are referred to by Curr.[470]"A woman never sat in a mia-mia (hut) in which there was a man, save her husband; she never conversed nor exchanged words with any man except in the absence of her husband and in reply to some necessary question," and only from a distance. Women had "no communication with persons of the opposite sex except little boys." From the paternal hut, where they lived, "their brothers of eight or ten years of age were excluded at night." And again, "among the Bangerang and other tribes I have known, each married couple had their own mia-mia, or hut."[471]These statements are quite clear. They coincide with the majority of our information. What is important and will interest us further in detail is the fact that boys at the age of about ten were excluded from the paternal hut. Females were given away about the same age, so that we may say thatonly small children remained with their parents. "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[472]Describing the laying of a camp Curr says—"As they arrived they formed their camps, each family having a fire of its own some half-dozen yards from its neighbour's."[473]From Dawson's description of the aboriginal habitations,[474]we get a good glimpse into their mode of dwelling. Dawson says they have either a permanent or temporary habitation, and describes both. The formerwuurnis bigger, and may accommodate about a dozen persons. But it serves only for the use of one family. "When several families live together each builds itswuurn, facing one central fire." But even the family, if the children are grown up, does not live in one party; "thewuurnis partitioned off into compartments. One of these is appropriated to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers." Here we see that husband and wife sleep also quite apart, with their small children. Grown-up but unmarried male or female children have compartments of their own. And if they were married they must have had their own separate camp. The isolation seems to have been amongst these tribes much less accentuated than amongst the East Victorians, for instance. Although separated, grown-up children lived in the same habitation, and even thewuurnsof separate families were situated round a common fire, so that it "appears to be one dwelling." In their temporary huts the isolation is more pronounced. "While travelling or occupying temporary habitations each of these parties (parent, male and female children) must erect separatewuurns." Moreover each family must camp separately. A certain communism of living is expressed also by the common cooking,[475]although each family has its basket in which it cooks food.[476]Eyre's information about the Lower Murray River blacks agrees to a certain degree with Dawson's statements. "Sometimes each married man will have a hut for himself, his wives and family, including, perhaps, occasionally his mother or some other near relative. At other times, large long huts are constructed, in which from five to ten families reside, each having their own separate fire."[477]Of course, here the communism is much greater, although the separation of the fire circles is still kept. These natives, as well as the tribesdescribed by Dawson, were in better economic conditions, and therefore able to adopt sedentary life; they were also more skilful in the building of huts. The general type of a hut was a rude shelter of boughs only affording protection against rain.[478]Brough Smyth affirms also perfect order and method in the arrangement of a camp. "The aborigines do not herd together promiscuously." If the whole tribe is present the natives are divided into groups each composed of about six dwellings. "Each mia-mia (hut) is five or six yards distant from its neighbours." If there are several "tribes" (groups), each camps in a separate place, in a position marking whence it came. Each hut has its separate fire (in opposition to Dawson's statement).[479]Complete isolation and strict camp rules are stated by J. Moore-Davis. "Married men each with his family occupying the centre" of the camp.[480]A statement quite contrary to nearly all others is given by Beveridge. He speaks of "the promiscuous manner they have of huddling together in their loondthals."[481]We need not, however, take this statement very seriously, as it is given in immediate connection with another doubtful one, viz. of absolute, even incestuous, sexual promiscuity.[482]Perhaps the observations were made on natives who were quite corrupted by contact with white men. At any rate this statement is directly opposed to all we know about these two features of Australian aborigines in their natural state of life. We may therefore discard them as unreliable.[483]Collins writes: "In their huts and in their caves they lie down indiscriminately mixed, men, women and children together."[484]This statement is not quite clear, as we do not know whether these "men, women and children" form one family, or are related, or whether there is a great number of them, etc. It is also opposed to what we learnt from Howitt and many others of the customary order observed in occupying a hut. Besides, Collins had under his immediate observation blacks hanging round the town of Port Phillip, demoralizedand degenerate; their females seem to have been already addicted to prostitution.[485]They were no longer in their primitive state; and all observations, especially relating to their mode of living, which changes immediately with the conditions of life, must be accepted with caution. I do not consider this statement any more reliable than that of Beveridge which I discarded. From other passages where he speaks of the small inland huts "affording shelter to only one miserable tenant,"[486]and the larger huts on the sea-coast, "large enough to hold six or eight persons," we might infer that there was room only for one family in each hut. Here also we read that the coastal tribes, which probably had a better food supply and led a more sedentary life, had larger and better-built huts.We read concerning the Turra tribe of South Australia[487]: "In camping, the place of the parents is to the right-hand side of their son's camp; the brother to the left side; sister-in-law to the right side or near his father's. In the camp the husband sleeps at the right hand of the fire, his wife behind him, and her young children behind her." This, less detailed than Howitt's statement, corroborates it to the full. We see that each camp is occupied exclusively by a married couple and their small children; and that inside the hut as well as in the configuration of the camp there is a strict customary order. It is important to notice that these statements, reporting strict camp rules and referring to tribes scattered over a great area (Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia) are given by very reliable authorities, and that Howitt at least gathered them by collecting information about the ancient customs of the Kurnai and Murring from old natives; using, therefore, the only correct method. They refer, therefore, to old customs, which probably were no longer observed in the tribes spoilt and demoralized by contact with settlers. Much weight is to be ascribed, therefore, in this matter to the information of Howitt and his correspondents.Schürmann states shortly: "Each family occupies a separate hut; and, if there be any unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[488]Henderson says about the New South Wales natives, "Each family has its own gunya and fire."[489]George Barrington observes that among the Port Jackson natives each hut was occupied by one family.[490]When the families who formed a "tribe" (= local group?) meet "each family has its own fire and provides its own substance."[491]In the description of his travels Dawson tells us that when the native party was joined by a stranger with his wife the latter did not approach the other men, but slept alone by herself at a small fire.[492]This points to the fact that a married woman normally never slept in the immediate neighbourhood of any other man but her own husband.Spencer and Gillen affirm, again, the complete isolation of families who, according to them,[493]normally roam scattered on the territory of the local group. "Each family, consisting of a man and one or more wives and children, occupies always a mia-mia, which is merely a lean-to of shrubs, so placed as to shield the occupants from the prevailing wind." This statement is perfectly clear, and we may fit it into the general picture we drew from all the other evidence.Among the natives of Central Australia (probably of the Arunta nation) a married woman "may speak to any but the young men."[494]Thus she is practically excluded from any intercourse with them.Among the natives of Moreton Bay the conjugal relation is maintained by them "with great decency and propriety, every family having its separate hut and fire."[495]A very clear and concise statement is given on this point by the Rev. J. Mathew, referring to the Kabi and Wakka tribes. "The family, consisting of husband and wife, or wives, with their children, constituted a distinct social unit. They occupied the same gunya (dwelling), they ate together, they travelled together."[496]After having described the construction of the hut he adds: "This sufficed for a family. The dwellings were placed a little distance apart, facing in the same direction, and each had its own small fire in front."[497]Roth says about the tribes of North-West Central Queensland: "The husband sleeps in the same gundi as his wives."[498]The way of taking meals is not quite uniform among all tribes observed by this writer. At Cape Bedford "members of one family take their meals together, except the single young men (above puberty), who dine apart." In another tribe (TullyRiver) "each family dines by itself." On the contrary, "on the Bloomfield River men, boys and girls (up to four or five years of age) dine together; all the other females ... mess apart."[499]Among the natives of Koombana Bay, "in the family, the man, women and children dined together."[500]There are three kinds of huts among the North Queensland tribes: the simple shelter of boughs; a hut built somewhat more carefully against rain; and a hut built for protection against cold, this hut, being of course, the most elaborate.[501]From the description of these huts we may infer that they were occupied each by one family only.The isolation of families caused by the jealousy of the husband is plainly stated by Grey: "He cannot, from the roving nature of their mode of life, surround his wives with the walls of a seraglio, but custom and etiquette have drawn about them barriers nearly as impassable. When a certain number of families are collected together, they encamp at a common spot, and each family has a separate hut or perhaps two. At these huts sleep the father of the family, his wives, the female children who have not yet joined their husbands, very young boys[502]and occasionally female relatives; but no males over ten years of age may sleep in family huts. They have got their own separate encampment."[503]If any strangers are present with their wives, they sleep in their own huts, placed amongst the married people. If they are unmarried or without wives "they sleep at the fire of the young men."[504]"Under no circumstances is a strange native allowed to approach the fire of a married man."[505]Their huts being so scattered over a rather large area, their conversation is held by means of a loud chant.[506]It must be remembered that Grey asserts in several places the great and vigilant jealousy of the natives.[507]Bishop Salvado, who speaks also of the great jealousy of the males and the fidelity exacted from the females,[508]gives us the following account of their mode of camping:"Lorsqu'une famille se dispose à dormir, les garçons qui ont passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls, autour du feu commun, les plus petits avec le père, et les enfants à la mamelle, aussi bien que les filles, quel que soit leur âge, avec la mère. Les femmes jouissent du droit d'ancienneté, la première dort plus près du mari, ainsi de suite."[509]Another passage[510]testifies alsothat they roam in single families; the reason alleged is easier food supply.We read in Browne that one hut holds only two or three persons.[511]The general inference to be drawn from these twenty-four statements is, roughly speaking, that the general features of native camp arrangements were orderliness, fixed rules, isolation of families, settled and restricted social contact, and by no means social communism and unregulated social promiscuity.Five instances give strict rules which obtain in arranging camps. These were probably much more widespread than might be supposed from these few instances. But, as mentioned above, these camp rules would probably fall into abeyance at once when the natives came in contact with civilization. It was only by attentive inquiries that Howitt extracted them from the natives. Besides these we read in fifteen statements that each family camped separately. So that twenty of twenty-four statements assert that there was in this respect complete isolation of the families. Sexual motives played undoubtedly an important part in this isolation. We are told so expressly in several places (Curr, Grey, Salvado, J. D. Lang). In the case of even friendly strangers a certain amount of mistrust—of evil magic as well as of actual bad intentions—may have operated. There are indications of it in statements of Br. Smyth and Grey. But in the detailed examples given by Howitt, where all the camping families are closely related and usually consist of more than one generation (father and sons, etc.), we can hardly conceive that either of the above-mentioned motives would come into play. At any rate this regulated camp order shows how important this question was in the native social life and how strong the idea must have been that each family had its own place apart from the others, and the more remotely related people were, the less intimate contact would be.The aborigines possess different kinds of huts. Of interest for us is the fact that the majority of them are made to hold only one family. Fourteen statements assert it explicitly or implicitly. In three instances we are told of the existence of larger huts (Eyre, Dawson, Collins). In two of them the separation of families is maintained in spite of the larger dwellings. Only Collins' information is doubtful in this respect.Within these huts the family camped according to fixed rules. We have five instances given by Howitt and his correspondents, and Bishop Salvado. These rules show clearly that each hut, each fire-place, was reserved for one family, and that thisstatushad its customary form and sanction. There were three instances of separation during meals (Gournditsh-Mara, some of the North-West Central Queensland tribes, and the Kabi and Wakka). In three statements we are told that both sexes separated during meals (Curr, Angas, Roth). What Curr tells us of the marked social separation of families is remarkable; especially in respect to the isolation of the women.[512]Two statements were rather in contradiction with our general results: Beveridge's statement of promiscuous huddling and Collins' vague information. We stated our reasons for not giving them much weight, and they cannot outweigh the sum-total of reliable information which is fairly unanimous on this point. It is also in general agreement with the information we gathered on sexual matters as well as with our conclusion as to territorial distribution, and it corroborates our results on both these points. For on the one hand it was found that in normal life there exists individuality of sexual relations; on the other hand the usual scattered mode of living wouldcorrespond to a fairly complete isolation in cases of tribal assembly.Our last considerations have clearly demonstrated how the individuality of the family unit shows itself in the aboriginal mode of living. A single family is normally in contact with a few other families only; sometimes it roams alone over its own area. But even when there are several families living together, the camp rules keep them apart from each other in nearly every function of daily life. The children, who live in intimate contact with their parents in the same hut, must necessarily set them apart from all their (the children's) other relatives. We must assume, therefore, that the individuality of the relation of each child to its actual parents is deeply impressed by all the circumstances of daily life on the child's mind. This assumption is in accord with the information we can gather on this point. But before we begin to look it through, let us discuss the theoretical side of the kinship (or relationship) problem.
The second part of our problem must now be faced: whenever there is a certain number of families aggregated (permanently or temporarily), what are the features of their social contact in daily life? What are their dwellings? Do they belong to several families or only to one? Are there any rules of camping, or do they camp quite promiscuously? And if there are any customary rules, of what status are they the expression? Besides the answers to these questions, we shall find also that there are rules for occupying the huts, for eating, etc. In general, all our questions will tend to elucidate whether there is a quite unlimited, promiscuous social contact among the members of an aggregate, or whether there are facts pointing to the isolation and separation of the individual families. Undoubtedly there is a difference between aggregation which is merely temporary and that which is permanent; we shall try to find traces of this difference indicated in the statements. These latter are not very rich in information. The facts themselves seemed perhaps to the majority of our informants much too commonplace and unimportant. But we owe to some of the deeper and more conscientious observers highly interesting details in this connection. More especially this remark applies to Howitt and some of his correspondents. We begin with these statements.
Statements.—We have a clear and detailed description of the mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461]As a rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some families[462]were closely related,[463]a certain distance was kept between their camps, which increasedas the consanguinity diminished.[464]A man's parents could occasionally sleep with him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465]We see, therefore, that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the little girl";[466]bigger children camped separately. We shall find this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South Wales (Murring)[467]as to the Wurunjerri[468]of East Victoria.Amongst the Gournditsh-Mara Tribe (Lake Condah, West Victoria) "each family camped by itself." During the meals "each wife was ... obliged to sit beside her own husband," and not "near any other man unless her husband sat between them."[469]It is a statement pointing to isolation of females from sex jealousy. We shall meet in the future with a few statements referring to the way in which meals are taken.Customs pointing to the isolation of families, on the ground of sex jealousy are referred to by Curr.[470]"A woman never sat in a mia-mia (hut) in which there was a man, save her husband; she never conversed nor exchanged words with any man except in the absence of her husband and in reply to some necessary question," and only from a distance. Women had "no communication with persons of the opposite sex except little boys." From the paternal hut, where they lived, "their brothers of eight or ten years of age were excluded at night." And again, "among the Bangerang and other tribes I have known, each married couple had their own mia-mia, or hut."[471]These statements are quite clear. They coincide with the majority of our information. What is important and will interest us further in detail is the fact that boys at the age of about ten were excluded from the paternal hut. Females were given away about the same age, so that we may say thatonly small children remained with their parents. "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[472]Describing the laying of a camp Curr says—"As they arrived they formed their camps, each family having a fire of its own some half-dozen yards from its neighbour's."[473]From Dawson's description of the aboriginal habitations,[474]we get a good glimpse into their mode of dwelling. Dawson says they have either a permanent or temporary habitation, and describes both. The formerwuurnis bigger, and may accommodate about a dozen persons. But it serves only for the use of one family. "When several families live together each builds itswuurn, facing one central fire." But even the family, if the children are grown up, does not live in one party; "thewuurnis partitioned off into compartments. One of these is appropriated to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers." Here we see that husband and wife sleep also quite apart, with their small children. Grown-up but unmarried male or female children have compartments of their own. And if they were married they must have had their own separate camp. The isolation seems to have been amongst these tribes much less accentuated than amongst the East Victorians, for instance. Although separated, grown-up children lived in the same habitation, and even thewuurnsof separate families were situated round a common fire, so that it "appears to be one dwelling." In their temporary huts the isolation is more pronounced. "While travelling or occupying temporary habitations each of these parties (parent, male and female children) must erect separatewuurns." Moreover each family must camp separately. A certain communism of living is expressed also by the common cooking,[475]although each family has its basket in which it cooks food.[476]Eyre's information about the Lower Murray River blacks agrees to a certain degree with Dawson's statements. "Sometimes each married man will have a hut for himself, his wives and family, including, perhaps, occasionally his mother or some other near relative. At other times, large long huts are constructed, in which from five to ten families reside, each having their own separate fire."[477]Of course, here the communism is much greater, although the separation of the fire circles is still kept. These natives, as well as the tribesdescribed by Dawson, were in better economic conditions, and therefore able to adopt sedentary life; they were also more skilful in the building of huts. The general type of a hut was a rude shelter of boughs only affording protection against rain.[478]Brough Smyth affirms also perfect order and method in the arrangement of a camp. "The aborigines do not herd together promiscuously." If the whole tribe is present the natives are divided into groups each composed of about six dwellings. "Each mia-mia (hut) is five or six yards distant from its neighbours." If there are several "tribes" (groups), each camps in a separate place, in a position marking whence it came. Each hut has its separate fire (in opposition to Dawson's statement).[479]Complete isolation and strict camp rules are stated by J. Moore-Davis. "Married men each with his family occupying the centre" of the camp.[480]A statement quite contrary to nearly all others is given by Beveridge. He speaks of "the promiscuous manner they have of huddling together in their loondthals."[481]We need not, however, take this statement very seriously, as it is given in immediate connection with another doubtful one, viz. of absolute, even incestuous, sexual promiscuity.[482]Perhaps the observations were made on natives who were quite corrupted by contact with white men. At any rate this statement is directly opposed to all we know about these two features of Australian aborigines in their natural state of life. We may therefore discard them as unreliable.[483]Collins writes: "In their huts and in their caves they lie down indiscriminately mixed, men, women and children together."[484]This statement is not quite clear, as we do not know whether these "men, women and children" form one family, or are related, or whether there is a great number of them, etc. It is also opposed to what we learnt from Howitt and many others of the customary order observed in occupying a hut. Besides, Collins had under his immediate observation blacks hanging round the town of Port Phillip, demoralizedand degenerate; their females seem to have been already addicted to prostitution.[485]They were no longer in their primitive state; and all observations, especially relating to their mode of living, which changes immediately with the conditions of life, must be accepted with caution. I do not consider this statement any more reliable than that of Beveridge which I discarded. From other passages where he speaks of the small inland huts "affording shelter to only one miserable tenant,"[486]and the larger huts on the sea-coast, "large enough to hold six or eight persons," we might infer that there was room only for one family in each hut. Here also we read that the coastal tribes, which probably had a better food supply and led a more sedentary life, had larger and better-built huts.We read concerning the Turra tribe of South Australia[487]: "In camping, the place of the parents is to the right-hand side of their son's camp; the brother to the left side; sister-in-law to the right side or near his father's. In the camp the husband sleeps at the right hand of the fire, his wife behind him, and her young children behind her." This, less detailed than Howitt's statement, corroborates it to the full. We see that each camp is occupied exclusively by a married couple and their small children; and that inside the hut as well as in the configuration of the camp there is a strict customary order. It is important to notice that these statements, reporting strict camp rules and referring to tribes scattered over a great area (Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia) are given by very reliable authorities, and that Howitt at least gathered them by collecting information about the ancient customs of the Kurnai and Murring from old natives; using, therefore, the only correct method. They refer, therefore, to old customs, which probably were no longer observed in the tribes spoilt and demoralized by contact with settlers. Much weight is to be ascribed, therefore, in this matter to the information of Howitt and his correspondents.Schürmann states shortly: "Each family occupies a separate hut; and, if there be any unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[488]Henderson says about the New South Wales natives, "Each family has its own gunya and fire."[489]George Barrington observes that among the Port Jackson natives each hut was occupied by one family.[490]When the families who formed a "tribe" (= local group?) meet "each family has its own fire and provides its own substance."[491]In the description of his travels Dawson tells us that when the native party was joined by a stranger with his wife the latter did not approach the other men, but slept alone by herself at a small fire.[492]This points to the fact that a married woman normally never slept in the immediate neighbourhood of any other man but her own husband.Spencer and Gillen affirm, again, the complete isolation of families who, according to them,[493]normally roam scattered on the territory of the local group. "Each family, consisting of a man and one or more wives and children, occupies always a mia-mia, which is merely a lean-to of shrubs, so placed as to shield the occupants from the prevailing wind." This statement is perfectly clear, and we may fit it into the general picture we drew from all the other evidence.Among the natives of Central Australia (probably of the Arunta nation) a married woman "may speak to any but the young men."[494]Thus she is practically excluded from any intercourse with them.Among the natives of Moreton Bay the conjugal relation is maintained by them "with great decency and propriety, every family having its separate hut and fire."[495]A very clear and concise statement is given on this point by the Rev. J. Mathew, referring to the Kabi and Wakka tribes. "The family, consisting of husband and wife, or wives, with their children, constituted a distinct social unit. They occupied the same gunya (dwelling), they ate together, they travelled together."[496]After having described the construction of the hut he adds: "This sufficed for a family. The dwellings were placed a little distance apart, facing in the same direction, and each had its own small fire in front."[497]Roth says about the tribes of North-West Central Queensland: "The husband sleeps in the same gundi as his wives."[498]The way of taking meals is not quite uniform among all tribes observed by this writer. At Cape Bedford "members of one family take their meals together, except the single young men (above puberty), who dine apart." In another tribe (TullyRiver) "each family dines by itself." On the contrary, "on the Bloomfield River men, boys and girls (up to four or five years of age) dine together; all the other females ... mess apart."[499]Among the natives of Koombana Bay, "in the family, the man, women and children dined together."[500]There are three kinds of huts among the North Queensland tribes: the simple shelter of boughs; a hut built somewhat more carefully against rain; and a hut built for protection against cold, this hut, being of course, the most elaborate.[501]From the description of these huts we may infer that they were occupied each by one family only.The isolation of families caused by the jealousy of the husband is plainly stated by Grey: "He cannot, from the roving nature of their mode of life, surround his wives with the walls of a seraglio, but custom and etiquette have drawn about them barriers nearly as impassable. When a certain number of families are collected together, they encamp at a common spot, and each family has a separate hut or perhaps two. At these huts sleep the father of the family, his wives, the female children who have not yet joined their husbands, very young boys[502]and occasionally female relatives; but no males over ten years of age may sleep in family huts. They have got their own separate encampment."[503]If any strangers are present with their wives, they sleep in their own huts, placed amongst the married people. If they are unmarried or without wives "they sleep at the fire of the young men."[504]"Under no circumstances is a strange native allowed to approach the fire of a married man."[505]Their huts being so scattered over a rather large area, their conversation is held by means of a loud chant.[506]It must be remembered that Grey asserts in several places the great and vigilant jealousy of the natives.[507]Bishop Salvado, who speaks also of the great jealousy of the males and the fidelity exacted from the females,[508]gives us the following account of their mode of camping:"Lorsqu'une famille se dispose à dormir, les garçons qui ont passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls, autour du feu commun, les plus petits avec le père, et les enfants à la mamelle, aussi bien que les filles, quel que soit leur âge, avec la mère. Les femmes jouissent du droit d'ancienneté, la première dort plus près du mari, ainsi de suite."[509]Another passage[510]testifies alsothat they roam in single families; the reason alleged is easier food supply.We read in Browne that one hut holds only two or three persons.[511]
Statements.—We have a clear and detailed description of the mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461]As a rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some families[462]were closely related,[463]a certain distance was kept between their camps, which increasedas the consanguinity diminished.[464]A man's parents could occasionally sleep with him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465]We see, therefore, that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the little girl";[466]bigger children camped separately. We shall find this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South Wales (Murring)[467]as to the Wurunjerri[468]of East Victoria.
Amongst the Gournditsh-Mara Tribe (Lake Condah, West Victoria) "each family camped by itself." During the meals "each wife was ... obliged to sit beside her own husband," and not "near any other man unless her husband sat between them."[469]It is a statement pointing to isolation of females from sex jealousy. We shall meet in the future with a few statements referring to the way in which meals are taken.
Customs pointing to the isolation of families, on the ground of sex jealousy are referred to by Curr.[470]"A woman never sat in a mia-mia (hut) in which there was a man, save her husband; she never conversed nor exchanged words with any man except in the absence of her husband and in reply to some necessary question," and only from a distance. Women had "no communication with persons of the opposite sex except little boys." From the paternal hut, where they lived, "their brothers of eight or ten years of age were excluded at night." And again, "among the Bangerang and other tribes I have known, each married couple had their own mia-mia, or hut."[471]These statements are quite clear. They coincide with the majority of our information. What is important and will interest us further in detail is the fact that boys at the age of about ten were excluded from the paternal hut. Females were given away about the same age, so that we may say thatonly small children remained with their parents. "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[472]
Describing the laying of a camp Curr says—
"As they arrived they formed their camps, each family having a fire of its own some half-dozen yards from its neighbour's."[473]
From Dawson's description of the aboriginal habitations,[474]we get a good glimpse into their mode of dwelling. Dawson says they have either a permanent or temporary habitation, and describes both. The formerwuurnis bigger, and may accommodate about a dozen persons. But it serves only for the use of one family. "When several families live together each builds itswuurn, facing one central fire." But even the family, if the children are grown up, does not live in one party; "thewuurnis partitioned off into compartments. One of these is appropriated to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers." Here we see that husband and wife sleep also quite apart, with their small children. Grown-up but unmarried male or female children have compartments of their own. And if they were married they must have had their own separate camp. The isolation seems to have been amongst these tribes much less accentuated than amongst the East Victorians, for instance. Although separated, grown-up children lived in the same habitation, and even thewuurnsof separate families were situated round a common fire, so that it "appears to be one dwelling." In their temporary huts the isolation is more pronounced. "While travelling or occupying temporary habitations each of these parties (parent, male and female children) must erect separatewuurns." Moreover each family must camp separately. A certain communism of living is expressed also by the common cooking,[475]although each family has its basket in which it cooks food.[476]
Eyre's information about the Lower Murray River blacks agrees to a certain degree with Dawson's statements. "Sometimes each married man will have a hut for himself, his wives and family, including, perhaps, occasionally his mother or some other near relative. At other times, large long huts are constructed, in which from five to ten families reside, each having their own separate fire."[477]Of course, here the communism is much greater, although the separation of the fire circles is still kept. These natives, as well as the tribesdescribed by Dawson, were in better economic conditions, and therefore able to adopt sedentary life; they were also more skilful in the building of huts. The general type of a hut was a rude shelter of boughs only affording protection against rain.[478]
Brough Smyth affirms also perfect order and method in the arrangement of a camp. "The aborigines do not herd together promiscuously." If the whole tribe is present the natives are divided into groups each composed of about six dwellings. "Each mia-mia (hut) is five or six yards distant from its neighbours." If there are several "tribes" (groups), each camps in a separate place, in a position marking whence it came. Each hut has its separate fire (in opposition to Dawson's statement).[479]
Complete isolation and strict camp rules are stated by J. Moore-Davis. "Married men each with his family occupying the centre" of the camp.[480]
A statement quite contrary to nearly all others is given by Beveridge. He speaks of "the promiscuous manner they have of huddling together in their loondthals."[481]We need not, however, take this statement very seriously, as it is given in immediate connection with another doubtful one, viz. of absolute, even incestuous, sexual promiscuity.[482]Perhaps the observations were made on natives who were quite corrupted by contact with white men. At any rate this statement is directly opposed to all we know about these two features of Australian aborigines in their natural state of life. We may therefore discard them as unreliable.[483]
Collins writes: "In their huts and in their caves they lie down indiscriminately mixed, men, women and children together."[484]This statement is not quite clear, as we do not know whether these "men, women and children" form one family, or are related, or whether there is a great number of them, etc. It is also opposed to what we learnt from Howitt and many others of the customary order observed in occupying a hut. Besides, Collins had under his immediate observation blacks hanging round the town of Port Phillip, demoralizedand degenerate; their females seem to have been already addicted to prostitution.[485]They were no longer in their primitive state; and all observations, especially relating to their mode of living, which changes immediately with the conditions of life, must be accepted with caution. I do not consider this statement any more reliable than that of Beveridge which I discarded. From other passages where he speaks of the small inland huts "affording shelter to only one miserable tenant,"[486]and the larger huts on the sea-coast, "large enough to hold six or eight persons," we might infer that there was room only for one family in each hut. Here also we read that the coastal tribes, which probably had a better food supply and led a more sedentary life, had larger and better-built huts.
We read concerning the Turra tribe of South Australia[487]: "In camping, the place of the parents is to the right-hand side of their son's camp; the brother to the left side; sister-in-law to the right side or near his father's. In the camp the husband sleeps at the right hand of the fire, his wife behind him, and her young children behind her." This, less detailed than Howitt's statement, corroborates it to the full. We see that each camp is occupied exclusively by a married couple and their small children; and that inside the hut as well as in the configuration of the camp there is a strict customary order. It is important to notice that these statements, reporting strict camp rules and referring to tribes scattered over a great area (Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia) are given by very reliable authorities, and that Howitt at least gathered them by collecting information about the ancient customs of the Kurnai and Murring from old natives; using, therefore, the only correct method. They refer, therefore, to old customs, which probably were no longer observed in the tribes spoilt and demoralized by contact with settlers. Much weight is to be ascribed, therefore, in this matter to the information of Howitt and his correspondents.
Schürmann states shortly: "Each family occupies a separate hut; and, if there be any unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[488]
Henderson says about the New South Wales natives, "Each family has its own gunya and fire."[489]
George Barrington observes that among the Port Jackson natives each hut was occupied by one family.[490]
When the families who formed a "tribe" (= local group?) meet "each family has its own fire and provides its own substance."[491]In the description of his travels Dawson tells us that when the native party was joined by a stranger with his wife the latter did not approach the other men, but slept alone by herself at a small fire.[492]This points to the fact that a married woman normally never slept in the immediate neighbourhood of any other man but her own husband.
Spencer and Gillen affirm, again, the complete isolation of families who, according to them,[493]normally roam scattered on the territory of the local group. "Each family, consisting of a man and one or more wives and children, occupies always a mia-mia, which is merely a lean-to of shrubs, so placed as to shield the occupants from the prevailing wind." This statement is perfectly clear, and we may fit it into the general picture we drew from all the other evidence.
Among the natives of Central Australia (probably of the Arunta nation) a married woman "may speak to any but the young men."[494]Thus she is practically excluded from any intercourse with them.
Among the natives of Moreton Bay the conjugal relation is maintained by them "with great decency and propriety, every family having its separate hut and fire."[495]
A very clear and concise statement is given on this point by the Rev. J. Mathew, referring to the Kabi and Wakka tribes. "The family, consisting of husband and wife, or wives, with their children, constituted a distinct social unit. They occupied the same gunya (dwelling), they ate together, they travelled together."[496]After having described the construction of the hut he adds: "This sufficed for a family. The dwellings were placed a little distance apart, facing in the same direction, and each had its own small fire in front."[497]
Roth says about the tribes of North-West Central Queensland: "The husband sleeps in the same gundi as his wives."[498]The way of taking meals is not quite uniform among all tribes observed by this writer. At Cape Bedford "members of one family take their meals together, except the single young men (above puberty), who dine apart." In another tribe (TullyRiver) "each family dines by itself." On the contrary, "on the Bloomfield River men, boys and girls (up to four or five years of age) dine together; all the other females ... mess apart."[499]Among the natives of Koombana Bay, "in the family, the man, women and children dined together."[500]There are three kinds of huts among the North Queensland tribes: the simple shelter of boughs; a hut built somewhat more carefully against rain; and a hut built for protection against cold, this hut, being of course, the most elaborate.[501]From the description of these huts we may infer that they were occupied each by one family only.
The isolation of families caused by the jealousy of the husband is plainly stated by Grey: "He cannot, from the roving nature of their mode of life, surround his wives with the walls of a seraglio, but custom and etiquette have drawn about them barriers nearly as impassable. When a certain number of families are collected together, they encamp at a common spot, and each family has a separate hut or perhaps two. At these huts sleep the father of the family, his wives, the female children who have not yet joined their husbands, very young boys[502]and occasionally female relatives; but no males over ten years of age may sleep in family huts. They have got their own separate encampment."[503]If any strangers are present with their wives, they sleep in their own huts, placed amongst the married people. If they are unmarried or without wives "they sleep at the fire of the young men."[504]"Under no circumstances is a strange native allowed to approach the fire of a married man."[505]Their huts being so scattered over a rather large area, their conversation is held by means of a loud chant.[506]It must be remembered that Grey asserts in several places the great and vigilant jealousy of the natives.[507]
Bishop Salvado, who speaks also of the great jealousy of the males and the fidelity exacted from the females,[508]gives us the following account of their mode of camping:"Lorsqu'une famille se dispose à dormir, les garçons qui ont passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls, autour du feu commun, les plus petits avec le père, et les enfants à la mamelle, aussi bien que les filles, quel que soit leur âge, avec la mère. Les femmes jouissent du droit d'ancienneté, la première dort plus près du mari, ainsi de suite."[509]Another passage[510]testifies alsothat they roam in single families; the reason alleged is easier food supply.
We read in Browne that one hut holds only two or three persons.[511]
The general inference to be drawn from these twenty-four statements is, roughly speaking, that the general features of native camp arrangements were orderliness, fixed rules, isolation of families, settled and restricted social contact, and by no means social communism and unregulated social promiscuity.
Five instances give strict rules which obtain in arranging camps. These were probably much more widespread than might be supposed from these few instances. But, as mentioned above, these camp rules would probably fall into abeyance at once when the natives came in contact with civilization. It was only by attentive inquiries that Howitt extracted them from the natives. Besides these we read in fifteen statements that each family camped separately. So that twenty of twenty-four statements assert that there was in this respect complete isolation of the families. Sexual motives played undoubtedly an important part in this isolation. We are told so expressly in several places (Curr, Grey, Salvado, J. D. Lang). In the case of even friendly strangers a certain amount of mistrust—of evil magic as well as of actual bad intentions—may have operated. There are indications of it in statements of Br. Smyth and Grey. But in the detailed examples given by Howitt, where all the camping families are closely related and usually consist of more than one generation (father and sons, etc.), we can hardly conceive that either of the above-mentioned motives would come into play. At any rate this regulated camp order shows how important this question was in the native social life and how strong the idea must have been that each family had its own place apart from the others, and the more remotely related people were, the less intimate contact would be.
The aborigines possess different kinds of huts. Of interest for us is the fact that the majority of them are made to hold only one family. Fourteen statements assert it explicitly or implicitly. In three instances we are told of the existence of larger huts (Eyre, Dawson, Collins). In two of them the separation of families is maintained in spite of the larger dwellings. Only Collins' information is doubtful in this respect.
Within these huts the family camped according to fixed rules. We have five instances given by Howitt and his correspondents, and Bishop Salvado. These rules show clearly that each hut, each fire-place, was reserved for one family, and that thisstatushad its customary form and sanction. There were three instances of separation during meals (Gournditsh-Mara, some of the North-West Central Queensland tribes, and the Kabi and Wakka). In three statements we are told that both sexes separated during meals (Curr, Angas, Roth). What Curr tells us of the marked social separation of families is remarkable; especially in respect to the isolation of the women.[512]
Two statements were rather in contradiction with our general results: Beveridge's statement of promiscuous huddling and Collins' vague information. We stated our reasons for not giving them much weight, and they cannot outweigh the sum-total of reliable information which is fairly unanimous on this point. It is also in general agreement with the information we gathered on sexual matters as well as with our conclusion as to territorial distribution, and it corroborates our results on both these points. For on the one hand it was found that in normal life there exists individuality of sexual relations; on the other hand the usual scattered mode of living wouldcorrespond to a fairly complete isolation in cases of tribal assembly.
Our last considerations have clearly demonstrated how the individuality of the family unit shows itself in the aboriginal mode of living. A single family is normally in contact with a few other families only; sometimes it roams alone over its own area. But even when there are several families living together, the camp rules keep them apart from each other in nearly every function of daily life. The children, who live in intimate contact with their parents in the same hut, must necessarily set them apart from all their (the children's) other relatives. We must assume, therefore, that the individuality of the relation of each child to its actual parents is deeply impressed by all the circumstances of daily life on the child's mind. This assumption is in accord with the information we can gather on this point. But before we begin to look it through, let us discuss the theoretical side of the kinship (or relationship) problem.