We may point to the circumstance that this disparity of age stands in connection with the very prevalent form of betrothal, viz. the promising of a girl in infancy usually to a mature man. Other modes of obtaining wives, as exchange of a daughter for a wife, and levirate, stand also in connection with the disparity of age.Statements.—We read in Curr: "The Australian male almost invariably obtains his wife or wives either as a survivor of a married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life for his daughters." An old widow often falls to the lot of some young bachelor.[757]On the other hand young girls are allotted to old men. "One often sees a child of eight the wife of a man of fifty." And we read further: "The marriage rules of the blacks result in very ill-assorted unions as regards age; for it is usual to see old men with mere girls as wives and men in the prime of life married to old widows. As a rule women are not obtained by the men unless they are at least thirty years of age. Women have very frequently two husbands during their lifetime, the first older and the second younger than themselves."[758]"I never heard of a female over sixteen years of age, who, prior to the breakdown of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites, had not a husband."[759]Speaking again on marriage among the Bangerang, Curr says: "As a rule, girls would be about twelve or fourteen years of age, and their husbands-elect some five-and-thirty years older, and already the lords of one or two spouses." "In this way it happened that one seldom saw a couple in which both the parties were young."[760]And further on we read, "Few men under thirty have lubras." But in the agebetween fifty and sixty men usually possess two or three wives. The difference between the spouses is usually twenty years; sometimes much more.[761]We find the disparity of age in marriage mentioned by Howitt in several places. So we learn that old men were often betrothed to young girls among the Wolgal.[762]We read that in Australia old men secure the young females for themselves.[763]And that young men obtain for wives some old repudiated wife of one of the old men.[764]Among the Geawe Gal "girls were affianced to men much older than themselves."[765]Speaking of the Dieri and other South Central tribes he says that old wives of old men are handed over to young boys.[766]Howitt informs us also that no man might marry before duly initiated; and then the old men of the tribe had to give their consent.[767]Obviously, therefore, the age at which men could get married was much later than that in which females were given away.Eyre found in the tribes with which he was in contact that women of between thirty and forty years of age were often cast off and given to young boys.[768]Young girls were often allotted to old men.[769]Disparity of age is stated also by Angas. Old men get often the youngest and comeliest women; whilst the old and haggard females were left for the young men.[770]Among the Encounter Bay tribes the girls "are given in marriage at a very early age (ten or twelve years)." And as it is very often the father who exchanges his daughter for a wife, it is evident that a great disparity of age must prevail.[771]Mrs. Parker says that among the Euahlayi baby girls were often betrothed to "some old chap" who might have even already as many as two or three wives.[772]Whereas quite a young man was often allotted to an old woman. Age is not a disqualification for a woman to marry.[773]In the Central tribes, owing to the Tualcha Mura institution,[774]"men very frequently have wives much younger than themselves, as the husband and the mother of a wife obtained in this way are usually of approximately the same age."[775]Andit may be remembered that this is the "most usual method of obtaining a wife."[776]We are informed that among the tribes near Victoria River Downs[777]a man may marry at about thirty years of age, and the older he grows the younger girls he gets. Girls are married on reaching puberty; and usually to old men; whereas young men often receive old women.In the Kabi and Wakka tribes "the elder men had sometimes a plurality of wives, while the young men had for a long time after reaching manhood to remain, perforce, single. I never knew a man to have more than two wives at the one time, and generally one sufficed. There was no minimum of age for the marriage of girls, and so it occasionally happened that a child of twelve became the wife of a man of sixty. I knew a case in point."[778]"Il est défendu a un Australien ... de se marier avant au moins vingt-huit à trente ans, et la mort est le châtiment de tout infracteur de la loi."[779]In the tribes of King George Sound the old men seem partly to monopolize the young females.[780]As we have mentioned above, boys leave their parents' camp to undergo the initiation ceremonies. These latter seem to obtain in all tribes, with a few insignificant exceptions such as the Bidwelli mentioned by Howitt. This is a quite well-known fact. But what is their mode of living during this, in some tribes, rather prolonged period and afterwards, before they marry? They do not live in their parents' camp; and they have not yet their individual settlement. They appear in the great majority of cases to club together, have their own encampment, roam and hunt on their own account, and in general to live a life apart.Statements.—Howitt, speaking of the camping rules among the Kurnai, says that a "'brogan' (a man initiated at the same time, a comrade, or tribal brother, seeNat. Tr., p. 737), although calling the man's wife 'wife' and she calling him'husband,' would have to camp with the young men, if any were there, or else by himself."[781]And again: "The young men (brewit) and the married men who have not their wives with them, always encamp together at some distance from the camps of the married men."[782]"The young man, or brewit, after his initiation, may be said to have commenced a life independent, to some extent, of his parents."[783]"He lived with the other young men, and with those who were initiated with him, and accordingly his brothers."[784]We read of the Wolgal tribe: "A married man would never stay in the young men's camp when travelling, unless he were without his wife, when he would be considered as being single. The married people and the single young men camp entirely apart."[785]Howitt mentions further the young men's camp in connection with animal food division amongst the Ngarigo (Maneroo blacks).[786]That the bachelors' camp was a rule is confirmed by Howitt's statement that amongst the Mukjarawaint there was no young men's camp.[787]The unmarried men seem to have lived with their grandparents.[788]Curr, speaking of the laying out of a native camp in the Bangerang tribe, says: "the fire of the bachelors ..." is "rather further off and somewhat isolated from the rest."[789]The same author says: "Over the girls his (the father's) authority ceased when they became wives, and after his twelfth year or so the boy was very little subject to the father."[790]"When eight or ten years of age he was sent to sleep in the bachelors' camp, when there was one at hand, with the young men and boys of various ages, his parents still supplying him with food. In his new home, though no violence was used, its inmates being all his relatives, the child gradually became to some extent the fag" of all older and stronger. In short this was the real school he had to pass through, the most important moment of which formed the initiation, when he becamekogomoolga.[791]"The bachelors, in their camp, cooked each for himself"[792](at least the older ones; as for the quite young, the family provided, according to what we were told above). "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[793]Curr also emphasizesthe importance of the training enjoyed by the youths in the bachelors' camp for the general tribal order.[794]J. Dawson says that one partition of a big wuurn "is appropriated to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers. While travelling or occupying temporary habitations, each of these parties must erect separate wuurns."[795]Here the young boys and young unmarried girls lived with their family, but in separate compartments of the hut. We are not informed if, when travelling, they formed a separate group in the encampment."Young, unmarried men frequently muster in parties of six or eight, and make a hut for themselves."[796]In cases when a larger number of natives are assembled it is required by custom that "all boys and uninitiated young men sleep at some distance from the huts of adults."[797]"Until his fourteenth or fifteenth year he (the boy) is mostly engaged in catching fish and birds, because already, for some years, he has been obliged to seek for food on his own account. Thus he early becomes, in a great measure, independent; and there is nobody who can control him, the authority of his parents depending only upon the superstitions which they have instilled into him from infancy."[798]A vague but suggestive piece of information as regards our point is given on the Turra tribe, by the Rev. J. Kühn: Two or three months after initiation the lad is allowed to marry. But some of the married men undergo a further operation and become "Willeru"; "after this they are not permitted to go to their wives for two years."[799]Do they live in a separate camp during these two years? It is probable, but the statement is not clear enough to be useful for us.We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "If there be any young unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[800]This statement throws some light on the preceding one: there we had no mention of any separate camp. But as both these tribes lived quite close and must have had similar institutions, we may safely assume that the seclusion from wives which is reported in the foregoing passage was combined with an independent mode of living,i. e.with a bachelors' camp.Teichelmann and Schürmann report that there was a separate hut in which women dwelt during their period.[801]We read in the description of the United States expedition to New South Wales that the youths have to avoid women from initiation till marriage and that they have their separate encampment.[802]In the Euahlayi tribe boys go after their seventh year to the Weedeghal, bachelors' camp.[803]Among the Central tribes (Krichauff Ranges) there is a separate men's camp and a camp for women, where these latter are confined during certain periods of their life.[804]We read that among the natives of Finke River (Central Australia) "separate places are assigned for the unmarried men and for the single females respectively."[805]The same author reports that the natives are fond of visits. "The meeting-place is usually the Tmara-nkanja for the men,i. e.the bachelors' camp."[806]In the Arunta tribe the boys "go out with the women as they searched for vegetable food and the smaller animals," up to the first initiation ceremony. Afterwards "they begin to accompany the men in their search for larger" game. At this first initiation they change also their mode of living; "in the future they must not play with the women and girls, nor must they camp with them as they have hitherto done, but henceforth they must go to the camp of the men, which is known as the Ungunja."[807]Among the Arunta there is a "special part of the main camp where the men assemble and near to which the women may not go."[808]It must exist only when a greater number of natives are assembled,[809]for normally the people roam scattered over the country. But during these latter periods the unmarried men lead probably an existence of their own, as they cannot live with families (compare abovemode of living). This information about the bachelors' camp in the Arunta is not quite clear, as we see. But all we read points to its existence.We find the bachelors' camp (Lagerplatz der jungen Männer; tmarankintja) mentioned by the Rev. E. Strehlow, in connection with the totemic ceremonies amongst the Arunta.[810]We read about the tribes near Port Darwin: "Children live with their parents until puberty, when girls become members of their husband's households, residing sometimes with him, and at other times at the parental camp."[811]I may add here, that this is the only example where matrilocal marriage is mentioned in Australia. Everywhere else we find it stated that the girl removes to her husband's camp.[812]We read farther that the boys are taken, after their initiation, "in charge by those whose duty it is to train" them. "They lived in a large wurley, which would accommodate all the boys. As a fact ... no boys between seventeen and nineteen are seen at Port Darwin."[813]Here we are told that there was one big hut in which all the boys lived; but this seems rather to be an exception.Roth says that children of about seven years of age leave their parents' camp and go to stay with their grandparents.[814]We are not informed whether there exists a bachelors' camp in the North-West Central Queensland tribes; but this statement does not deny it, for boys are apparently not at once initiated after leaving their parental camp. Another statement of the same author about the natives of Koombana Bay (Queensland), affirms it explicitly: "The younger single males at a certain stage (puberty and onwards) always had a fire to themselves."[815]And again: "The grown-up lads sleep together, apart from the others."[816]Grey says that strangers visiting a tribe, if unmarried or without their wives, "sleep at the fire of the young men."[817]Bishop Salvado, according to whose information the South-West Australian natives live in small tribes of six to nine persons, says that when a family disposes itself to sleep"les garçons qui out passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls autour du feu commun."[818]It is stated in two statements above (Dawson and Schultze), that there were camps of unmarried females as well as of single men. We may add here two other statements about such camps.[819]In the Maryborough tribes there were camps of unmarried girls, in connection with which there was some sexual licence. Similarly in the North-West Central Queensland tribes,[820]studied by Roth, single girls lived in groups, under the control of an old man. Such phenomena would account for the licence of unmarried females, which wefind sometimes reported. But they do not seem to have a very large extension in the Australian aboriginal society.We see in the first place from this evidence[821]that boys were actually removed from their parents' care and that they acquired a complete independence of their parents on reaching puberty. This is especially mentioned in several of our statements (Kurnai, Bangerang, Lower Murray River tribes, Encounter Bay tribes, Port Darwin tribes). It appears also to resultipso factofrom the circumstance that the boys lived in quite a different part of the encampment, and so could not be under the control of their parents. It appears from Curr's and Parkhouse's statements that they even lived in a separate locality. And confronting our evidence concerning the bachelors' camp with what we know about the aboriginal mode of living, it appears also highly probable that if the boys' camp numbered from six to eight inmates (compare Eyre's statement) they must have roamed about in a separate group. We read that in two cases the boys joined their grandparents (Howitt about the Mukjarawaint tribe and Roth). Only the statement of Dawson suggests that boys remained with their parents, and even that, as we saw, does not follow very clearly from this statement.We are informed in several places about the mode of living of the lads in their separate camp. They seem to have partly provided their own food and cooked it (Curr). They slept in one big hut (Parkhouse) or round a common fire (Salvado and others). In general they seem to have formed a distinct, separate social unit. This time, spent in the bachelors' camp, was the real time of training (see Curr's statement. Compare Hutton Webster,loc. cit., chap. iv. pp. 49-51). They came under the influence of a new authority—the authority of the tribal elders. And, especially during the actual time of initiation, all thewisdom and morality they had to learn was imparted to the young people by the old men of the tribe. Probably there also they formed new acquaintances and relationships besides the family ones in which they were brought up. The institution of bachelors' camp is general among all the Australian tribes. Our evidence is not detailed enough to allow us to trace geographical differences in any particular feature. We may mention here, by the way, that the bachelors' camp of Australia was a form of the widespread institution of the men's-house.[822]In sum, all these factors give great weight to the facts here discussed; viz. to those of the early marriage of girls and the initiation of boys. We see that these facts take away from the Australian family its patriarchal character. The father's authority is exercised over his children merely during their early childhood,i. e.during a period when there is in a general way very little room for the display of any serious authority. Still more, as there was no serious and real training during this time, all education, as far as it was given at all by the father, assumed more the form of play, as we saw above (p. 256); and, as we saw, during that period great leniency towards the offspring was the chief feature of the father's behaviour.[823]When a serious and often harsh training took place, it was not the father's individual authority that enforced it, but the tribal elders'. So we see that our former result is hereby confirmed, viz. that there is no foundation for designing the father's relation to his child as based upon authority or any idea of proprietorship. That applies to a girl as well as to a boy. But in the case of the former we might attribute some meaning to theword property, although it would be rather straining the sense of the word.IVIt was seen that on reaching a certain age the children leave their parents' camp and are removed from their control; still the personal, individual bond of kinship is not broken. And although it does not find its expression in facts of daily life, for the children and the parents live apart, yet there are some facts which unmistakably reveal the existence of a strong lifelong affection and attachment between parents and children.These facts are: real sorrow displayed at the death or funeral of a near relative, and especially that displayed by parents at the death of their children; joy and tenderness shown to children whenever met for the first time after a long absence. Here also must be placed the numerous occurrences in which love was displayed for white men who were recognized as dead relatives. In these cases their supposed parents always displayed the greatest amount of tenderness towards them, and often underwent considerable sacrifices for the sake of helping or even seeing their "children." The close connection between grandchildren and grandparents shows also that there was a near individual tie between the parents of the children and their parents. Let us adduce some statements.Statements.—Curr remarks shortly but clearly: "Parental affection always endured," after the children left their parents and became practically independent of them.[824]A story showing strong filial attachment is told by R. Dawson. Relating an anecdote, he concludes: "The manner in which Youee told the story was exceedingly interesting; his lamentations, that 'white pellow' should treat his father so, and the mild complaining tone in which they were made, thoroughly portrayed his filial attachment to his father, ofwhom he said several times, turning to him with a tone and manner that could not be mistaken, 'Murrygood wool man!Murrygood wool man, massa.'"[825]A characteristic story, proving paternal affection, is told by Bonney. An old man was once cut with a tomahawk by his son, a big, strong man who had fits of madness. "The old man returned to the camp and with tears in his eyes told me what had happened, and begged me to assist him to bring back his mad son before he had perished in the bush."[826]We have also a few statements about the relations between grandparents and grandchildren. We are informed that among the Mukjarawaint the grandparents had the exclusive right to decide whether the child should be killed directly after birth or allowed to live. In the former case the grandparents had the privilege of eating the child.[827]We read of the important rôle the grandmother played in the North Queensland tribes at the naming of the child,[828]and amongst the Euahlayi at the Betrothal Ceremony.[829]Amongst the Kurnai also "the name is given by the paternal grandfather or grandmother, or in default by the mother's parents."[830]A series of interesting instances is told by Fraser. He says, "Their natural affections are keen; in proof of this I need only refer to their grief over a dead relative, even though it be a very young child; they utter loud lamentations and cut and burn the flesh of their bodies in grief. This expression of grief is not all artificial or professional like the hired 'ululatus' of the Romans or the 'keening' of the Irish. That it is genuine on the part of the near relatives of the deceased I can prove by examples. Jackey, the 'king' of the Gresford blacks, died and was buried; his mother could not be induced to leave the spot; she sat there night and day, refusing food, until one morning she was found dead on his grave. She was buried beside her son."[831]—"A woman of the Dungog tribule had a child which was hunch-backed and otherwise deformed; she carried it on her back for eighteen or nineteen years; it seemed always no bigger than a child of six or seven years. Her husband also carried about, for two or three years, a son whose feet from the ankles had been destroyed by frostbite."[832]—"At Durham Downs (Queensland), 'king' Brady had a little boy, two years old, who becamehelpless from disease; the mother carried him about with her for many years."[833]—"Then again, the transport of delight with which Buckley was received by a woman of a local tribe who believed that this white man was her deceased son come to life again, is a proof of the strength of natural affection among them."[834]To this last might be added several other instances where white people were received with the greatest love and affection by their "black parents," who believed them to be their dead children. As we mentioned these examples above (p. 222) in another connection we merely refer the reader to that place.Salvado says: "Reprenant la suite de mon récit, je dirai que les fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleures pièces de gibier, ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses. Enfin ils leurs témoignent leur amour au delà de la tombe, en tuant un ou deux sauvages quand leur père vient à mourir."[835]In the description of mourning and burial it appears in several places that the "immediate relations," probably in the first place their own parents and children, have special duties and obligations. "In the Tongaranka tribe, when a death occurs, the immediate relations smear themselves withKopai(gypsum)."[836]"When one of the ... Wiim-baio tribe died ... the relations used to lie with their heads on the body, and even stretched at length on the corpse."[837]In the same tribe after a man's death "his immediate relations cut off their hair and applied to their heads a paste."[838]In the Chepara tribe "the relations of a dead person for several months after wore emu feathers, dyed red." "The mother of the deceased had her nose and all her body painted with stripes of white pipeclay, and wore red feathers over the whole of her head. A sister had also her head covered with red feathers, but was not painted white. After a few weeks the painting was changed to red, and then was worn by father, mother and sisters for a long time."[839]At Port Stephens "an old couple had an only daughter of whom they were very fond. She died, and her parents built their hut over her grave close to the shore of the harbour, and lived there many months, crying for her every evening at sunset."[840]In the description of mourning ceremonies given by Spencer and Gillen it appears plainly that the rôle of the individual mother was quite singular and the most important. "The actual mother of the deceased was painted deeply all over with pipeclay."[841]"On the way to the grave the actual mother often threw herself heavily on the ground and attempted to cut her head with a digging stick."[842]Also the blood brother plays, apparently, a part different from that of the tribal ones. "After going a short distance they were met by a man who was a blood brother of the dead woman, and was accompanied by a number of his tribal brothers."[843]All this evidence, although relatively scanty, shows clearly that the individual relations between parents and children continued to be strong and intimate. This fact also throws light on the character of these relations during early childhood. In this period the bonds were formed, and they must have been formed in a very strong and thorough manner indeed if they lasted so long. This conclusion is of such a general and fundamental character, and the evidence is so scanty, that it would be futile to attempt tracing any geographical distinctions between the different tribes. Like the other general conclusions arrived at in this chapter, it has features common to all the aboriginal tribes of Australia.We have extremely scanty information concerning the relation between brothers and sisters; and the few hints we possess are very contradictory. Thus Gason says that a brother and sister "would sacrifice their lives for one another if called upon."[844]And Fraser informs us that when a man is sick it is his brother's duty to tend him and carry him about. And the author gives an example in support of this statement.[845]And again we read in Oldfield that a girl, if her mother is dead, "is bound to supply them (her brothers) with food for a certain period; indeed, brothers in general retain the privilege of maltreating their sisters long after theselatter became the property of another."[846]On the other hand, Grey states that no "common bond of union" exists between brothers and sisters of the same father.[847]And according to Spencer and Gillen a man may never speak from a near to his younger sister, although he may speak freely to his older one.[848]Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula brothers and sisters were not allowed to converse.[849]In some West Australian tribes the boy was never allowed to speak to his sisters after the initiation ceremony. He had to say farewell to his sisters before he went to the initiation. The "own" brothers and sisters keep apart from each other. And even boys or girls of the same class cannot speak or play together.[850]The first three statements appear to indicate a close individual relationship between brother and sister; the four following seem to deny it again. Recalling to mind what we learned about the relation in question in other connections, we hardly get much help therefrom. The exchange of sisters would point to some ties; but, it is too uncertain a hint. The facts that children are suckled for a long time, and that owing to that and to the practice of infanticide connected with it, the children succeed each other at long intervals, reduce the possibility of close ties between the children of the same parents; especially as they so soon leave the parental camp, and as probably afterwards the intercourse between the sisters and brothers is interrupted (compare statements of Curr and Spencer and Gillen). On the whole we know very little about the relation in question; and we may only conjecture, although with a high degree of probability, that the tie is not a very strong one and does not play an important part in family life; if it were otherwise we probably would know more about it.
We may point to the circumstance that this disparity of age stands in connection with the very prevalent form of betrothal, viz. the promising of a girl in infancy usually to a mature man. Other modes of obtaining wives, as exchange of a daughter for a wife, and levirate, stand also in connection with the disparity of age.
Statements.—We read in Curr: "The Australian male almost invariably obtains his wife or wives either as a survivor of a married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life for his daughters." An old widow often falls to the lot of some young bachelor.[757]On the other hand young girls are allotted to old men. "One often sees a child of eight the wife of a man of fifty." And we read further: "The marriage rules of the blacks result in very ill-assorted unions as regards age; for it is usual to see old men with mere girls as wives and men in the prime of life married to old widows. As a rule women are not obtained by the men unless they are at least thirty years of age. Women have very frequently two husbands during their lifetime, the first older and the second younger than themselves."[758]"I never heard of a female over sixteen years of age, who, prior to the breakdown of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites, had not a husband."[759]Speaking again on marriage among the Bangerang, Curr says: "As a rule, girls would be about twelve or fourteen years of age, and their husbands-elect some five-and-thirty years older, and already the lords of one or two spouses." "In this way it happened that one seldom saw a couple in which both the parties were young."[760]And further on we read, "Few men under thirty have lubras." But in the agebetween fifty and sixty men usually possess two or three wives. The difference between the spouses is usually twenty years; sometimes much more.[761]We find the disparity of age in marriage mentioned by Howitt in several places. So we learn that old men were often betrothed to young girls among the Wolgal.[762]We read that in Australia old men secure the young females for themselves.[763]And that young men obtain for wives some old repudiated wife of one of the old men.[764]Among the Geawe Gal "girls were affianced to men much older than themselves."[765]Speaking of the Dieri and other South Central tribes he says that old wives of old men are handed over to young boys.[766]Howitt informs us also that no man might marry before duly initiated; and then the old men of the tribe had to give their consent.[767]Obviously, therefore, the age at which men could get married was much later than that in which females were given away.Eyre found in the tribes with which he was in contact that women of between thirty and forty years of age were often cast off and given to young boys.[768]Young girls were often allotted to old men.[769]Disparity of age is stated also by Angas. Old men get often the youngest and comeliest women; whilst the old and haggard females were left for the young men.[770]Among the Encounter Bay tribes the girls "are given in marriage at a very early age (ten or twelve years)." And as it is very often the father who exchanges his daughter for a wife, it is evident that a great disparity of age must prevail.[771]Mrs. Parker says that among the Euahlayi baby girls were often betrothed to "some old chap" who might have even already as many as two or three wives.[772]Whereas quite a young man was often allotted to an old woman. Age is not a disqualification for a woman to marry.[773]In the Central tribes, owing to the Tualcha Mura institution,[774]"men very frequently have wives much younger than themselves, as the husband and the mother of a wife obtained in this way are usually of approximately the same age."[775]Andit may be remembered that this is the "most usual method of obtaining a wife."[776]We are informed that among the tribes near Victoria River Downs[777]a man may marry at about thirty years of age, and the older he grows the younger girls he gets. Girls are married on reaching puberty; and usually to old men; whereas young men often receive old women.In the Kabi and Wakka tribes "the elder men had sometimes a plurality of wives, while the young men had for a long time after reaching manhood to remain, perforce, single. I never knew a man to have more than two wives at the one time, and generally one sufficed. There was no minimum of age for the marriage of girls, and so it occasionally happened that a child of twelve became the wife of a man of sixty. I knew a case in point."[778]"Il est défendu a un Australien ... de se marier avant au moins vingt-huit à trente ans, et la mort est le châtiment de tout infracteur de la loi."[779]In the tribes of King George Sound the old men seem partly to monopolize the young females.[780]
Statements.—We read in Curr: "The Australian male almost invariably obtains his wife or wives either as a survivor of a married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in life for his daughters." An old widow often falls to the lot of some young bachelor.[757]On the other hand young girls are allotted to old men. "One often sees a child of eight the wife of a man of fifty." And we read further: "The marriage rules of the blacks result in very ill-assorted unions as regards age; for it is usual to see old men with mere girls as wives and men in the prime of life married to old widows. As a rule women are not obtained by the men unless they are at least thirty years of age. Women have very frequently two husbands during their lifetime, the first older and the second younger than themselves."[758]"I never heard of a female over sixteen years of age, who, prior to the breakdown of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites, had not a husband."[759]
Speaking again on marriage among the Bangerang, Curr says: "As a rule, girls would be about twelve or fourteen years of age, and their husbands-elect some five-and-thirty years older, and already the lords of one or two spouses." "In this way it happened that one seldom saw a couple in which both the parties were young."[760]And further on we read, "Few men under thirty have lubras." But in the agebetween fifty and sixty men usually possess two or three wives. The difference between the spouses is usually twenty years; sometimes much more.[761]
We find the disparity of age in marriage mentioned by Howitt in several places. So we learn that old men were often betrothed to young girls among the Wolgal.[762]We read that in Australia old men secure the young females for themselves.[763]And that young men obtain for wives some old repudiated wife of one of the old men.[764]Among the Geawe Gal "girls were affianced to men much older than themselves."[765]Speaking of the Dieri and other South Central tribes he says that old wives of old men are handed over to young boys.[766]
Howitt informs us also that no man might marry before duly initiated; and then the old men of the tribe had to give their consent.[767]Obviously, therefore, the age at which men could get married was much later than that in which females were given away.
Eyre found in the tribes with which he was in contact that women of between thirty and forty years of age were often cast off and given to young boys.[768]Young girls were often allotted to old men.[769]
Disparity of age is stated also by Angas. Old men get often the youngest and comeliest women; whilst the old and haggard females were left for the young men.[770]
Among the Encounter Bay tribes the girls "are given in marriage at a very early age (ten or twelve years)." And as it is very often the father who exchanges his daughter for a wife, it is evident that a great disparity of age must prevail.[771]
Mrs. Parker says that among the Euahlayi baby girls were often betrothed to "some old chap" who might have even already as many as two or three wives.[772]Whereas quite a young man was often allotted to an old woman. Age is not a disqualification for a woman to marry.[773]
In the Central tribes, owing to the Tualcha Mura institution,[774]"men very frequently have wives much younger than themselves, as the husband and the mother of a wife obtained in this way are usually of approximately the same age."[775]Andit may be remembered that this is the "most usual method of obtaining a wife."[776]
We are informed that among the tribes near Victoria River Downs[777]a man may marry at about thirty years of age, and the older he grows the younger girls he gets. Girls are married on reaching puberty; and usually to old men; whereas young men often receive old women.
In the Kabi and Wakka tribes "the elder men had sometimes a plurality of wives, while the young men had for a long time after reaching manhood to remain, perforce, single. I never knew a man to have more than two wives at the one time, and generally one sufficed. There was no minimum of age for the marriage of girls, and so it occasionally happened that a child of twelve became the wife of a man of sixty. I knew a case in point."[778]
"Il est défendu a un Australien ... de se marier avant au moins vingt-huit à trente ans, et la mort est le châtiment de tout infracteur de la loi."[779]
In the tribes of King George Sound the old men seem partly to monopolize the young females.[780]
As we have mentioned above, boys leave their parents' camp to undergo the initiation ceremonies. These latter seem to obtain in all tribes, with a few insignificant exceptions such as the Bidwelli mentioned by Howitt. This is a quite well-known fact. But what is their mode of living during this, in some tribes, rather prolonged period and afterwards, before they marry? They do not live in their parents' camp; and they have not yet their individual settlement. They appear in the great majority of cases to club together, have their own encampment, roam and hunt on their own account, and in general to live a life apart.
Statements.—Howitt, speaking of the camping rules among the Kurnai, says that a "'brogan' (a man initiated at the same time, a comrade, or tribal brother, seeNat. Tr., p. 737), although calling the man's wife 'wife' and she calling him'husband,' would have to camp with the young men, if any were there, or else by himself."[781]And again: "The young men (brewit) and the married men who have not their wives with them, always encamp together at some distance from the camps of the married men."[782]"The young man, or brewit, after his initiation, may be said to have commenced a life independent, to some extent, of his parents."[783]"He lived with the other young men, and with those who were initiated with him, and accordingly his brothers."[784]We read of the Wolgal tribe: "A married man would never stay in the young men's camp when travelling, unless he were without his wife, when he would be considered as being single. The married people and the single young men camp entirely apart."[785]Howitt mentions further the young men's camp in connection with animal food division amongst the Ngarigo (Maneroo blacks).[786]That the bachelors' camp was a rule is confirmed by Howitt's statement that amongst the Mukjarawaint there was no young men's camp.[787]The unmarried men seem to have lived with their grandparents.[788]Curr, speaking of the laying out of a native camp in the Bangerang tribe, says: "the fire of the bachelors ..." is "rather further off and somewhat isolated from the rest."[789]The same author says: "Over the girls his (the father's) authority ceased when they became wives, and after his twelfth year or so the boy was very little subject to the father."[790]"When eight or ten years of age he was sent to sleep in the bachelors' camp, when there was one at hand, with the young men and boys of various ages, his parents still supplying him with food. In his new home, though no violence was used, its inmates being all his relatives, the child gradually became to some extent the fag" of all older and stronger. In short this was the real school he had to pass through, the most important moment of which formed the initiation, when he becamekogomoolga.[791]"The bachelors, in their camp, cooked each for himself"[792](at least the older ones; as for the quite young, the family provided, according to what we were told above). "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[793]Curr also emphasizesthe importance of the training enjoyed by the youths in the bachelors' camp for the general tribal order.[794]J. Dawson says that one partition of a big wuurn "is appropriated to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers. While travelling or occupying temporary habitations, each of these parties must erect separate wuurns."[795]Here the young boys and young unmarried girls lived with their family, but in separate compartments of the hut. We are not informed if, when travelling, they formed a separate group in the encampment."Young, unmarried men frequently muster in parties of six or eight, and make a hut for themselves."[796]In cases when a larger number of natives are assembled it is required by custom that "all boys and uninitiated young men sleep at some distance from the huts of adults."[797]"Until his fourteenth or fifteenth year he (the boy) is mostly engaged in catching fish and birds, because already, for some years, he has been obliged to seek for food on his own account. Thus he early becomes, in a great measure, independent; and there is nobody who can control him, the authority of his parents depending only upon the superstitions which they have instilled into him from infancy."[798]A vague but suggestive piece of information as regards our point is given on the Turra tribe, by the Rev. J. Kühn: Two or three months after initiation the lad is allowed to marry. But some of the married men undergo a further operation and become "Willeru"; "after this they are not permitted to go to their wives for two years."[799]Do they live in a separate camp during these two years? It is probable, but the statement is not clear enough to be useful for us.We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "If there be any young unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[800]This statement throws some light on the preceding one: there we had no mention of any separate camp. But as both these tribes lived quite close and must have had similar institutions, we may safely assume that the seclusion from wives which is reported in the foregoing passage was combined with an independent mode of living,i. e.with a bachelors' camp.Teichelmann and Schürmann report that there was a separate hut in which women dwelt during their period.[801]We read in the description of the United States expedition to New South Wales that the youths have to avoid women from initiation till marriage and that they have their separate encampment.[802]In the Euahlayi tribe boys go after their seventh year to the Weedeghal, bachelors' camp.[803]Among the Central tribes (Krichauff Ranges) there is a separate men's camp and a camp for women, where these latter are confined during certain periods of their life.[804]We read that among the natives of Finke River (Central Australia) "separate places are assigned for the unmarried men and for the single females respectively."[805]The same author reports that the natives are fond of visits. "The meeting-place is usually the Tmara-nkanja for the men,i. e.the bachelors' camp."[806]In the Arunta tribe the boys "go out with the women as they searched for vegetable food and the smaller animals," up to the first initiation ceremony. Afterwards "they begin to accompany the men in their search for larger" game. At this first initiation they change also their mode of living; "in the future they must not play with the women and girls, nor must they camp with them as they have hitherto done, but henceforth they must go to the camp of the men, which is known as the Ungunja."[807]Among the Arunta there is a "special part of the main camp where the men assemble and near to which the women may not go."[808]It must exist only when a greater number of natives are assembled,[809]for normally the people roam scattered over the country. But during these latter periods the unmarried men lead probably an existence of their own, as they cannot live with families (compare abovemode of living). This information about the bachelors' camp in the Arunta is not quite clear, as we see. But all we read points to its existence.We find the bachelors' camp (Lagerplatz der jungen Männer; tmarankintja) mentioned by the Rev. E. Strehlow, in connection with the totemic ceremonies amongst the Arunta.[810]We read about the tribes near Port Darwin: "Children live with their parents until puberty, when girls become members of their husband's households, residing sometimes with him, and at other times at the parental camp."[811]I may add here, that this is the only example where matrilocal marriage is mentioned in Australia. Everywhere else we find it stated that the girl removes to her husband's camp.[812]We read farther that the boys are taken, after their initiation, "in charge by those whose duty it is to train" them. "They lived in a large wurley, which would accommodate all the boys. As a fact ... no boys between seventeen and nineteen are seen at Port Darwin."[813]Here we are told that there was one big hut in which all the boys lived; but this seems rather to be an exception.Roth says that children of about seven years of age leave their parents' camp and go to stay with their grandparents.[814]We are not informed whether there exists a bachelors' camp in the North-West Central Queensland tribes; but this statement does not deny it, for boys are apparently not at once initiated after leaving their parental camp. Another statement of the same author about the natives of Koombana Bay (Queensland), affirms it explicitly: "The younger single males at a certain stage (puberty and onwards) always had a fire to themselves."[815]And again: "The grown-up lads sleep together, apart from the others."[816]Grey says that strangers visiting a tribe, if unmarried or without their wives, "sleep at the fire of the young men."[817]Bishop Salvado, according to whose information the South-West Australian natives live in small tribes of six to nine persons, says that when a family disposes itself to sleep"les garçons qui out passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls autour du feu commun."[818]It is stated in two statements above (Dawson and Schultze), that there were camps of unmarried females as well as of single men. We may add here two other statements about such camps.[819]In the Maryborough tribes there were camps of unmarried girls, in connection with which there was some sexual licence. Similarly in the North-West Central Queensland tribes,[820]studied by Roth, single girls lived in groups, under the control of an old man. Such phenomena would account for the licence of unmarried females, which wefind sometimes reported. But they do not seem to have a very large extension in the Australian aboriginal society.
Statements.—Howitt, speaking of the camping rules among the Kurnai, says that a "'brogan' (a man initiated at the same time, a comrade, or tribal brother, seeNat. Tr., p. 737), although calling the man's wife 'wife' and she calling him'husband,' would have to camp with the young men, if any were there, or else by himself."[781]And again: "The young men (brewit) and the married men who have not their wives with them, always encamp together at some distance from the camps of the married men."[782]"The young man, or brewit, after his initiation, may be said to have commenced a life independent, to some extent, of his parents."[783]"He lived with the other young men, and with those who were initiated with him, and accordingly his brothers."[784]
We read of the Wolgal tribe: "A married man would never stay in the young men's camp when travelling, unless he were without his wife, when he would be considered as being single. The married people and the single young men camp entirely apart."[785]Howitt mentions further the young men's camp in connection with animal food division amongst the Ngarigo (Maneroo blacks).[786]That the bachelors' camp was a rule is confirmed by Howitt's statement that amongst the Mukjarawaint there was no young men's camp.[787]The unmarried men seem to have lived with their grandparents.[788]
Curr, speaking of the laying out of a native camp in the Bangerang tribe, says: "the fire of the bachelors ..." is "rather further off and somewhat isolated from the rest."[789]The same author says: "Over the girls his (the father's) authority ceased when they became wives, and after his twelfth year or so the boy was very little subject to the father."[790]"When eight or ten years of age he was sent to sleep in the bachelors' camp, when there was one at hand, with the young men and boys of various ages, his parents still supplying him with food. In his new home, though no violence was used, its inmates being all his relatives, the child gradually became to some extent the fag" of all older and stronger. In short this was the real school he had to pass through, the most important moment of which formed the initiation, when he becamekogomoolga.[791]"The bachelors, in their camp, cooked each for himself"[792](at least the older ones; as for the quite young, the family provided, according to what we were told above). "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[793]Curr also emphasizesthe importance of the training enjoyed by the youths in the bachelors' camp for the general tribal order.[794]
J. Dawson says that one partition of a big wuurn "is appropriated to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers. While travelling or occupying temporary habitations, each of these parties must erect separate wuurns."[795]Here the young boys and young unmarried girls lived with their family, but in separate compartments of the hut. We are not informed if, when travelling, they formed a separate group in the encampment.
"Young, unmarried men frequently muster in parties of six or eight, and make a hut for themselves."[796]In cases when a larger number of natives are assembled it is required by custom that "all boys and uninitiated young men sleep at some distance from the huts of adults."[797]
"Until his fourteenth or fifteenth year he (the boy) is mostly engaged in catching fish and birds, because already, for some years, he has been obliged to seek for food on his own account. Thus he early becomes, in a great measure, independent; and there is nobody who can control him, the authority of his parents depending only upon the superstitions which they have instilled into him from infancy."[798]
A vague but suggestive piece of information as regards our point is given on the Turra tribe, by the Rev. J. Kühn: Two or three months after initiation the lad is allowed to marry. But some of the married men undergo a further operation and become "Willeru"; "after this they are not permitted to go to their wives for two years."[799]Do they live in a separate camp during these two years? It is probable, but the statement is not clear enough to be useful for us.
We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "If there be any young unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[800]This statement throws some light on the preceding one: there we had no mention of any separate camp. But as both these tribes lived quite close and must have had similar institutions, we may safely assume that the seclusion from wives which is reported in the foregoing passage was combined with an independent mode of living,i. e.with a bachelors' camp.
Teichelmann and Schürmann report that there was a separate hut in which women dwelt during their period.[801]
We read in the description of the United States expedition to New South Wales that the youths have to avoid women from initiation till marriage and that they have their separate encampment.[802]
In the Euahlayi tribe boys go after their seventh year to the Weedeghal, bachelors' camp.[803]
Among the Central tribes (Krichauff Ranges) there is a separate men's camp and a camp for women, where these latter are confined during certain periods of their life.[804]
We read that among the natives of Finke River (Central Australia) "separate places are assigned for the unmarried men and for the single females respectively."[805]The same author reports that the natives are fond of visits. "The meeting-place is usually the Tmara-nkanja for the men,i. e.the bachelors' camp."[806]
In the Arunta tribe the boys "go out with the women as they searched for vegetable food and the smaller animals," up to the first initiation ceremony. Afterwards "they begin to accompany the men in their search for larger" game. At this first initiation they change also their mode of living; "in the future they must not play with the women and girls, nor must they camp with them as they have hitherto done, but henceforth they must go to the camp of the men, which is known as the Ungunja."[807]Among the Arunta there is a "special part of the main camp where the men assemble and near to which the women may not go."[808]It must exist only when a greater number of natives are assembled,[809]for normally the people roam scattered over the country. But during these latter periods the unmarried men lead probably an existence of their own, as they cannot live with families (compare abovemode of living). This information about the bachelors' camp in the Arunta is not quite clear, as we see. But all we read points to its existence.
We find the bachelors' camp (Lagerplatz der jungen Männer; tmarankintja) mentioned by the Rev. E. Strehlow, in connection with the totemic ceremonies amongst the Arunta.[810]
We read about the tribes near Port Darwin: "Children live with their parents until puberty, when girls become members of their husband's households, residing sometimes with him, and at other times at the parental camp."[811]I may add here, that this is the only example where matrilocal marriage is mentioned in Australia. Everywhere else we find it stated that the girl removes to her husband's camp.[812]We read farther that the boys are taken, after their initiation, "in charge by those whose duty it is to train" them. "They lived in a large wurley, which would accommodate all the boys. As a fact ... no boys between seventeen and nineteen are seen at Port Darwin."[813]Here we are told that there was one big hut in which all the boys lived; but this seems rather to be an exception.
Roth says that children of about seven years of age leave their parents' camp and go to stay with their grandparents.[814]We are not informed whether there exists a bachelors' camp in the North-West Central Queensland tribes; but this statement does not deny it, for boys are apparently not at once initiated after leaving their parental camp. Another statement of the same author about the natives of Koombana Bay (Queensland), affirms it explicitly: "The younger single males at a certain stage (puberty and onwards) always had a fire to themselves."[815]And again: "The grown-up lads sleep together, apart from the others."[816]
Grey says that strangers visiting a tribe, if unmarried or without their wives, "sleep at the fire of the young men."[817]
Bishop Salvado, according to whose information the South-West Australian natives live in small tribes of six to nine persons, says that when a family disposes itself to sleep"les garçons qui out passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls autour du feu commun."[818]
It is stated in two statements above (Dawson and Schultze), that there were camps of unmarried females as well as of single men. We may add here two other statements about such camps.[819]In the Maryborough tribes there were camps of unmarried girls, in connection with which there was some sexual licence. Similarly in the North-West Central Queensland tribes,[820]studied by Roth, single girls lived in groups, under the control of an old man. Such phenomena would account for the licence of unmarried females, which wefind sometimes reported. But they do not seem to have a very large extension in the Australian aboriginal society.
We see in the first place from this evidence[821]that boys were actually removed from their parents' care and that they acquired a complete independence of their parents on reaching puberty. This is especially mentioned in several of our statements (Kurnai, Bangerang, Lower Murray River tribes, Encounter Bay tribes, Port Darwin tribes). It appears also to resultipso factofrom the circumstance that the boys lived in quite a different part of the encampment, and so could not be under the control of their parents. It appears from Curr's and Parkhouse's statements that they even lived in a separate locality. And confronting our evidence concerning the bachelors' camp with what we know about the aboriginal mode of living, it appears also highly probable that if the boys' camp numbered from six to eight inmates (compare Eyre's statement) they must have roamed about in a separate group. We read that in two cases the boys joined their grandparents (Howitt about the Mukjarawaint tribe and Roth). Only the statement of Dawson suggests that boys remained with their parents, and even that, as we saw, does not follow very clearly from this statement.
We are informed in several places about the mode of living of the lads in their separate camp. They seem to have partly provided their own food and cooked it (Curr). They slept in one big hut (Parkhouse) or round a common fire (Salvado and others). In general they seem to have formed a distinct, separate social unit. This time, spent in the bachelors' camp, was the real time of training (see Curr's statement. Compare Hutton Webster,loc. cit., chap. iv. pp. 49-51). They came under the influence of a new authority—the authority of the tribal elders. And, especially during the actual time of initiation, all thewisdom and morality they had to learn was imparted to the young people by the old men of the tribe. Probably there also they formed new acquaintances and relationships besides the family ones in which they were brought up. The institution of bachelors' camp is general among all the Australian tribes. Our evidence is not detailed enough to allow us to trace geographical differences in any particular feature. We may mention here, by the way, that the bachelors' camp of Australia was a form of the widespread institution of the men's-house.[822]
In sum, all these factors give great weight to the facts here discussed; viz. to those of the early marriage of girls and the initiation of boys. We see that these facts take away from the Australian family its patriarchal character. The father's authority is exercised over his children merely during their early childhood,i. e.during a period when there is in a general way very little room for the display of any serious authority. Still more, as there was no serious and real training during this time, all education, as far as it was given at all by the father, assumed more the form of play, as we saw above (p. 256); and, as we saw, during that period great leniency towards the offspring was the chief feature of the father's behaviour.[823]When a serious and often harsh training took place, it was not the father's individual authority that enforced it, but the tribal elders'. So we see that our former result is hereby confirmed, viz. that there is no foundation for designing the father's relation to his child as based upon authority or any idea of proprietorship. That applies to a girl as well as to a boy. But in the case of the former we might attribute some meaning to theword property, although it would be rather straining the sense of the word.
It was seen that on reaching a certain age the children leave their parents' camp and are removed from their control; still the personal, individual bond of kinship is not broken. And although it does not find its expression in facts of daily life, for the children and the parents live apart, yet there are some facts which unmistakably reveal the existence of a strong lifelong affection and attachment between parents and children.
These facts are: real sorrow displayed at the death or funeral of a near relative, and especially that displayed by parents at the death of their children; joy and tenderness shown to children whenever met for the first time after a long absence. Here also must be placed the numerous occurrences in which love was displayed for white men who were recognized as dead relatives. In these cases their supposed parents always displayed the greatest amount of tenderness towards them, and often underwent considerable sacrifices for the sake of helping or even seeing their "children." The close connection between grandchildren and grandparents shows also that there was a near individual tie between the parents of the children and their parents. Let us adduce some statements.
Statements.—Curr remarks shortly but clearly: "Parental affection always endured," after the children left their parents and became practically independent of them.[824]A story showing strong filial attachment is told by R. Dawson. Relating an anecdote, he concludes: "The manner in which Youee told the story was exceedingly interesting; his lamentations, that 'white pellow' should treat his father so, and the mild complaining tone in which they were made, thoroughly portrayed his filial attachment to his father, ofwhom he said several times, turning to him with a tone and manner that could not be mistaken, 'Murrygood wool man!Murrygood wool man, massa.'"[825]A characteristic story, proving paternal affection, is told by Bonney. An old man was once cut with a tomahawk by his son, a big, strong man who had fits of madness. "The old man returned to the camp and with tears in his eyes told me what had happened, and begged me to assist him to bring back his mad son before he had perished in the bush."[826]We have also a few statements about the relations between grandparents and grandchildren. We are informed that among the Mukjarawaint the grandparents had the exclusive right to decide whether the child should be killed directly after birth or allowed to live. In the former case the grandparents had the privilege of eating the child.[827]We read of the important rôle the grandmother played in the North Queensland tribes at the naming of the child,[828]and amongst the Euahlayi at the Betrothal Ceremony.[829]Amongst the Kurnai also "the name is given by the paternal grandfather or grandmother, or in default by the mother's parents."[830]A series of interesting instances is told by Fraser. He says, "Their natural affections are keen; in proof of this I need only refer to their grief over a dead relative, even though it be a very young child; they utter loud lamentations and cut and burn the flesh of their bodies in grief. This expression of grief is not all artificial or professional like the hired 'ululatus' of the Romans or the 'keening' of the Irish. That it is genuine on the part of the near relatives of the deceased I can prove by examples. Jackey, the 'king' of the Gresford blacks, died and was buried; his mother could not be induced to leave the spot; she sat there night and day, refusing food, until one morning she was found dead on his grave. She was buried beside her son."[831]—"A woman of the Dungog tribule had a child which was hunch-backed and otherwise deformed; she carried it on her back for eighteen or nineteen years; it seemed always no bigger than a child of six or seven years. Her husband also carried about, for two or three years, a son whose feet from the ankles had been destroyed by frostbite."[832]—"At Durham Downs (Queensland), 'king' Brady had a little boy, two years old, who becamehelpless from disease; the mother carried him about with her for many years."[833]—"Then again, the transport of delight with which Buckley was received by a woman of a local tribe who believed that this white man was her deceased son come to life again, is a proof of the strength of natural affection among them."[834]To this last might be added several other instances where white people were received with the greatest love and affection by their "black parents," who believed them to be their dead children. As we mentioned these examples above (p. 222) in another connection we merely refer the reader to that place.Salvado says: "Reprenant la suite de mon récit, je dirai que les fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleures pièces de gibier, ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses. Enfin ils leurs témoignent leur amour au delà de la tombe, en tuant un ou deux sauvages quand leur père vient à mourir."[835]In the description of mourning and burial it appears in several places that the "immediate relations," probably in the first place their own parents and children, have special duties and obligations. "In the Tongaranka tribe, when a death occurs, the immediate relations smear themselves withKopai(gypsum)."[836]"When one of the ... Wiim-baio tribe died ... the relations used to lie with their heads on the body, and even stretched at length on the corpse."[837]In the same tribe after a man's death "his immediate relations cut off their hair and applied to their heads a paste."[838]In the Chepara tribe "the relations of a dead person for several months after wore emu feathers, dyed red." "The mother of the deceased had her nose and all her body painted with stripes of white pipeclay, and wore red feathers over the whole of her head. A sister had also her head covered with red feathers, but was not painted white. After a few weeks the painting was changed to red, and then was worn by father, mother and sisters for a long time."[839]At Port Stephens "an old couple had an only daughter of whom they were very fond. She died, and her parents built their hut over her grave close to the shore of the harbour, and lived there many months, crying for her every evening at sunset."[840]In the description of mourning ceremonies given by Spencer and Gillen it appears plainly that the rôle of the individual mother was quite singular and the most important. "The actual mother of the deceased was painted deeply all over with pipeclay."[841]"On the way to the grave the actual mother often threw herself heavily on the ground and attempted to cut her head with a digging stick."[842]Also the blood brother plays, apparently, a part different from that of the tribal ones. "After going a short distance they were met by a man who was a blood brother of the dead woman, and was accompanied by a number of his tribal brothers."[843]
Statements.—Curr remarks shortly but clearly: "Parental affection always endured," after the children left their parents and became practically independent of them.[824]
A story showing strong filial attachment is told by R. Dawson. Relating an anecdote, he concludes: "The manner in which Youee told the story was exceedingly interesting; his lamentations, that 'white pellow' should treat his father so, and the mild complaining tone in which they were made, thoroughly portrayed his filial attachment to his father, ofwhom he said several times, turning to him with a tone and manner that could not be mistaken, 'Murrygood wool man!Murrygood wool man, massa.'"[825]
A characteristic story, proving paternal affection, is told by Bonney. An old man was once cut with a tomahawk by his son, a big, strong man who had fits of madness. "The old man returned to the camp and with tears in his eyes told me what had happened, and begged me to assist him to bring back his mad son before he had perished in the bush."[826]
We have also a few statements about the relations between grandparents and grandchildren. We are informed that among the Mukjarawaint the grandparents had the exclusive right to decide whether the child should be killed directly after birth or allowed to live. In the former case the grandparents had the privilege of eating the child.[827]We read of the important rôle the grandmother played in the North Queensland tribes at the naming of the child,[828]and amongst the Euahlayi at the Betrothal Ceremony.[829]Amongst the Kurnai also "the name is given by the paternal grandfather or grandmother, or in default by the mother's parents."[830]
A series of interesting instances is told by Fraser. He says, "Their natural affections are keen; in proof of this I need only refer to their grief over a dead relative, even though it be a very young child; they utter loud lamentations and cut and burn the flesh of their bodies in grief. This expression of grief is not all artificial or professional like the hired 'ululatus' of the Romans or the 'keening' of the Irish. That it is genuine on the part of the near relatives of the deceased I can prove by examples. Jackey, the 'king' of the Gresford blacks, died and was buried; his mother could not be induced to leave the spot; she sat there night and day, refusing food, until one morning she was found dead on his grave. She was buried beside her son."[831]—"A woman of the Dungog tribule had a child which was hunch-backed and otherwise deformed; she carried it on her back for eighteen or nineteen years; it seemed always no bigger than a child of six or seven years. Her husband also carried about, for two or three years, a son whose feet from the ankles had been destroyed by frostbite."[832]—"At Durham Downs (Queensland), 'king' Brady had a little boy, two years old, who becamehelpless from disease; the mother carried him about with her for many years."[833]—"Then again, the transport of delight with which Buckley was received by a woman of a local tribe who believed that this white man was her deceased son come to life again, is a proof of the strength of natural affection among them."[834]
To this last might be added several other instances where white people were received with the greatest love and affection by their "black parents," who believed them to be their dead children. As we mentioned these examples above (p. 222) in another connection we merely refer the reader to that place.
Salvado says: "Reprenant la suite de mon récit, je dirai que les fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleures pièces de gibier, ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses. Enfin ils leurs témoignent leur amour au delà de la tombe, en tuant un ou deux sauvages quand leur père vient à mourir."[835]
In the description of mourning and burial it appears in several places that the "immediate relations," probably in the first place their own parents and children, have special duties and obligations. "In the Tongaranka tribe, when a death occurs, the immediate relations smear themselves withKopai(gypsum)."[836]
"When one of the ... Wiim-baio tribe died ... the relations used to lie with their heads on the body, and even stretched at length on the corpse."[837]In the same tribe after a man's death "his immediate relations cut off their hair and applied to their heads a paste."[838]
In the Chepara tribe "the relations of a dead person for several months after wore emu feathers, dyed red." "The mother of the deceased had her nose and all her body painted with stripes of white pipeclay, and wore red feathers over the whole of her head. A sister had also her head covered with red feathers, but was not painted white. After a few weeks the painting was changed to red, and then was worn by father, mother and sisters for a long time."[839]
At Port Stephens "an old couple had an only daughter of whom they were very fond. She died, and her parents built their hut over her grave close to the shore of the harbour, and lived there many months, crying for her every evening at sunset."[840]
In the description of mourning ceremonies given by Spencer and Gillen it appears plainly that the rôle of the individual mother was quite singular and the most important. "The actual mother of the deceased was painted deeply all over with pipeclay."[841]"On the way to the grave the actual mother often threw herself heavily on the ground and attempted to cut her head with a digging stick."[842]
Also the blood brother plays, apparently, a part different from that of the tribal ones. "After going a short distance they were met by a man who was a blood brother of the dead woman, and was accompanied by a number of his tribal brothers."[843]
All this evidence, although relatively scanty, shows clearly that the individual relations between parents and children continued to be strong and intimate. This fact also throws light on the character of these relations during early childhood. In this period the bonds were formed, and they must have been formed in a very strong and thorough manner indeed if they lasted so long. This conclusion is of such a general and fundamental character, and the evidence is so scanty, that it would be futile to attempt tracing any geographical distinctions between the different tribes. Like the other general conclusions arrived at in this chapter, it has features common to all the aboriginal tribes of Australia.
We have extremely scanty information concerning the relation between brothers and sisters; and the few hints we possess are very contradictory. Thus Gason says that a brother and sister "would sacrifice their lives for one another if called upon."[844]And Fraser informs us that when a man is sick it is his brother's duty to tend him and carry him about. And the author gives an example in support of this statement.[845]And again we read in Oldfield that a girl, if her mother is dead, "is bound to supply them (her brothers) with food for a certain period; indeed, brothers in general retain the privilege of maltreating their sisters long after theselatter became the property of another."[846]On the other hand, Grey states that no "common bond of union" exists between brothers and sisters of the same father.[847]And according to Spencer and Gillen a man may never speak from a near to his younger sister, although he may speak freely to his older one.[848]Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula brothers and sisters were not allowed to converse.[849]In some West Australian tribes the boy was never allowed to speak to his sisters after the initiation ceremony. He had to say farewell to his sisters before he went to the initiation. The "own" brothers and sisters keep apart from each other. And even boys or girls of the same class cannot speak or play together.[850]The first three statements appear to indicate a close individual relationship between brother and sister; the four following seem to deny it again. Recalling to mind what we learned about the relation in question in other connections, we hardly get much help therefrom. The exchange of sisters would point to some ties; but, it is too uncertain a hint. The facts that children are suckled for a long time, and that owing to that and to the practice of infanticide connected with it, the children succeed each other at long intervals, reduce the possibility of close ties between the children of the same parents; especially as they so soon leave the parental camp, and as probably afterwards the intercourse between the sisters and brothers is interrupted (compare statements of Curr and Spencer and Gillen). On the whole we know very little about the relation in question; and we may only conjecture, although with a high degree of probability, that the tie is not a very strong one and does not play an important part in family life; if it were otherwise we probably would know more about it.