Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Julia Miller, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber's Note:
This text has many tables, which are best viewed using a fixed-width
font.
Table I a and the _Arunta: Eight-class_ Table were printed on fold-out
pages. These have been split into sections (3 and 2 sections,
respectively) to fit within the display boundaries.
The original book had a number of words with inconsistant hyphenation or
spelling, as well as a small number of typographical errors. These have
been maintained in this version. The inconsistencies and errors are
detailed at the end of the present text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_The Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series is supervised by
an Editorial Committee consisting of WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, M.A., F.B.A.,
Disney Professor of Archaeology, A.C. HADDON, Sc.D., F.R.S., University
Lecturer in Ethnology, M.R. JAMES, Litt. D., F.B.A., Provost of King's
College and C. WALDSTEIN, Litt. D., Slade Professor of Fine Art._
KINSHIP ORGANISATIONS
AND
GROUP MARRIAGE
IN
AUSTRALIA
BY
NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS, M.A.
Diplomé de l'École des Hautes-Études,
Corresponding Member of the Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, etc.
CAMBRIDGE:
at the University Press
1906
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
C.F. CLAY, MANAGER,
London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
Glasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.
[Illustration]
Leipzig: F.A. BROCKHAUS.
New York: G.P. PUTNAM'S SONS.
Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
[_All Rights reserved._]
DEDICATED
TO
MISS C.S. BURNE,
WHO FIRST GUIDED MY STEPS
INTO THE PATHS OF
ANTHROPOLOGY
PREFACE.
It is becoming an axiom in anthropology that what is needed is not
discursive treatment of large subjects but the minute discussion of
special themes, not a ranging at large over the peoples of the earth
past and present, but a detailed examination of limited areas. This work
I am undertaking for Australia, and in the present volume I deal briefly
with some of the aspects of Australian kinship organisations, in the
hope that a survey of our present knowledge may stimulate further
research on the spot and help to throw more light on many difficult
problems of primitive sociology.
We have still much to learn of the relations of the central tribes and
their organisations to the less elaborately studied Anula and Mara. I
have therefore passed over the questions discussed by Dr Durkheim. We
have still more to learn as to the descent of the totem, the relation of
totem-kin, class and phratry, and the like; totemism is therefore
treated only incidentally in the present work, and lack of knowledge
compels me to pass over many other interesting questions.
The present volume owes much to Mr Andrew Lang. He has read twice over
both my typescript MS, and my proofs; in the detection of ambiguities
and the removal of obscurities he has rendered my readers a greater
service than any bald statement will convey; for his aid in the matter
of terminology, for his criticisms of ideas already put forward and for
his many pregnant suggestions, but inadequately worked out in the
present volume. I am under the deepest obligations to him; and no mere
formal expression of thanks will meet the case. I have been more than
fortunate in securing aid from Mr Lang in a subject which he has made
his own.
I do not for a moment suppose that the information here collected is
exhaustive. If any one should be in a position to supplement or correct
my facts or to enlighten me in any way as to the ideas and customs of
the blacks I shall be obliged if he will tell me all he knows about them
and their ways. Letters may be addressed to me c/o the Anthropological
Institute, 3 Hanover Sq., W.
NORTHCOTE W. THOMAS.
BUNTINGFORD,
_Sept. 11th, 1906._
CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE vii
CONTENTS ix
BIBLIOGRAPHY xii
INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS xiv
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
Social Organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups: totem kins;
phratries Pages =1-11=
CHAPTER II.
DESCENT.
Descent of Kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of descent;
relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation =12-28=
CHAPTER III.
DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY.
Definitions: tribe, sub-tribe, local group, phratry, class, totem kin.
"Blood" and "shade." Kamilaroi type. History of Research in Australia.
General sketch =29-40=
CHAPTER IV.
TABLES OF CLASSES, PHRATRIES, ETC.
TABLES I, I a. Class Names =42, 47=
TABLE II. Phratry Names =48=
TABLE III. Comparison of "blood" and phratry names =50=
TABLE IV. Relations of Class and phratry organisations =51=
CHAPTER V.
PHRATRY NAMES.
The Phratriac Areas. Borrowing of Names. Their Meanings. Antiquity of
Phratry Names. Eaglehawk Myths. Racial Conflicts. Intercommunication.
Tribal Migrations =52-62=
CHAPTER VI.
ORIGIN OF PHRATRIES.
Mr Lang's theory and its basis. Borrowing of phratry names. Split
groups. The Victorian area. Totems and phratry names. Reformation theory
of phratriac origin =63-70=
CHAPTER VII.
CLASS NAMES.
Classes later than Phratries. Anomalous Phratry Areas. Four-class
Systems. Borrowing of Names. Eight-class System. Resemblances and
Differences of Names. Place of Origin. Formative Elements of the Names:
Suffixes, Prefixes. Meanings of the Class Names =71-85=
CHAPTER VIII.
THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF CLASSES.
Effect of classes. Dr Durkheim's Theory of Origin. Origin in grouping of
totems. Dr Durkheim on origin of eight classes. Herr Cunow's theory of
classes =86-92=
CHAPTER IX.
KINSHIP TERMS.
Descriptive and classificatory systems. Kinship terms of Wathi-Wathi,
Ngerikudi-speaking people and Arunta. Essential features. Urabunna.
Dieri. Distinction of elder and younger =93-101=
CHAPTER X.
TYPES OF SEXUAL UNIONS.
Terminology of Sociology. Marriage. Classification of Types.
Hypothetical and existing forms =102-109=
CHAPTER XI.
GROUP MARRIAGE AND MORGAN'S THEORIES.
Passage from Promiscuity. Reformatory Movements. Incest. Relative
harmfulness of such unions. Natural aversion. Australian facts
=110-118=
CHAPTER XII.
GROUP MARRIAGE AND THE TERMS OF RELATIONSHIP.
Mother and Child. Kurnai terms. Dieri evidence. _Noa._ Group Mothers.
Classification and descriptive terms. Poverty of language. Terms express
status. The savage view natural =119-126=
CHAPTER XIII.
PIRRAURU.
Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
_pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
_Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_; obscure
points =127-141=
CHAPTER XIV.
TEMPORARY UNIONS.
Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for
adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven
=142-149=
APPENDIX.
ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.
Decay of class rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"
and "Castes" =150-152=
INDEX OF PHRATRY, BLOOD, AND CLASS NAMES =153-157=
INDEX OF SUBJECTS =158-163=
* * * * *
MAPS.
PAGE
I. Rule of Descent =40=
II. Class Organisations to follow =40=
III. Phratry Organisations " =40=
TABLE.
Class Names of Eight-Class Tribes =between pp. 46= and =47=
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. _Allgemeine Missionszeitschrift._ Gutersloh, 1874 etc., 8^o.
2. _American Anthropologist._ Washington, 1888 etc., 8^o.
3. _Année Sociologique._ Paris, 1898 etc., 8^o.
4. _Archaeologia Americana._ Philadelphia, 1820 etc., 4^o.
5. _Das Ausland._ Munich, 1828-1893, 4^o.
6. _Bulletins of North Queensland Ethnography._ Brisbane, 1901 etc., fol.
7. BUNCE, D., _Australasiatic Reminiscences of Twenty-three Years
Wanderings._ Melbourne, 1857, 8^o.
8. _Colonial Magazine._ London, 1840-1842, 8^o.
9. CUNOW, H., _Die Verwandtschaftsorganisationen der Australneger._
Leipzig, 1894, 8^o.
10. CURR, E.M., _The Australian Race._ 4 vols., London, 1886, 8^o and fol.
11. DAWSON, J., _Australian Aborigines._ Melbourne, 1881, 4^o.
12. FISON, L. and HOWITT, A.W., _Kamilaroi and Kurnai._ Melbourne, 1880,
8^o.
13. _Folklore._ London, 1892 etc., 8^o.
14. _Fortnightly Review._ London, 1865-1889, 8^o.
15. FRAZER, J.G., _Totemism._ Edinburgh, 1887, 8^o.
16. GERSTAECKER, F., _Reisen von F. Gerstaecker._ 5 vols., Stuttgart,
1853-4, 8^o.
17. _Globus._ Hildburghausen etc., 1863 etc., 4^o.
18. GREY, Sir G., _Journals of Two Expeditions of Discovery in
North-West and West Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1841, 8^o.
19. GRIBBLE, J.B., _Black but Comely._ London, 1874, 8^o.
20. HODGSON, C.P., _Reminiscences of Australia._ London, 1846, 12^o.
21. HOWITT, A.W., _Native Tribes of South-East Australia._ London, 1904,
8^o.
22. _Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographie._ Leyden, 1888 etc., 4^o.
23. _Journal of the Anthropological Institute._ London, 1871 sq., 8^o.
24. _Journal of the Royal Geographical Society._ London, 1832-1880, 8^o.
25. _Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales._ Sydney, 1877
etc., 8^o.
26. _Journals of Several Expeditions in West Australia._ London, 1833,
12^o.
27. LAHONTAN, H. DE, _Voyages._ Amsterdam, 1705, 12^o.
28. LANG, A. and ATKINSON, J., _Social Origins_; _Primal Law._ London,
1903, 8^o.
29. LANG, A., _Secret of the Totem._ London, 1905, 8^o.
30. LEICHARDT, F.W.L., _Journal of an Overland Expedition in Australia._
London, 1848, 8^o.
31. LUMHOLTZ, C., _Among Cannibals._ London, 1889, 8^o.
32. MACLENNAN, J.F., _Studies in Ancient History._ 2nd Series, London,
1886, 8^o.
33. _Man._ London, 1901 sq., 8^o.
34. MATHEW, J., _Eaglehawk and Crow._ London, 1898, 8^o.
35. MATHEWS, R.H., _Ethnological Notes._ Sydney, 1905, 8^o.
36. _Mitteilungen des Seminars fur orientalische Sprachen._ Berlin, 1898
etc., 8^o.
37. _Mitteilungen des Vereins fur Erdkunde._ Halle, 1877-1892, 8^o.
38. MOORE, G.F., _Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language in Common Use
among the Aborigines of Western Australia._ London, 1842, 8^o.
39. MORGAN, Lewis H., _Ancient Society._ New York, 1877, 8^o.
40. NEW, C., _Travels._ London, 1854, 8^o.
41. OWEN, Mary A., _The Musquakie Indians._ London, 1905, 8^o.
42. PARKER, K.L., _The Euahlayi Tribe._ London, 1905, 8^o.
43. PETRIE, Tom, _Reminiscences._ Brisbane, 1905, 8^o.
44. _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society._ Philadelphia,
1840 etc., 8^o.
45. _Proceedings of the Australian Association for the Advancement of
Science._ 1889 etc., 8^o.
46. _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of Australasia,
Queensland Branch._ Brisbane, 1886 etc., 8^o.
47. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland._ Brisbane, 1884
etc., 8^o.
48. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria._ Melbourne, 1889
etc., 8^o.
49. _Reports of the Cambridge University Expedition to Torres Straits._
Cambridge, 1903 etc., 4^o.
50. ROTH, W.E., _Ethnological Studies._ Brisbane, 1898, 8^o.
51. SCHÜRMANN, C.W., _Vocabulary of the Parnkalla Language._ Adelaide,
1844, 8^o.
52. _Science of Man._ Sydney, 1898 etc., 4^o.
53. _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge._ Washington, 1848 etc. 4^o.
54. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Native Tribes of Central
Australasia._ London, 1898, 8^o.
55. SPENCER, B. and GILLEN, F.J., _Northern Tribes of Central
Australia._ London, 1904, 8^o.
56. STOKES, J.L., _Discoveries in Australia._ 2 vols., London, 1846, 8^o.
57. TAPLIN, G., _Folklore, Manners, Customs and Language of the South
Australian Aborigines._ Adelaide, 1878, 8^o.
58. _Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South
Australia._ Adelaide, 1878 etc., 8^o.
59. VAN GENNEP, A., _Mythes et Légendes._ Paris, 1906, 8^o.
60. _West Australian._ Perth, 1886 etc., fol.
61. WESTERMARCK, E., _History of Human Marriage._ 3rd Edition, London,
1901, 8^o.
62. _Wiener Medicinische Wochenschrift._ Vienna, 1851 etc., 4^o.
63. WILSON, T.B., _Narrative of a Voyage round the World._ London, 1835,
8^o.
64. _Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft._ Stuttgart, 1878
etc., 8^o.
INDEX TO ABBREVIATIONS.
_Allg. Miss. Zts._, 1
_Am. Anth._, 2
_Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
_Ann. Soc._, 3
_Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci._, 45
_Col. Mag._, 8
_C.T._, 54
_Ethn. Notes_, 35
_Fort. Rev._, 14
_J.A.I._, 23
_J.R.G.S._, 24
_J.R.S.N.S.W._, 25
_J.R.S. Vict._, 48
_Nat. Tr._, 54
_Nor. Tr._, 55
_N.Q. Ethn. Bull._, 6
_N.T._, 21
_Proc. Am. Phil. Soc._, 44
_Proc. R.G.S. Qn._, 46
_Proc. R.S. Vict._, 48
_R.G.S. Qn._, 47
_Sci. Man_, 52
_T.R.S.S.A._, 58
_West. Aust._, 60
_Zts. vgl. Rechtsw._, 64
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
Social organisation. Associations in the lower stages of culture.
Consanguinity and Kinship. The Tribe. Kinship groups; totem kins;
phratries.
The passage from what is commonly termed savagery through barbarism to
civilisation is marked by a change in the character of the associations
which are almost everywhere a feature of human society. In the lower
stages of culture, save among peoples whose organisation has perished
under the pressure of foreign invasion or other external influences, man
is found grouped into totem kins, intermarrying classes and similar
organised bodies, and one of their most important characteristics is
that membership of them depends on birth, not on the choice of the
individual. In modern society, on the other hand, associations of this
sort have entirely disappeared and man is grouped in voluntary
societies, membership of which depends on his own choice.
It is true that the family, which exists in the lower stages of culture,
though it is overshadowed by the other social phenomena, has persisted
through all the manifold revolutions of society; especially in the stage
of barbarism, its importance in some directions, such as the regulation
of marriage, often forbidden within limits of consanguinity much wider
than among ourselves, approaches the influence of the forms of natal
association which it had supplanted. In the present day, however, if we
set aside its economic and steadily diminishing ethical sides, it
cannot be compared in importance with the territorial groupings on which
state and municipal activities depend.
If the family is a persistent type the tribe may also be compared to the
modern state; it is, in most parts of the world, no less territorial in
its nature; membership of it does not depend among the Australians on
any supposed descent from a common ancestor; and though residence plus
possession of a common speech is mentioned by Howitt as the test of
tribe, it is possible in Australia, under certain conditions[1], to pass
from one tribe to another in such a way that we seem reduced to
residence as the test of membership. This change of tribe takes place
almost exclusively where tribes are friendly, so far as is known; and we
may doubt whether it would be possible for a stranger to settle, without
any rite of adoption, in the midst of a hostile or even of an unknown
tribe; but this is clearly a matter of minor importance, if adoption is
not, as in North America, an invariable element of the change of tribe.
Although membership of a tribe is thus loosely determined, tribesmen
feel themselves bound by ties of some kind to their fellow-tribesmen, as
we shall see below, but in this they do not differ from the members of
any modern state.
But in Australia the importance of the tribe, save from an economic
point of view, as joint owner of the tribal land, is small compared with
the part played in the lives of its members by the intratribal
associations, whose influence is recognised without, as within the
tribe. These associations are of two kinds in the lowest strata of human
society; in each case membership is determined by birth and they may
therefore be distinguished as _natal associations_. In the one case, the
_kinship groups_ such as totem kins, phratries, etc., an individual
remains permanently in the association into which he is born, special
cases apart, in which by adoption he passes out of it and joins another
by means of a legal fiction[2]. The other kind of association, to which
the name _age-grades_ is applied, is composed of a series of grades,
through which, concomitantly with the performance of the rites of
initiation obligatory on every male member of the community, each man
passes in succession, until he attains the highest. In the rare cases
where an individual fails to qualify for the grade into which his
coevals pass, and remains in the grade of "youth" or even lower grades,
he is by birth a member of one class and does not remain outside the
age-grades altogether.
In the element of voluntary action lies the distinction between
age-grades and _secret societies_, which are organised on identical or
similar lines but depend for membership on ceremonies of initiation,
alike in the lowest as in the highest grade. Such societies may be
termed voluntary. The differentia between the natal and the voluntary
association lies in the fact that in the former all are members of one
or other grade, in the latter only such as have taken steps to gain
admission, all others being simply non-members.
Although _primâ facie_ all these forms of association are equally
entitled to be classed as social organisations, the use of this term is
limited in practice, at any rate as regards Australia, and is the
accepted designation of the kinship form of natal associations only; for
this limitation there is so far justification, that though they perhaps
play a smaller part in the daily life of the people than the secret
societies of some areas, with their club-houses and other features which
determine the whole form of life, the kinship associations are normally
regulative of marriage and thus exercise an influence in a field of
their own.
Marriage prohibitions in the various races of mankind show an almost
endless diversity of form; but all are based on considerations either of
consanguinity or kinship or on a combination of the two. The distinction
between _consanguinity_ and _kinship_ first demands attention; the
former depends on birth, the latter on the law or custom of the
community, and this distinction is all-important, especially in dealing
with primitive peoples. With ourselves the two usually coincide, though
even in civilised communities there are variations in this respect.
Thus, according to the law of England, the father of an illegitimate
child is not akin to it, though _ex hypothesi_ there is a tie of blood
between them. In England nothing short of an Act of Parliament can make
them akin; but in Scotland the subsequent marriage of the father with
the mother of the child changes the legal status of the latter and makes
it of kin with its father. These two examples make it abundantly evident
that kinship is with us a matter of law.
Among primitive peoples kinship occupies a similar position but with
important differences. As with us, it is a sociological fact; custom,
which has among them far more power than law among us, determines
whether a man is of kin to his mother and her relatives alone, or to his
father and father's relatives, or whether both sets of relatives are
alike of kin to him. In the latter case, where parental kinship
prevails, the limits of the kin are often determined by the facts of
consanguinity. In the two former cases, where kinship is reckoned
through males alone or through females alone, consanguinity has little
or nothing to do with kinship, as will be shown more in detail below.
Kinship is sociological, consanguinity physiological; in thus stating
the case we are concerned only with broad principles. In practice the
idea of consanguinity is modified in two ways and a sociological element
is introduced, which has gone far to obscure the difference between
these two systems of laying the foundations of human society. In the
first place, custom determines the limits within which consanguinity is
supposed to exist; or, in other words, at what point the descendants of
a given ancestor cease to be blood relations. In the second place
erroneous physiological ideas modify the ideas held as to actually
existing consanguine relations, as we conceive them. The latter
peculiarity does not affect the enquiry to any extent; it merely limits
the sphere within which consanguinity plays a part, side by side with
kinship, in moulding social institutions. If an Australian tribe, for
example, distinguishes the actual mother of a child from the other women
who go by the same kinship name, they may or may not develop on parallel
lines their ideas as to the relation of the child and his real father.
Some relation will almost certainly be found to exist between them; but
it by no means follows that it arises from any idea of consanguinity. In
other communities potestas and not consanguinity is held to determine
the relations of the husband of a woman to her offspring; and it is a
matter for careful enquiry how far the same holds good in Australia,
where the fact of fatherhood is in some cases asserted to be
unrecognised by the natives. In speaking of consanguinity therefore, it
must be made quite clear whether consanguinity according to native ideas
or according to our own ideas is meant.
The customary limitations and extensions of consanguinity, on the other
hand, cause more inconvenience. They are of course sometimes combined
with the other kind, which we may term quasi-physiological, but with
this combination we need not deal, as we are concerned to analyse only
on broad lines the nature of these elements. Just as, with us, kinship
and consanguinity largely coincide, so with primitive peoples are the
kinship organisations immense, if one-sided, extensions of blood
relationship, at all events in theory. In many parts of the world a
totem kin traces its descent to a single male or female ancestor; and
even where, as in Australia, this is not the case, blood brotherhood is
expressly asserted of the totem kin[3].
Entry into the totem kin may often be gained by adoption, though not
apparently in Australia, and the blood relationship thus becomes an
artificial one and partakes, even if the initial assumption be accepted
as true, far more of the nature of kinship than of consanguinity. In
Australia, and possibly in other parts of the world, there is a further
extension of natal kinship. Although the tribe is not regarded as
descended from a single pair, its members are certainly reckoned as of
kin to each other in some way; the situation may be summarised by saying
that under one of the systems of kinship organisation (the two-phratry),
half of the members of the tribe in a given generation are related to a
given man, A, and the other half to his wife. More than one observer
assures us that there is a solidarity about the tribe, which regards
some, if not all other tribes as "wild blacks," though it may be on
terms of friendship and alliance with certain neighbours, and feel
itself united to them by a bond analogous to, though weaker than, that
which holds its own members together.
If however a homonymous totem kin exists even in a hostile or absolutely
unknown tribe, a member of it will be regarded, as we learn from Dr
Howitt, as a brother. How this view is reconciled with the belief that
the tribe in question is alien and in no way akin to that in which the
other totem kin is found, is a question of some interest for which there
appears to be no answer in the literature concerning the Australian
aborigines.
Even if, therefore, we had reason to believe that all totem kins in a
given tribe or group of tribes could make out a good case for their
descent from single male or female ancestors, which is far from being
the case, we should still have to recognise that kinship and not
consanguinity is the proper term to apply to the relationship between
members of the same group. For, as we have seen, it may be recruited
from without in some cases, while in others, persons who are
demonstrably not of the same blood, are regarded as totem-brethren by
virtue of the common name.
Enough has now been said to make clear the difference between
consanguinity and kinship and to exemplify the nature of some of the
transitional forms. As we have seen, it is on considerations of either
consanguinity or kinship that many marriage prohibitions are based.
Marriage prohibitions depend broadly on three kinds of considerations:
(1) Kinship, intermarriage being forbidden to members of the same
kinship group; a brief introductory sketch of the nature and
distribution of kinship groups will be found below. (2) Locality. In New
Guinea, parts of Australia, Melanesia, Africa, and possibly elsewhere,
_local exogamy_ is found. By this is meant that the resident in one
place is bound to go outside his own group for a mate, and may perhaps
be bound to seek a spouse in a specified locality. This kind of
organisation is in Australia almost certainly an offshoot of kinship
organisation (see p. 10), and is _primâ facie_ due to the same cause in
other areas. (3) (_a_) consanguinity, and (_b_) affinity. The first of
these considerations is regulative of marriage even in Australia, where
the influence of kinship organisations is in the main supreme in these
matters. We learn from Roth and other authorities that blood cousins,
children of own brother and sister, may not marry in North-West Central
Queensland, although the kinship regulations designate them as the
proper spouses one for the other. (_b_) Considerations of affinity, the
relations set up by marriage, do not affect the status of the parties,
so far as the legality of marriage is concerned, till a somewhat higher
stage is reached.
In the present work we are concerned with kinship groups and the
marriage regulations based on them. A kinship group, whether it be a
totem kin, phratry, class, or other form of association, is a fraction
of a tribe; and before we proceed to deal with kinship organisations, it
will be necessary to say a few words on the nature of the tribe and the
family. In Australia the tribe is a local aggregate, composed of
friendly groups speaking the same language and owning corporately or
individually the land to which the tribe lays claim. A change of tribe
is effected by marriage plus removal, and possibly by simple residence;
children belong to the tribe among which their parents reside. In the
ordinary tribe each member seems to apply to every other member one or
other of the kinship terms; and this no doubt accounts for the feeling
of tribal solidarity already mentioned. There are however certain tribes
in which the marriage regulations, as with the Urabunna, so split the
intermarrying fractions, that the tribe is, as it were, divided into
water-tight compartments; how far kinship terms are applied under these
circumstances our information does not say.
The tribe is defined by American anthropologists as a union of hordes or
clans for common defence under a chief. The American tribe differs in
two respects, at least, from the Australian tribe; in the first place,
marriage outside the tribe is exceptional in America and common in
Australia; in the second place, the stranger gains entrance to the
American tribe only by adoption; and we may probably add, thirdly, that
the American tribe does not invariably lay claim to landed property or
hunting rights.
The tribe is subdivided in various ways. In addition to the various
forms of natal and other associations, there is, at any rate in
Australia, a local organisation; the local group is often the owner of a
portion of the tribal area. This local group again falls into a number
of families (in the European sense), and the land is parcelled out among
them in some cases, in others it may be the property of individuals. But
there is a great lack of clearness with regard to the bodies or persons
in whom landed property is vested. The composition of the local group
varies according to the customs of residence after marriage, and the
rules by which membership of the kinship organisation is determined.
These two forces acting together may produce two types of local group:
(1) the mixed group, in which persons of various kinship organisations
are scattered at random; (2) the kin group, in which either all the
males or all the females together with the children are members of one
kinship organisation.
Save in the rare instances of non-exogamous kinship groups, the family
necessarily contains one member, at least, whose kin is not the same as
that of the remainder; this is either the husband or the wife, according
as descent is reckoned in the female or the male line; where polygyny is
practised, this unity may go no further than the phratry or the class,
each wife being of a different totem kin.
Although it frequently happens that the children belong to the kin which
through one of the parents or otherwise exercises the supreme authority
in the family, it is far from being the case that there is invariable
agreement between the principles on which kinship and authority are
determined. Three main types of family may be distinguished: (1)
patripotestal, (2) matripotestal, (_a_) direct, and (_b_) indirect, in
which the authority is wielded by the father, mother, and mother's
relatives, in particular her brothers, respectively. Innumerable
transitional forms are found, some of which will be mentioned in the
next chapter, which deals with the rule of descent by which membership
of natal groups is determined.
Turning now to kinship organisations, we find that the most widely
distributed type is the totem kin, in fact, if we except the Hottentots
and a few other peoples among whom no trace of it is found, it is
difficult to say where totemism has not at one time or another
prevailed. It is found as a living cult to-day among the greater part of
the aborigines of North and South America, in Australia, and among some
of the Bantu populations of the southern half of Africa. In more or less
recognisable forms it is found in other parts of Africa, New Guinea,
India, and other parts of the world. In the ancient world its existence
has been maintained for Rome (clan Valeria etc.), Greece, and Egypt, but
the absence of information as to details of the social structure renders
these theories uncertain.
Aberrant cases apart, totemism is understood to involve (1) the
existence of a body of persons claiming kinship, who (2) stand in a
certain relation to some object, usually an animal, and (3) do not marry
within the kin.
Passing over the classes, which are peculiar to Australia and will be
fully dealt with below, we come to a more comprehensive form of kinship
organisation in the phratries. These are a grouping of the community in
two or more exogamous divisions, between which the totem kins, where
they exist, are distributed. The essential feature of a phratry is that
it is exogamous; its members cannot ordinarily marry within it, and,
where there are more than two phratries, there may exist rules limiting
their choice to certain phratries.[4]
This dual or other grouping of the kins is widely found in North
America, the number of phratries ranging from two among the Tlinkits,
Cayugas, Choctaws, and others, to ten among the Moquis of Arizona. As in
Australia, the totem kins bearing the same eponymous animal as the
phratry are usually, e.g. among the Tlinkits, found in the phratry in
question. Exceptions to this rule are found among the Haida, where both
eagle and raven are in the eagle phratry.
The Mohegan and Kutchin phratries call for special notice. The kins of
the former are arranged in three groups: wolf, turtle, and turkey; and
the first phratry includes quadrupeds, the second turtles of various
kinds and the yellow eel, and the third birds. We find a parallel to
these phratries in the groups of the Kutchin, but in the latter case
our lack of knowledge of the tribe precludes us from saying whether
totem kins exist among them, and, if so, how far the grouping is
systematic; the Kutchin groups, according to one authority, are known by
the generic names of birds, beasts, and fish. As a rule, however, no
classification of kins is found, nor are the phratry names specially
significant.
Dual grouping of the kins is also found in New Guinea, the Torres
Straits Islands, and possibly among the ancient Arabs[5]; but evidence
in the latter case has not been systematically dealt with.
Other peoples have a similar dichotomous organisation; but it is either
not based on the totem kins or they have fallen into the background.
In various parts of Melanesia we find the people divided into two
groups, each associated with a single totem or mythological personage,
and sexual intercourse, whether marital or otherwise, is strictly
forbidden between those of the same phratry[6]. In India the Todas have
a similar organisation[7], and the Wanika in East Africa[8].
Customs of residence and descent affect the distribution of the
phratries within the tribe, no less than the composition of the local
group. With patrilineal descent they tend to occupy the tribal territory
in such a way that each phratry becomes a local group. With the
disappearance of phratry names this would be transformed into a local
exogamous group, which is, however, indistinguishable from the local
group of the same nature which is the result of the development of a
totem kin under similar conditions.
As a rule kinship organisations descend in a given tribe either in the
male line or in the female. Among the Ova-Herero, however, and other
Bantu tribes, there are two kinds of organisation, one--the
_eanda_--descending in female line and regulative of marriage, is
clearly the totem kin; property remains in the _eanda_, and
consequently descends to the sister's son. The other--the
_oruzo_--descends in the male line; it is concerned with chieftainship
and priesthood, which remain in the same _oruzo_, and the heir is the
brother's son.[9]
This dual rule of descent brings us face to face with the question of
how membership of kinship groups is determined.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Howitt, _N.T._, p. 225.
[2] Cf. Owen, _Musquakie Indians_, p. 122; Lahontan, _Voyages_, II,
203-4; Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 81.
[3] Two kinds of kinship are recognised in Australian tribes--(_a_)
totem and (_b_) phratry or class--but the precise relationship of one to
the other is far from clear. Nor is there much information as to what
terms of kinship are used within the totem kin. It is certain that
neither set of terms includes the other, for the totem kin extends
beyond the tribe or may do so, and there is more than one in each
phratry.
[4] For the facts see Frazer, _Totemism_, and cf. p. 31 _infra_.
[5] MS. note from Dr Seligmann's unpublished _Report of Cook-Daniels
Expedition; Camb. Univ. Torres Sts Exped._, V, 172; _Man_, 1904, no. 18.
[6] _J.A.I._ XVIII, 282.
[7] _Man_, 1903, no. 97.
[8] New, _Travels_, p. 274.
[9] _Ausland_, 1856, p. 45, 1882, p. 834; _Allg. Miss. Zts._ V, 354;
_Zts. Vgl. Rechtswiss._ XIV, 295; _Mitt. Orient. Seminar_, III, 73, V,
109. The recent work of Irle is inaccurate and confused.