MODES OF OBTAINING WIVES
Keeping to these general methodological principles, the aim of this
study will be merely an objective, unprejudiced description of the
different forms of the Australian family organization.
In accordance with what has been said above, let us accept at
the outset a general definition, along the lines of which our
investigations will be carried out. My choice for this purpose is
the well-known definition of Dr. Westermarck: "Marriage is a more or
less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the
mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." In
another place (_Moral Ideas_, ii. p. 364) Dr. Westermarck completes
this definition: "As a social institution, on the other hand, it has a
somewhat different meaning: it is a union regulated by custom and law.
Society lays down the rules relating to the selection of partners, to
the mode of contracting marriage, to its form, and to its duration." We
may also remember that Dr. Westermarck first pointed out that "marriage
is rooted in family, rather than family in marriage"[39]; and that he
insists on the importance of economic elements in family life, and
especially on the facts of the rearing of children and the mode of
living.
[39] (_Hist. H. Marr._, chap. iii.) Dr. Westermarck's work
was written on much more general lines. He did not aim at
a purely morphological reconstruction of family life in
any ethnographical province. I did not, therefore, refer
to his researches in the methodological sketch; here,
however, they must serve as a starting point. It is the
most exhaustive treatise on the individual family; all the
essential parts of the problem are sketched in a masterly
manner in this fundamental work, and the outlines of more
special investigation indicated.
These remarks of Dr. Westermarck, corroborating what has been said
in the introduction, direct our analysis to the relationship between
parents and children as well as between the conjugal parties; resolving
thus the marriage problem into the more general family problem. On the
other hand, Dr. Westermarck, in these short passages quoted, as well as
throughout his work, insists on the general and sociological aspect of
family life. We shall try to apply his points of view systematically to
our Australian material, keeping in mind the addition of the legal side
of the question.
As each relationship is intended to be separately treated, let us begin
with that of man and wife, and especially with its "legal" aspect.
The first point for discussion will be the modes of obtaining wives.
In this the search will be for elements, that enforce _ipso facto_
the validity of marriage; there will probably be found in them the
expression of some collective ideas, referring to the validity, moral
or customary sanction, that marital union enjoys in the eyes of the
native. It is also highly important for the whole question of marriage
and family to ascertain whether the modes of obtaining wives are
subject to any norm, compliance with which was enforced by an active
intervention of society in some form. Such norms, according to the
definition given above, would be legal ones, and they, necessarily,
involve and presuppose a series of collective ideas, the knowledge of
which would afford a deep insight into the primitive social mechanism.
Betrothal or marriage ceremonies that would express a sanction of
purely social or even _mystic_ or moral character are few, although not
quite absent. Nevertheless the widespread practice of allotting young
girls even in infancy, or before birth sometimes, shows _ipso facto_
how deeply rooted the idea of the individual right of a man to a woman
is in the native mind. Also in the case when wives are obtained by
elopement or capture, there are certain ordeals, formalities or duties,
that give to such a marriage its social sanction.
The following statements it will be seen present but little field for
correction. What we are asking for in this place are merely facts which
are evident and palpable enough not to escape the attention of even
ordinary observers. Only the betrothal ceremonies and acts seem to
have been more esoteric, and therefore they are reported in only a few
cases, where the authors were more intimately acquainted with native
customs and ideas.
_Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai marriage was brought about
generally by elopement; sometimes by capture; and less frequently
by exchange or by gift.[40] In cases of elopement "the male
relatives searched for her (the fugitive), sometimes with success,
sometimes without success. If the couple could remain away till
the girl was with child ... she would be forgiven."[41] Otherwise,
if found, she was badly chastised, and the man had to fight her
relatives. If they should persevere in their plans and elope two or
three times ... they would be forgiven.[42] The Kurnai are the only
people among whom elopement was the general rule. The punishment
was there accordingly not very severe, and the marriage legalized
in case of perseverance, or if the couple were skilful enough not
to allow themselves to be soon caught.
[40] Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 343. See also their
modes of getting females by capture. Compare pp. 200 _sq._
and pp. 348 _sq._
[41] p. 202.
[42] _Ibid._
J. Bulmer, Lake Tyers, Gippsland, says that among the
Gournditch-Mara the majority of wives were obtained by exchanging
a sister or a near relative. Elopement was always followed by
bloodshed.[43] "Marriage was by betrothal of children by their
respective parents, therefore by exchange of sisters," says
Howitt[44] of the same tribe.
[43] In Brough Smyth, i. p. 77. Compare also Howitt,
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350.
[44] _Nat. Tr._, p. 249.
Exchange of sisters (own or tribal) was practised by the Youin;
the marriage being arranged by the fathers; there was a mutual
public agreement between them. "The two being thus promised to
each other, the girl is looked upon as the future wife of the
boy." In cases of elopement, if there was a baby the marriage
was legalized, especially if a sister (tribal or own) could be
given in exchange.[45] Here we may note that the arrangement was
made publicly, during one of the tribal gatherings. The future
brothers-in-law exchange gifts, and on the day of the arrangement
keep ostentatiously the whole time together. Thus the whole affair
was known to everybody and had a sort of tribal approval.
[45] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 263 264. Compare also _Trans.
R.S.V._, p. 117.
Among the Woeworung girls were promised in infancy. The arrangement
was entered into by the respective fathers, then made public.
The old men of the tribe had to decide when the girl was to be
handed over to her husband. There was a kind of betrothal ceremony
consisting in a public giving up of the bride to the bridegroom.[46]
[46] Howitt in _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.
In the Bangerang tribe "wives were obtained by the exchange of
females with any other tribe; so that a man who had a daughter,
exchanged her for a wife, for himself or his son, as he thought
proper." The custom of exchange of females was a check on abusive
cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband. A Black said once to
Curr, "If he beats my sister, I'll beat my wife."[47]
[47] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 248.
In the Victorian tribes described by Beveridge, girls were usually
exchanged. It was the father who had to dispose of his girl;
there was no betrothal ceremony. Only the woman was bound by the
marriage; the man could always send her away.[48]
[48] Beveridge, p. 22.
Amongst the South-west Victorian tribes "parents betroth their
children when just able to walk."[49] The arrangement was carried
out by the respective fathers. As a sign the boy's father gives
the girl an opossum rug, shows her attention, and gives her
"nice things to eat." The girl's father visits sometimes her
intended husband. "No marriage or betrothal is permitted without
the approval of the chief of each party."[50] The girl's mother
and aunts must not look at her intended husband from the moment
of betrothal.[51] In cases of elopement against the wishes of
parents fights take place. A second elopement makes the marriage
lawful.[52] Exchange of sisters exists also, with consent of
chiefs. The ceremony of betrothal is described at length by the
same author.[53] The bride and the bridegroom are painted and
specially dressed. Food is stored for the purpose, as feasting and
amusement accompany the ceremony. The chief is present and gives
his consent. Two months after the betrothal the two do not sleep
alone, but with the bridemaid and brideman. The alleged approval
of the chief in this statement would be interesting, but here we
may mistrust our author, for the general information about the
chiefs, their power, etc., seems to be not quite correct (see Curr,
_A.R._, i. p. 53). Besides, the whole style of the book is not
strictly scientific, and shows signs of literary embellishments.
We must also attach some caution to the detailed description of
the betrothal ceremony. It is the only account of a detailed and
elaborate ceremony of this kind, with feasting, chief, abstinency,
etc. Interesting and important as it is, we may attribute it to
local exception, but we cannot consider it as established beyond
doubt.
[49] J. Dawson, p. 28.
[50] _Ibid._, p. 28.
[51] _Ibid._, p. 29.
[52] _Ibid._, p. 34.
[53] _Loc. cit._, p. 31.
Amongst the Wotjobaluk (S. Victoria) girls were exchanged in
infancy by the elder brother. The father's consent was essential:
he could also dispose otherwise of his daughter. The marriage
arrangements and agreements were publicly made at large tribal
gatherings.[54]
[54] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 241. Also _Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 116.
Stanbridge says that "females are generally betrothed in early
infancy," either to friends, or to those whose friendship is
solicited. Although the father decides when she has to be given
away, "the bridegroom is sure of obtaining his bride, as the honour
of the family and of the tribe is considered to be involved in the
fulfilment of the betrothal." In case of subsequent elopement it
is the duty of the family to chastise the guilty pair.[55] This
statement is not quite clear, inasmuch as we scarcely understand
how the mediæval idea of honour is to be applied to Australian
Blacks. Probably it means that the family and local group of the
girl have some reason to keep the promise; whether this reason be
of magical, legal, or customary character is an open question. But
inferring by analogy we may say that all these factors are coercive
here, as in the other tribes. The family must also support the
husband in case of elopement.
[55] _Loc. cit._, p. 288. (Mount Gambier tribes.)
"Whenever a female child was promised in marriage to any man, from
that very hour neither he nor the child's mother were permitted
to look upon or hear each other speak, nor hear their names
mentioned by others; for, if they did, they would immediately grow
prematurely old and die." This statement refers to the Jajaurung
tribe of Victoria.[56]
[56] Brough Smyth, ii. p. 156, on the authority of some
first-hand observer. Brough Smyth gives also (i. pp. 83,
84) a detailed account of courtship and betrothal. But
according to our criterion we do not accept it as a
first-hand evidence; nevertheless, it may be useful as
illustration.
"Female children are betrothed usually from early infancy, and
such arrangements are usually adhered to," with rare exceptions.
Exchange of sisters is commonly practised, but the parents' consent
is essential. "If a wife be stolen, war is always continued until
she is given up, or another female exchanged." These statements
refer to the Lower Murray and Adelaide tribes.[57]
[57] Eyre, ii. p. 319.
There is a very plain and primitive form of betrothal, performed
by the "principal old man in the camp" amongst the Lower Darling
natives. They usually exchange sisters, and girls are promised in
infancy.[58]
[58] F. Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 129.
Among the Parkengee tribe of the Darling River, "A brother had the
right of giving away his sister, which he usually did with a view
to his own matrimonial interests. They were in this way promised
when quite children, and in the event of the death of the claimant,
his nearest of kin became possessed of his rights."[59] This means
that levirate was valid in case of betrothal.
[59] S. Newland, _loc. cit._, p. 21.
Exchange was the chief feature of the Narrinyeri marriage.
Sometimes the father, usually the brother, disposed of the girl.
There is a simple ceremony, consisting in a formal handing over
of the bride, who seems usually to be rather unwilling.[60] It is
a social disgrace for a girl not to be given away; if she goes by
herself and lives by her own choice with a man, she is "regarded
as very little better than a prostitute."[61] A woman is supposed
to signify her consent to the marriage by carrying fire to her
husband's wurley and making his fire for him.[62]
[60] H. E. A. Meyer, quoted by Rev. Taplin, _loc. cit._,
p. 10.
[61] _Ibid._, p. 11.
[62] _Ibid._, p. 12. Taplin's own remark. See also
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350, where it is added that in
cases of unsuccessful elopement against the parents' will,
the couple were severely punished; the offender being even
put to death.
Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula, "Betrothal took place in
infancy, and the marriage ceremony after circumcision and other
rites performed on the male."[63]
[63] Sutton, p. 17.
"In the Geawe Gal tribe marriage was ordinarily by the gift[64] of
the woman and by consent of both fathers ... and would be arranged
years before the time of marriage." In cases of elopement the
offender had to fight the female's relatives; he retained her only
if victor. In cases of capture, only a woman of the right class
could be retained.[65]
[64] I think it means not by exchange.
[65] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 216. Geawe Gal, Hunter River,
New South Wales; possessing the Kamilaroi sub-class. See
also _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 250.
In New South Wales marriage was arranged by the parents. If two
people fell in love, they eloped, but if the family applied to the
camp council, the latter would interfere and punish the culprit.[66]
[66] G. S. Lang, p. 11.
Henderson says that among the Blacks of New South Wales abduction
always arouses fights.[67] Using legal terms, this means that
abduction of a woman, whether married or not, was considered a
crime.
[67] _Loc. cit._, p. 110.
Of the courtship in some of the New South Wales tribes we have
an account by J. Turnbull: "When a young man sees a female to
his fancy, he informs her she must accompany him home; the lady
refuses; he not only enforces compliance with threats, but blows:
thus the gallant, according to the custom, never fails to gain the
victory, and bears off the willing though struggling pugilist."[68]
In the following context the author asserts that violence is here a
mere formality. It is difficult to say anything definite about this
statement. If it refers merely to the final marriage "ceremony"
it might be accepted. But if it is to be accepted as describing
all that refers to marriage, it is obviously false. The author
was a "circumnavigator," and in his voyage round the world, about
the year 1800, had probably little opportunities for observing
the Australian aborigines. Such statements as this, uncritically
accepted (as this is, _e. g._ in Waitz-Gerland), are usual sources
of error in ethnology and hence in sociology.
[68] Turnbull, pp. 98, 99.
In some other New South Wales tribes "the ceremony of marriage is
peculiar. In most cases the parties are betrothed at an early age,
and as soon as they arrive at the proper age, the young man claims
his 'gin' or wife."[69] "The women are considered as an article of
property, and are sold or given away by the parents or relatives
without the least regard to their own wishes."[70] The well-known
elements of infant betrothal, and a kind of purchase of a female
from her family, are contained in this statement.
[69] Wilkes (smaller edition), i. p. 225.
[70] _Ibid._
According to another author, who has written about the New South
Wales tribes, the girls are given away at a corroboree. Sometimes
they are "stolen," but then fights always ensue.[71] This statement
contains the feature of publicity of marriage. It does not say
anything about the conditions preceding such a public allotment.
[71] Hodgkinson, _loc. cit._, pp. 229, 230.
According to Tench, capture was the prevalent form in which
marriage was brought about in the Port Jackson tribes.[72] Tench
was in very early times at the settlement, but being a military man
and making only a short stay, he hardly had very good opportunities
of observing the natives. His statement cannot outweigh all the
contrary ones.
[72] _Loc. cit._, p. 199.
The statement of Barrington, who says that among the Port Jackson
natives blows are the usual mode of courtship and that they are
well accepted as a token of tenderness,[73] can only be understood
if we accept these facts as a kind of pretended marriage by
capture. But much importance cannot be attached to it.
[73] _Loc. cit._, p. 168.
Amongst some tribes in the neighbourhood of Sydney[74] small
children are betrothed, and as a sign of that the girl wears a
necklace. In another place[75] the same author says that marriage
by capture occurs.
[74] C. P. Hodgson, p. 220.
[75] _Ibid._, p. 243.
Among the tribes of the South-east coast of New South Wales
(Hawkesbury River to Cape Howe) the "marriages are regulated by
a system of betrothal." "The old men assemble in council," and
establish the relation of _Nanarree_ between a boy and a girl or
woman. The boy then marries eventually the woman's daughter. The
_Nanarree_ couple "theoretically occupy the position of son-in-law
and mother-in-law." They are tabooed to each other. A man and woman
may be _Nanarree_ to several individuals.[76]
[76] R. H. Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxxiv. pp. 263, 264.
We read of an instance of a formal betrothal (called _Bahumul_),
although meagre in its ceremonial, among the Euahlayi tribe. A
baby girl is destined by her parents to be "given to a man." She
is brought to him, some feathers are taken off the baby's head
and put on the man's. Her grandmother says, "Look at him and
remember him, because you are promised to him." "That makes it
a formal betrothal, binding to both sides." "I have heard great
camp rows, because girls made a struggle for independence, having
found out they had only been promised, not formally betrothed, to
some old chap whom they did not wish to marry." Here we meet with
an instance of a formality, which has in itself much more than a
simple promise, that is "binding for both sides."[77]
[77] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 55.
Amongst the Wiradjuri the girl was promised in infancy and sisters
were exchanged.[78]
[78] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 211.
Amongst the Dieri the individual or _Tippa Malku_ marriage was
established when girls were quite young, and upon the basis
of exchange, the decision lying in the hands of the mother's
brother. In another place we read that the _Tippa Malku_ marriage
was brought about sometimes also by the council of old men.[79]
_Pirrauru_ "wives" were allotted by the council of old men.[80] In
cases of elopement the offender was pursued by the kindred.[81]
[79] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. p. 55, and Frazer, _ibid._,
xxiv. p. 169.
[80] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 177, and _J.A.I._, xx. pp. 57
_sq._
[81] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 350.
The German missionary, L. Schultze, informs us about the Central
tribes that "the betrothal is solely and absolutely arranged by the
father of the girl. He promises and contracts his daughter, within
the limits of the class, to whomsoever he pleases." "A youth cannot
select a bride for himself, or a girl a bridegroom." "The betrothal
is often made by the father, soon after the girl is born, from
mercenary motives," for the future son-in-law is obliged to hunt
and provide his father-in-law with food.[82]
[82] _Loc. cit._, p. 236.
We are informed about the Central tribes that "girl-stealing is not
a trifling matter." Fights always ensue as the result of it.[83]
[83] W. H. Willshire, _loc. cit._, p. 27.
By the detailed data given by Spencer and Gillen[84] we get a
good insight into the legal and customary side of the modes of
obtaining wives amongst the Central tribes of the Arunta nation.
Methods of securing a woman are (_a_) charming by means of magic,
(_b_) capture, (_c_) elopement, (_d_) the custom of _Tualcha-Mura_,
by means of which a man secures a wife for his son by making an
arrangement with some other man, with regard to the latter's
daughter. The legal side of the first method is shown by the fact
that a man's right to a woman, secured by means "of magic, is
supported by the men of his own local group."[85] Capture is the
"very rarest way in which a Central Australian secures a wife." If
captured by an avenging party, the woman must be lawfully allotted
to one of the men (who has exclusive right to her afterwards).[86]
There is an accompanying ceremony, and the decision lies in the
hand of an old man, the leader of the party.[87] In cases of
elopement there was always a fight, sometimes between the two
parties only, sometimes their local groups taking part. There
were some (tribal) relatives having a special duty of supporting
the eloper. Sometimes the aggrieved husband will consent to hand
over the wife; the offender has then an ordeal to undergo.[88] "The
fourth and most usual method of obtaining a wife is that which is
connected with the well-established custom" of _Tualcha-Mura_.[89]
This is a relation between a man and his mother-in-law[90]
established by a simple ceremony,[91] and it signifies that the man
has the right to take as wife the daughter of the woman. In this
way "practically every man in the tribe is provided with at least
one woman to whom he is lawfully entitled."[92] He has a definite
right over her; he may waive it or exchange it for another right
over his mother-in-law's son.[93] He stands in a definite relation
to his _Tualcha-Mura_ (mother-in-law); receives her hair to make
his hair girdle,[94] and may not speak to her. He has the duty of
providing his father-in-law with food, which is a condition for the
obligations to be kept.[95] It is seldom that these obligations
are broken; and if the parents give the girl to someone else,
the latter is sure to have to undergo a struggle with the former
fiancé.[96] All this holds good also in respect to the Northern
Central tribes.[97] There, too, "as a general rule women are
obtained quite peacefully by the system of betrothal."[98]
[84] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. xvii, _Methods
of obtaining Wives_, pp. 554 _sqq._ Compare also _Nor.
Tr._, pp. 32 and 33.
[85] Compare also the detailed description of charming by
magic (different methods) given by J. Gillen in _Proc.
R.G.S.S.A._, iv. pp. 25 _sqq._
[86] No other man of the party having any access to her.
_Nat. Tr._, p. 556.
[87] _Nat. Tr._, p. 555. The story related in this place is
given by the author as an illustration of a general custom.
[88] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 556, 557. The story told, pp. 557,
558, where both the eloped woman and her actual husband
have an ordeal to submit to from the former husband. After
having renounced her in this way she became the property of
the man with whom she had eloped.
[89] _Ibid._, p. 558.
[90] Who is often of the very same age as he, pp. 558, 559.
[91] _Ibid._, p. 559.
[92] _Ibid._, 554. As also _Nor. Tr._, p. 33.
[93] _Ibid._, p. 559.
[94] _Nat. Tr._, p. 559.
[95] _Ibid._, p. 555.
[96] _Ibid._, p. 560.
[97] _Nor. Tr._, p. 77.
[98] _Ibid._, p. 33.
Among all the tribes, described by Spencer and Gillen, there
seem to be some marriage ceremonies.[99] In their first work
(_Nat. Tr._) these authors describe such ceremonies among nine
tribes.[100] In the main these ceremonies consisted of a ritual
defloration of the girl by men standing to her in a definite
relationship. In each case the girl had to submit to sexual
intercourse with a series of men standing to her also in a definite
relationship. Men of forbidden degrees have on these occasions
access to women. The girl was afterwards painted and decorated
and handed over to her husband, to whom she was allotted.[101]
In the _Northern Tribes_ there is also a detailed description of
this ceremony among the Warramunga,[102] where the husband keeps
abstinence for three days after marriage. Among the Binbinga, Anula
and Mara tribes the ritual defloration seems not to be a marriage
ceremony, _i. e._ seems not to be connected with the handing over
of the girl to her allotted husband.[103] Messrs. Spencer and
Gillen state the existence of this ceremony among sixteen tribes.
It is to be noted that these ceremonies do not seem to express any
special sanction of the marriage to which they lead, unless they
are viewed as "expiation for marriage."[104] Then they might be
interpreted as the renouncement of all men's rights and claims to a
woman for the benefit of her future owner. The ceremonial handing
over of a woman may be also regarded as expressing the public
sanction of marriage. We must still notice an interesting ceremony
amongst the Warramunga, Tjinjilli, Gnanji, Binbinga, Mara, which
consists of some hair being given by the maternal uncle of the girl
to her future husband. This hair is worn by him under his arm-band;
"it is a simple plan of publicly announcing the fact" of the
betrothal.[105] Amongst the Binbinga there is a form of betrothal.
The future husband must present his father-in-law with boomerangs,
etc., and must avoid him, but goes on giving him presents.[106]
[99] Compare _Nat. Tr._, chap, iii., pp. 92 _sqq._, and
_Nor. Tr._, chap. iv., pp. 133 _sqq._
[100] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92 _sqq._
[101] For detailed description see _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92,
93 (Arunta and Ilpirra), p. 94 (S. Arunta), pp. 94,
95 (Kaitish), p. 95 (the remaining six tribes). These
ceremonies differ only in details from each other in
different tribes.
[102] _Nor. Tr._, p. 135.
[103] _Ibid._, p. 135.
[104] According to Lord Avebury; see _Nat. Tr._, p. 96.
[105] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 603, 604.
[106] _Ibid._, p. 77, footnote.
Among some tribes of South Queensland (Bunya-Bunya country)
marriage was arranged without any consent of the contracting
parties. Sometimes it was arranged when the girl was an infant,
and she was then promised to some man of importance or influence.
Sometimes exchange of females took place at large tribal
gatherings. Elopement was known in these tribes, and a fight
decided whether it was legalized or not.[107]
[107] Tom Petrie, _loc. cit._, pp. 59, 60.
We find a ceremony of betrothal among the Kuinmurbura. "The parents
having painted the girl and dressed her hair with feathers, her
male cousin takes her to where her future husband is sitting
cross-legged in silence, and seats her at his back and close to
him. He who has brought the girl after a time removes the feathers
from her hair and places them in the hair of her future husband,
and then leads the girl back to her parents." The future son-in-law
must give presents of game to the father of his promised wife.[108]
[108] Howitt, _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118.
We read about the natives of Moreton Bay, that marriage is
generally contracted with the consent of the relatives of both
parties and the approval of the tribe. As a form of betrothal they
join their hands. The stealing of women from neighbouring tribes
ends usually in war.[109]
[109] J. D. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 337.
Among the Herbert River natives, exchange of sisters or daughters
is the commonest way of obtaining wives.[110] Girls are promised to
their respective husbands[111] in infancy and delivered at the age
of nine or ten years.
[110] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._, p. 154.
[111] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._, p. 165.
We find in Brough Smyth an account of a betrothal ceremony, as
practised by the natives on Fraser Island (Queensland). This
description is given by a correspondent of the Rev. L. Fison: "The
bride makes a fire, and the other natives come and place white
feathers on her head; then the bride places feathers on the head
of the bridegroom; the bridegroom makes a fire, and every one of
the blacks present on the occasion brings a firestick and throws it
down at the bridegroom's fire."[112]
[112] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 89.
Girls were betrothed in infancy by their mothers amongst the
Wakelbura. It was supposed that a girl would be given in exchange
for her.[113] In case of elopement, there was a severe fight, and
only after a victory over many adversaries could the man keep his
wife.
[113] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 222, and _Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 117.
Among the North-West Central Queensland tribes[114] "each male
can have an official wife" supplied him by the camp in general
council assembled,[115] and an unofficial one of his own choice.
"Both share equal rights and responsibilities." The consent of the
girl's family is in both cases essential.[116] The ceremony of
betrothal consisted in exchange of firesticks, and "is binding on
both sides."[117] Exchange of sisters is practised, too.[118] If
eloping, "both have to run the gauntlet of the outraged community,"
which gives them a rather harsh reception. After which "the couple
is now recognized as husband and wife."[119] In cases of elopement
of a married woman there is a fight, or compensation is granted to
the injured husband. In another place Roth says that taking a girl
against the wishes of parents was punished by death.[120]
[114] W. E. Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, pp. 180, 181, sec. 323.
[115] See _Ibid._, sec. 238.
[116] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _a._
[117] _Ibid._
[118] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _b._
[119] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _c._
[120] W. E. Roth, _N.Q. Ethnog._, Bull. 8, p. 5.
According to Macgillivray's information, infant betrothal even
before birth was prevalent in the Port Essington tribes.[121]
[121] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 151.
The following account is reported by a Lascar who spent several
years among the tribes of the North-East coast (Raffles Bay):
"Their marriage ceremony is performed in the following way: The
father and mother of a female child lead in one hand between them
the intended bride (whilst in the other they each carry a piece of
burning wood) towards the intended husband, he standing with his
back towards them. When they arrive at the appointed place, the
parents lay down the burning pieces of wood, beside which the child
sits down, and the parents retire, on which the husband turns round
to his wife and takes her home."[122]
[122] Wilson, p. 144.
We are informed about the natives of the Cape of York Peninsula and
Prince of Wales Islands: "In most cases females are betrothed in
infancy, according to the will of the father, and without regard to
disparity of age. Thus the future husband may be, and often is, an
old man with several wives."[123]
[123] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 8.
J. Forrest, speaking of the natives of Central and Western
Australia, says: "Betrothal is very general. A child a year old
will sometimes be betrothed to an old man, and it will be his duty
to feed and protect her, and (unless she is stolen by someone else)
when she is old enough she becomes his wife."[124]
[124] _Loc. cit._, p. 317.
"The girls are not the exclusive property of the father until he
thinks fit to give them in marriage to some of his friends; by the
law of these people the females, from the time of their birth,
are appropriated to certain males of the tribe, and not even the
parents have the right to set aside these obligations." If this man
dies, the mother may dispose of her daughter.--This refers to the
Watchandee tribe of West Australia.[125] The same author writes
that elopement is punished in these tribes by the death of the
female, and a severe ordeal is imposed on the male; an instance
is adduced to illustrate this.[126] The statement is quite unique
in this, that it asserts no right of the family to betroth their
daughter. On the other hand, we are by no other author informed
of such a thing as a man having an _a priori_ right to a girl. We
are led to the supposition that these male individuals are simply
men belonging to the right marriage class. For undoubtedly in
an exogamous tribe, having four or eight classes and being not
too numerous, the number of marriageable individuals must have
been very limited, and one of them might have had some special
prerogatives. This supposition would also account for the severe
punishment inflicted in case of elopement with a man to whom "she
did not lawfully belong," viz. with an individual of the improper
class. Otherwise this statement would be contradictory with all the
others, and we could hardly harmonize it with the general view we
form of the aboriginal marriage rules.
[125] Oldfield, p. 249.
[126] _Ibid._, pp. 249, 250.
Among the tribes observed by Salvado "Le sauvage demande la
personne qu'il veut épouser au père de celle-ci, et si celui-ci ne
l'a promise à aucun autre, et n'y voit pas d'empêchement, il la lui
accorde. Dès ce moment, la jeune personne appartient au sauvage
qui l'a demandée, quoiqu'elle reste en compagnie de sa famille,
jusqu'à l'age de la puberté. Cet engagement est inviolable, et si
jamais un père y manquait, ce serait la cause de beaucoup de sang
répandu. Le sauvage pourtant quand il demande une jeune personne en
mariage, s'il ne se fie pas à la parole du père, l'emmène avec lui
et lui tient lieu de frère, jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait atteint l'âge
convenable. Dans aucun cas on ne demande à la jeune personne son
consentement. Neanmoins j'ai entendu dire à des fiancés: 'Je l'aime
et elle m'aime aussi.'"[127] "L'autre manière de prendre femme est
de la ravir à son père, ou à son mari, soit à cause de sa rare
beauté, soit parce que son mari la maltraite. Mais ensuite si
celui-ci la trouve, il la tue sans pitié, aussi le ravisseur
l'emmène-t-il au loin, et tâche de se soustraire à tout jamais à la
présence de l'offensé."[128]
[127] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 278.
[128] _Ibid._, pp. 278, 279.
In West Australia "female children are always betrothed within a
few days after their birth; and from the moment they are betrothed
the parents cease to have any control over the future settlement
of their child." The woman is kept by her husband as his exclusive
property. "Stealing a wife is generally punished with death." It
means that elopement was punished by death, but we are not told if
of both parties or only one, and which one. This statement agrees
with our last one. It might be, therefore, that in West Australia
the rules were in this regard more stringent. But it seems more
probable that death was the extreme punishment only, and that
usually an ordeal was sufficient.[129]
[129] Geo. Grey, ii. pp. 229, 230.
We are informed in G. F. Moore's vocabulary of West Australian
languages that the word meaning "firm," "fixed" is "applied to a
man and wife as firmly united together."[130] It shows that this
idea must have been strongly inculcated in the aboriginal society,
if the expression for firmness and marriage were associated in
their language. By itself, such a linguistic argument might be
justly designated as futile; but it is a valuable addition to the
other evidence in our possession. The same author mentions three
modes of obtaining wives: infant betrothal, inheritance from a
brother or relative (levirate), and elopement.[131]
[130] _Loc. cit._, p. 5.
[131] _Loc. cit._, p. 41.
We read in Scott Nind's description of the aborigines of King
George's Sound: "The girls appear to be at the disposal of their
father and are generally bespoke in their infancy; even before
they are born we have been told to whom they were betrothed, if
they prove to be females." Sometimes exchange of relatives is
practised. In some cases boys are adopted as sons-in-law--a custom
called _cotertie_.[132] This seems to be analogous to the customs
reported from Central Australia and New South Wales. "Attentions
and presents are paid more to her (the bride's) father than
to herself, and indeed the trifles she receives are generally
transferred to him. These chiefly consist of game or other articles
of food; the father, perhaps, receives a cloak, spears or other
implements."[133] The author says: "I do not think they have any
nuptial ceremony."[134] Another mode of procuring a wife is to
carry her off; sometimes against her will, generally by mutual
agreement. In both cases the couple must beware of the husband's
revenge. If the female become pregnant and presents are given to
the husband, she is released from her first engagement.[135] A
woman may be also betrothed during her husband's lifetime to a man,
to whom she passes when widowed.[136]
[132] _Loc. cit._, p. 38.
[133] _Ibid._
[134] p. 38.
[135] _Ibid._
[136] p. 39.
Browne relates that girls were often promised in infancy; elopement
also often took place.[137]
[137] _Loc. cit._, p. 450.
We have also six statements in the answers given to Professor
Frazer's _Questions_ (_J.A.I._, xxiv., pp. 157 _sq._). I have not
ranged them with the foregoing, for they seem not to be of equal
accuracy[138] except perhaps that of Police Inspector Foelsche,
Port Darwin, North Territory, South Australia. And this agrees
with the majority of our data: girls are promised in infancy to
men of different ages, and go to live with them when arrived at
puberty. It is noteworthy that all these six statements deny
the existence of any betrothal ceremony. Five of them inform us
that wives were obtained by "purchase" from their parents. The
word purchase covers, probably, the fact that the girl's parents
obtained, at the marriage contract, and probably ever after, gifts
from their future son-in-law. We have such statements already in
our collection, and it seems that wherever there was no exchange
of females the girl's family received some compensation for her in
another form.
[138] They are given by police troopers, stationmasters,
etc. One of them is Sam Gason, whose information about the
Dieri we know from another place. It is crude, but not
quite useless; here he does not teach us anything new.
According to our already described methodological plan, the area
or range of the facts covered by all this evidence must be divided
into smaller fields. Or, in other words, it is needful to bring our
information under several headings, show the points upon which there is
complete agreement, and discuss the other points in greater detail.
There are forty-nine statements (including one of the six just
summarily mentioned). Not all of them give us full information
concerning the whole of our subject; some mention only one or other
of the methods of obtaining wives, without asserting or denying the
existence of the other forms. But roughly speaking, we may say that
in all tribes there are on the one hand some normal, pacific modes of
obtaining wives (exchange of relatives, promise in infancy, betrothal),
and on the other hand some more or less violent forms (elopement,
capture). About twenty-three of the forty-nine statements, all which
are explicit and reliable, assert the existence of both these forms
amongst the tribes they deal with. The violent forms, elopement and
capture, seem to have been rather the exception than the rule, but
there seems to have been not a single tribe in which elopement was
completely absent.[139] Among the Kurnai elopement was a prevalent
form of marriage. In all other tribes the methods, called here normal
or pacific, were prevalent. The main features of these forms are:
betrothal in infancy, exchange of sisters or relatives, and a series
of obligations and mutual duties which both contracting parties
undertake. All these features may be briefly discussed.
[139] Compare _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118. Howitt says that in
all South-Eastern tribes elopement was in use; especially
if there was any difficulty in finding a relative for
exchange, or if two people fell in love with each other.
It was considered a breach of custom and law, but it
was a valid, recognized form of marriage if legalized
subsequently. Practically the same may be said of all
tribes of the continent.
The custom of _betrothing_ females _in infancy_ seems to be very
widespread. That this custom was known in all tribes appears in all
the statements explicitly or implicitly (with the exception of those
statements only which were discarded as unreliable, _e. g._ those
which assert marriage by capture as the most usual form). So in the
tribes described by Howitt and his correspondents (chiefly referring
to Victoria, New South Wales, and South territory of South Australia)
girls were as a rule promised in infancy, and these engagements were
kept. This appears the most usual way of obtaining wives amongst the
Central tribes, in Queensland, and in West Australia (J. Dawson, Curr,
Stanbridge, Howitt, Eyre, F. Bonney, R. H. Mathews, Spencer and Gillen,
T. Petrie, Grey, Browne); whereas according to Oldfield, girls belonged
by birth to a certain man. In Roth's statement we are not informed
whether women were allotted by camp council in infancy or when grown up.
This widespread custom of infant betrothal had its important
consequences, some apparent at first sight. So it is evident, that not
only had the woman no voice as to her husband, but even the latter had
scarcely a choice in the proper sense of the word. For when he entered
into the engagement, although he was often of a mature age, he could
not have any idea how his bride would look when grown up. The legal
importance of this form of marriage and all the mutual obligations
connected therewith will be discussed below.
Another point of importance is that this form of marriage contract was
in many tribes combined with the _exchange_ of sisters or relatives.
Fifteen statements mention this explicitly as the most usual condition
under which a female could be obtained. It must have been prevalent
in the South-Eastern tribes.[140] In the case of exchange it was
usually the sister who was given in exchange for a wife,[141] but
sometimes also a father secured a wife in exchange for his daughter
(Curr, Taplin, Beveridge), which is in perfect accord with the fact
that disparity of age was very frequent in Australian marriages. At any
rate the father's consent was always essential (Stanbridge, Beveridge,
Schultze, Taplin on the Narrinyeri, Rusden on the Geawe Gal, Howitt
on the Wotjobaluk). In general when a girl was promised in infancy it
was always done by her family; or at least with the consent of her
family. As, for instance, in N. Central Queensland, where, according
to Roth, girls were disposed of sometimes by the camp council, but by
agreement with the family. By the word family must be here understood
in the first place the girl's father, whose consent, as just said,
was essential, then her brothers and nearest relatives, who would
eventually have profit from exchanging her. But also other members of
the female's family are interested in the transaction and possibly
benefit by it.
[140] Speaking of the South-Eastern tribes in general,
Howitt says: "It may be safely laid down as a broad and
general proposition that among these savages a wife was
obtained by the exchange of a female relative, with the
alternative possibility of obtaining one by inheritance
(Levirate), by elopement, or by capture."--_Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 115.
[141] "It seems to me that the most common practice is the
exchange of girls by their respective parents, as wives
for each other's sons, or in some tribes the exchange of
sisters, or of some female relatives by the young men
themselves."--_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.
The important _part_ played by the _family_ appears in all our
statements; the only contradictory one is that of Oldfield, who says
that the parents had no right over their daughter from her birth (but
see above our critical remark). From the moment of the "betrothal" the
man or boy enters into a certain relation to his future wife's nearest
relatives; he has certain duties to perform, certain obligations to
fulfil, and certain restrictions to observe. In the case where it is
the male's family which makes the contract for him, the two families
have certain duties towards each other and stand in a certain mutual
relationship. They exchange gifts (Yuin, Woljabaluk, S.W. Victoria
and others); the boy's father has to give presents to the girl, and
the boy is visited from time to time by his future father-in-law (W.
Victoria); the future mother-in-law is tabooed (Jajaurung, New South
Wales, according to R. H. Mathews; Central tribes); in the Central
tribes there is the relation of Tualcha Mara and the duty of hunting
for the future father-in-law. In the Binbinga there is a present at the
betrothal and sometimes duties afterwards.
It seems that in all cases, even when exchange does not take place,
it is the father who disposes of his daughter (compare just above).
This privilege is important: in this way, as we saw above, an old man
may procure a young wife for himself. In other cases by these means
the friendship of an influential man may be gained. It is therefore
probable that the father, who wields all the authority in the family,
enjoys this privilege of disposing of his daughter.
We may view the facts of exchange of females on the one hand, and the
various duties of the husband towards his (future or actual) wife's
family on the other, also in another light; they show distinctly the
features of _marriage by purchase_. In the first place let us remark
that the two forms--exchange of females and exchange of gifts or
duties for a female--seem to be localized in different areas. We saw
that Howitt affirms that exchange is the prominent feature in the
South-eastern tribes with the exception of the Kurnai. In those of our
statements which refer to this area we found with very few exceptions
(J. Dawson, Stanbridge, G. S. Lang, Mrs. Parker) confirmation of his
views. The above exceptions do not deny this fact. They are not very
explicit, so that we can hardly insist on them as negative evidence. On
the other hand, in the Central and Northern area, exchange of females
seems not to take place. Here we have some detailed statements, such as
those about the Dieri by Gason and Howitt, about the Arunta by Spencer
and Gillen, about the other Northern tribes by the same authors,
about the N.W. Queensland tribes by W. E. Roth. In all these explicit
statements there is not a single remark about exchange. Nor is the
latter mentioned in any statement referring to the Central and Northern
area, nor in the four statements which refer to West Australia. We
may therefore conclude with a high degree of probability that we have
here to do with a real geographical difference between the tribes
indicated. As to Queensland, exchange was probably known in the Central
and Southern tribes (Tom Petrie and Lumholtz mention it), whereas,
as we saw, it was absent in the Western part of that colony. But in
nearly all these tribes, where exchange of females is apparently not
in use, there is evidence of the existence of duties and obligations
on the part of the future husband towards his parents-in-law. We may
remember the five statements in which the word purchase was used, and
the statement of Wilkes. Schultze says explicitly that the father often
gave his daughter away from mercenary motives. The same is confirmed
by the more exact and detailed statement of Spencer and Gillen, where
the duties of providing the father-in-law with game are reported to be
a necessary condition for the obligations to be kept. Among some of
the Northern tribes (Binbinga, Anula, Mara) the man has to present his
father-in-law with boomerangs and weapons at the contract, and then to
supply him with game. There is no information about purchase-marriage
either from Queensland or from West Australia. But such a negative
evidence is not convincing. Again among the Kurnai, where exchange
of females happened very seldom, there were duties of supplying the
parents-in-law with game (compare below, pp. 283 _sqq._). So that if
we leave on one side the Western part of Australia and Queensland, and
take into consideration only the Northern, Central and South-Eastern
tribes, we may say that exchange of females and obligations, of gifts
and hunting duties were geographically exclusive. Now it appears to
me that exchange of females was a kind of marriage by purchase. If we
regard as the chief feature of the latter the fact that the bridegroom
has to contribute for his wife something of more or less equal value,
we must agree that exchange of females was such a kind of contribution,
and even a very fair one.[142] Besides, it appears that the exchange
of females was often accompanied by exchange of gifts (compare p. 50,
Yuin, Wotjobaluk). That the facts reported from the Central and
Northern area show a form of marriage by purchase appears quite clear.
[142] With reference to the Australian facts Dr.
Westermarck makes the same remark. "The simplest way of
purchasing a wife is no doubt to give a kinswoman in
exchange for her."--_H.H.M._, p. 390.
As a further characteristic feature we are told in several instances
that such mutual agreements are made _publicly_, during great tribal
gatherings, so that all the tribe knows about it (Yuin, Woeworung,
New South Wales according to Mathews, New South Wales according to
Hodgkinson). Or else the bride is publicly handed to the bridegroom
(Narrinyeri, Lower Darling, Kuinmurbura, Fraser Island). In the Central
and North Central tribes there are outward signs: the maternal uncle's
hair worn under the arm-band; or hair is procured from the future
mother-in-law. In some New South Wales tribes a necklace is worn as a
sign of engagement (Hodgson).
In some statements we are directly told that there is no _betrothal
or marriage ceremony_ (in the six notes in _J.A.I._, xxiv.). But this
negative evidence seems on one side to result from the slight and
superficial acquaintance these observers had with the aborigines;
on the other side from the fact that even in cases where we have
such ceremonies described by very reliable informants and their
binding power asserted, they are described as being so simple and
insignificant, that it is easy to conceive they might readily escape
the notice of even a good observer, or at least their nature and
importance might be misunderstood. We possess nine statements about
betrothal or marriage ceremonies. We have Dawson's detailed statement,
which seems, nevertheless, not to be absolutely trustworthy. But we
are also informed of the existence of some simple and apparently
insignificant ceremonies by J. Bonney, Taplin, R. H. Mathew,
Mrs. Langloh Parker, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, Fison's anonymous
correspondent, Howitt on the Kuinmurburu, Wilson.[143] Some of these
are our best sources.
[143] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 107, says also that in some
tribes there are some insignificant marriage ceremonies.
Turning now to the other, the _violent form_ of obtaining wives, we
may distinguish the _elopement_, when both sides are consenting, and
_capture_ where the woman is secured by a mere act of brutal force.
These latter forms occur, but they are by no means frequent. They
are mentioned by several writers (Hodgson, Rusden, Turnbull, Tench,
Barrington and Collins); and by the two latter as the only form of
marriage. That this is obviously incorrect was mentioned above in
connection with their statements. It is characteristic that all
statements reporting the prevalence of marriage by capture refer to
New South Wales, and more especially to the neighbourhood of Sydney.
But I think that it would be inadvisable to attribute this to a local
peculiarity of those tribes. It appears more probable that as all
those reports date from the early days of the settlement, and were
written nearly at the same time, their opinions cannot be considered as
independent, and they are probably repetitions of the same erroneous
view which may be assumed to have been held by the general public in
the settlement.
This is confirmed by the following comparison of two statements. The
first, that of Collins, stating the existence of a crude form of
marriage by capture runs thus: "These unfortunate victims [the wives]
of lust and cruelty ... are, it is believed, always selected from the
women of a different tribe from that of the males (for they ought
not to be dignified with the title of men), and with whom they are
at enmity.... The poor wretch is stolen upon in the absence of her
protectors. Being first stupefied with blows, inflicted with clubs or
wooden swords, on the head, back and shoulders, every one of which
is followed by a stream of blood, she is then dragged away through
the woods by one arm, with a perseverance and violence that it might
be supposed would displace it from its sockets." In this manner the
woman is said to be dragged to the man's camp, where "a scene ensues
too shocking to relate."[144] The second statement made by one of
Howitt's reliable correspondents, depicts the state of things with
quite different colours: "When a young man has passed a certain number
of Boras (initiations) he has a right to choose a wife from among the
unmarried and otherwise unappropriated women of the tribe who are of
the class permitted to him by the native laws. He claims the girl in
the presence of her parents by saying 'I will come and take you by
and by,' and they cannot refuse her to him unless he be specially
disqualified--as, for instance, if his 'hands are stained with the
blood of any of her kin.' And even in that case he may carry her off
by force if he can in spite of their refusal. For this purpose he
generally comes by stealth and alone. But if he be a very bold warrior,
he sometimes goes openly to the girl's camp and carries her off,
defying the bravest of her friends to meet him in single combat if they
dare to stay him."[145] In this second statement it may be noted that
only the unappropriated girls of the tribe and those who are lawfully
marriageable may be obtained in this way. Besides, this proceeding
appears much more in the light of elopement than capture.
[144] Howitt in _Smiths. Rep._, p. 798.
[145] _Ibid._
Important it is to note that in utter contradiction with those few
statements, made by some early observers in New South Wales, _capture_
is usually reported to be merely an exceptional form of contracting
marriage. That it was in existence in nearly all tribes seems beyond
doubt. Spencer and Gillen, Howitt,[146] Curr[147] mention that
marriage by capture occurred. But all these authors add emphatically
that this was the most exceptional mode of acquiring a wife.[148] And
it appears from Spencer and Gillen's account that capture is effected
rather by an avenging party than by an individual enterprise. And even
in the case of capture, possession does not mean right. The woman must
belong in the first place to the right class (Rusden, Spencer and
Gillen), and in the case related by Spencer and Gillen she had to be
especially allotted to one of the men by the leader of the party.
[146] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 343.
[147] _A.R._, i. p. 108.
[148] That capture of females occurs only very seldom is
affirmed by Palmer, _loc. cit._, p. 301, and by Taplin,
p. 10. J. Mathew, _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxiii. p. 407, states that
marriage by capture takes place between members of hostile
communities. Quoted from Dr. Westermarck, _H.H.M._, p. 389.
_Elopement_ on the other hand is, as we mentioned above, to be found
in nearly all tribes. In all cases it is considered as an encroachment
on the rights of the family or of the husband over the girl, and it
is punished. But the severity of punishment seems to vary according
to the tribe; in the Kurnai elopement was probably the most usual way
of getting married; it was therefore not so severely punished. The
latter seems to apply to all Victorian and New South Wales tribes.
In the Central tribes charming by magic and subsequent elopement
led to a fight or ordeal, but the matter was apparently not very
serious. Whereas, we read in Roth, Grey, Salvado and Oldfield that
the punishment was death.[149] Nevertheless, as we have come to the
conclusion that these three statements are not quite clear on this
point, we may not take this for granted as a geographical distinction
between the South-Eastern and North-Western (including W. Queensland)
regions. It may be also that abduction of a woman was punished by death
or at any rate more severely in case she belonged to a forbidden class.
[149] Also Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 108, affirms that elopement
was usually severely punished and only very seldom
legalized. He knew only three cases where eloped couples
were allowed to live together permanently.
In general it may be said that elopement was always punished, and in
the majority of cases afterwards, under certain conditions, legalized
and acknowledged. These conditions are: in the first place that bride
and bridegroom belong to the right class; and then, pregnancy of the
woman or the birth of a child (Kurnai, Yuin); or a victory in the fight
which ensues after the offender has been caught (Kurnai, Yuin, Davis,
Central tribes); or subsequent exchange of a relative (Yuin, L. Murray,
Wakelbura); or a second or third elopement (Kurnai, W. Victoria).
Victory in a combat did not mean that it was by pure force that the
offender kept the woman. For these combats were regulated and often
assumed the form of an ordeal to be undergone (Central and Northern
tribes). It is well to notice that the majority of our informants when
speaking of elopements never observe the point whether the woman was
already married or not.
A few theoretical conclusions from all the facts just enumerated
may now be drawn. We have asked at the outset for all the actual
circumstances, as well as legal factors connected with the modes of
obtaining wives, which express and enforce the validity of marriage. We
asked also how does the mental attitude of the native express itself in
these facts, as far as individual marriage is concerned. Must we admit
that the aborigines have an idea of individual conjugal rights?
In the first place it is quite obvious that according to our
definitions of the word _legal_, the ideas of legal and illegal may
be applied quite legitimately to the Australian marriage. For there
exist different norms, the compliance with which assures to a match its
recognition by society, and actual protection at its hands. Whereas, if
a marriage was brought about outside these legal norms it had either
to be legalized afterwards, whereupon it enjoyed the same privileges,
or it was considered illegal and was interfered with. It appears,
moreover, from all the facts reviewed that it was always a difficult
matter to secure a wife outside the usual forms. The legal norms for
marriage consisted in the bringing about the marriage in one of the
forms discussed above, and consequently in the fulfilment of the series
of conditions, obligations and duties connected therewith. In all
these forms there is involved some kind of control of the social group
concerned, which enforces the mutual obligations, and which in case of
breach of contract had the privilege or the duty of amending the wrong.
In the most frequent form, _i. e._ when a female child is promised in
infancy, her family is under an obligation to keep the arrangement.
Her relatives have not the right to dispose of her otherwise after
they have once promised her (Curr, i. 107), and they must also watch
over her and prevent any attempt at capture or elopement, as they
would have the duty of rescuing her (Curr, Stanbridge). In this case
we are also told that the respective local group would interfere.
The fact that the engagement was made publicly, and so was known and
acknowledged by all the members of the local group and perhaps even
of the whole tribe, emphasized its legal aspect. The cases where the
tribal authority disposed of the girls or had to give consent itself
shows this in a still stronger degree. We see therefore that two social
factors were involved in the legal side of the marriage: the family,
which was responsible for the carrying out of marriage and often for
its maintenance,[150] and the community,[151] which gives its consent
and often controls the right performance of expiatory ordeals. It may
also be remarked that the mere moral sanction, which stamps one act
as right and another as wrong, gives a strong support to the offended
party and paralysed the help that the friends would perhaps like to
give to the offender. Although it is difficult to adduce sufficient
evidence in order to show in detail what were the obligations of
the family and where the tribal supervision began--and it seems that
these matters were possibly settled only roughly and on broad lines
in the Australian society--one thing appears quite clearly from the
whole evidence, viz. that in all tribes only those couples were secure
from any interference who had married according to the legal form or
whose marriage was subsequently legalized. We are informed by Spencer
and Gillen that in some cases (when elopement was brought about by
magic) there were some relatives who were lawfully entitled to help
the eloper. This shows also clearly how little the settlement of these
affairs was arbitrary. Elopement was in this case, and in all others,
considered as a trespass; when it was a girl it was an encroachment on
the rights of the family; when it was a married woman it was an offence
against her husband and also perhaps against her family. According to
circumstances and varying with the tribe, it was considered as a more
or less serious trespass and punished accordingly. In order that an
elopement might result in an acknowledged union, it had to be followed
always and invariably by certain expiatory acts. Even in the case of
capture, we saw in the example given by Spencer and Gillen that the
woman was lawfully allotted to one of the party. Individual capture
seems to occur very seldom; in its legal aspect it would not differ
essentially from the elopement, but it would have had probably less
chances of being made valid.
[150] Family means here in the first place the father, who
disposed of his daughter; or in some cases the brother or
near relative, who got or will get a wife in exchange for
her.
[151] Or better, what was called above the tribal
government.
After the legal aspect of marriage has thus been established, it may
be pointed out that several of the features of Australian marriage
and betrothal set up, besides these legal bonds, other ties which in
themselves lead to the carrying out of marriage, and afterwards keep
husband and wife together.
In the first place, exchange of women. When a man was to receive a
wife in exchange for his relative, it is clear that he felt himself
strongly bound to keep his promise; for he lost as much as his partner
in case he broke the agreement. We saw also that betrothal established
a certain status between the families of the male and the female
respectively. This status, the main feature of which was exchange of
gifts, with a preponderance of the male's gifts and duties, such as
providing food, created certain obligations which further enforced the
validity of the contract.
As pointed out above, we can even find, at least in the Central and
Northern tribes, clear features of marriage by purchase. Equally
important in this light is the fact of exchange of females. This
has its theoretical consequences. The two main facts of collective
psychology, expressed by marriage by purchase, are (1) that there is a
certain value attached to the woman and expressed by the conventional
price; (2) that there is the idea of right of property or at least of
the individual personal right of the husband over his wife, acquired by
him through the fact of purchase. These two facts are very important.
For both these sets of ideas can only have been evolved in a society
where individual marriage was a well-known, well-recognized and
fundamental institution. There would have been no reason to pay for a
wife if the possession of her would confer no positive rights on the
owner.
The following point may also be adduced here, viz. that generally the
old men and other men of influence and power secured the young females
of the tribes. It was easier for influential and important men to
maintain their right over their wives before as well as after actual
possession. Besides, we are informed by all (with the exception of
R. H. Mathews) that the rules of exogamy were very strong, excluding in
the majority of tribes a good number of females from all attempts by
the males of forbidden classes. This undoubtedly contributed also to
increase the security and validity of the marital union, by reducing to
very few the number of the men who were in a position to interfere with
the rights of the husband.
If we now look behind the facts of all these customs, rules and
practices to the underlying social psychology, we see that the idea
of the individual rights of a man to a woman must have been deeply
impressed upon the aboriginal mind. The female, when promised in
infancy, belonged to a certain man, who afterwards took possession
of her. Neither he nor she had a choice; she belonged to him by the
title of obligation; he had no choice, for all the other females were
already distributed. Thus, as infant betrothal was prevalent in the
majority of the tribes, there was a status in which everybody belonged
to somebody or other. At least there were no free females. That such
a state of things is indicative of a deeply-rooted idea of personal,
individual rights over a woman seems clear. If the value of such rights
were not known, nobody would care to secure them so eagerly and so
early, especially as the acquirement of these rights was apparently
never gratuitous. On the other hand, this complete allotment of all
the females of the tribe must have in turn impressed upon the native
mind the idea that marriage is a question of regulated rule, of a
well-established order, and not a question of private initiation and
enterprise. If a man chooses the other way, _i. e._ tries to conquer a
wife, he must be prepared to undergo the consequences of it and thus
expiate for having broken the custom and rule. It must also be borne in
mind that legal norms presuppose the existence, in the society in which
they are in force, of quite clear and definite ideas of the rights
which they involve. It is impossible that in a given society there
would be norms concerning the legality of individual marital rights
without the idea of such individual right being known to the social
mind. In Australia there are such legal norms, as has been shown above.
And _a fortiori_ there must be not only a clear idea of the individual
rights of a man to his wife, but these rights must be highly valued.
Marriage contract in nearly all societies is accompanied by some
ceremonies, which possess in themselves some binding force, generally
of a magical and religious character. This seems to be the case in
Australia too. We are in no place told what in a given ceremony would
have magical power, and how the natives imagine the working of this
power. Nevertheless, we read that in North Central West Queensland
the exchange of fire-sticks is binding, and that among the Euahlayi
the simple promise of a girl does not create any obligation unless
it is strengthened by the act of formal betrothal. It can mean only
that to such acts was attributed some magical power, and that this was
coercive.[152] From whatever form of superstition it may be derived,
it seems beyond doubt that the rudimentary ceremonies described above,
such as exchange of fire-sticks, placing of feathers, joining of
hands publicly, etc., had some inherent force and an importance as
sanctions. They were a form of sacrament. Now I would like to point
out that whenever it happens that a certain legal or social fact is
transformed into a sacrament, _i. e._ is supposed to be accomplished by
the performance of some formality endowed with a supernatural sanction,
we have every reason to suppose that this legal or social fact is very
deeply rooted in the collective mind, that it corresponds to very
inveterate ideas.[153] This seems to be, therefore, also the case in
Australia, where individual marriage has also its kind of sacrament.
This is another fact, another social institution, in which the
collective ideas of the community find their expression. And everywhere
we find not only that the idea of individual marriage exists, but that
it by no means bears the features of anything like recent innovation,
or a subordinate form subservient to the idea of group marriage.
As well in the betrothal ceremonies as in infant engagements, in
the ideas of legality of marriage, exchange of females and purchase
of the wife--in all these facts we find that the aborigines have a
deeply-rooted idea and high appreciation of the individual rights of
the husband to his wife.[154] It is also to be noted that, as Spencer
and Gillen inform us, when a man wished to persuade a woman to elope
with him, he resorted to magic; in this presence of a magical element
lay a certain degree of justification that ensured him the help of some
of his relatives.
[152] Reasons have been already advanced to support our
belief that such betrothal ceremonies were in fact more
frequent than our informants report. Considering now the
force attached by the natives to what is called infant
betrothal, we perhaps have another reason to justify this
supposition.
[153] There is no room here to discuss this general
assertion at length. But it may be made plausible
by pointing out that a certain status must be quite
fundamental in a society to get the religious sanction (for
instance monogamy in our country), and that it requires
undoubtedly a long process in order to transform this
sanction into a formal act and put into a material form the
accumulated action of many social forces.
[154] In what these individual rights consist will be
discussed in detail below. Evidently it is erroneous,
though a frequent error, to understand here exclusively the
sexual rights.
In short the modes of obtaining wives enforced and expressed of
themselves a good deal of the validity of marriage. We have still
to ask if the marriage was binding for both sides or only for the
female. This is an important question and closely connected with the
legal aspect of marriage. For marriage being a kind of obligation,
the question presents itself, whether only one party was bound by
it or both. There is but little direct evidence upon this point in
the statements. Beveridge asserts stoutly the latter; from Dawson's
statement we conclude that the former was the case, as he says that
a man could only under certain conditions repudiate his wife and had
to ask the permission of the Chief. But it must be borne in mind that
marriage had by no means the features of a contract into which both
consorts would enter with mutual agreement. Marriage in Australia
must be much more viewed in the light of a privilege acquired by the
man, and for which, as we saw, he usually has to pay in one way or
the other. It was always a great advantage to a man, both for sexual
and economic reasons, as will be clearly evident in the respective
chapters. The economic advantages persisted even when she grew old
(compare Lumholtz, p. 207). It was therefore scarcely necessary to
compel an individual to fulfil an obligation that was advantageous
to him. It may be therefore said that marriage, being an advantage
for a man--usually acquired by exchange, gifts, or an act of bravery,
sometimes inherited (Levirate)--was an obligation binding on the woman
in the first place. There are practically no reasons to suppose that a
man would ever repudiate a wife. As long as the woman was young, her
husband tried obviously by all means to keep her, and would display all
his personal force and social influence to frustrate any attempt at
abduction. When his wife grew old he would, perhaps, secure a new one
if possible; in two of the few authentic anecdotes told of the natives
a man is represented as possessing one old wife and another quite young
(see Grey, _loc. cit._, ii. pp. 350-361, and Curr, _Recollections_,
pp. 141-145); there was no reason to repudiate the old one, as she would
go on working and providing food for her husband.
In the statements referring to treatment of women, there will be
some which show that husbands sometimes displayed a great affection
towards their old wives. Moreover, Mr. Mathew's statement (on p. 73)
mentions explicitly that marriage bonds lasted usually for life; Roth
and Lumholtz inform us that great respect was often paid to old women,
consequently it can hardly be supposed that they were cast off by their
husbands as useless. We must also remember that usually there was a
great disparity of age between the husband and wife. As infant children
were often betrothed to mature men, when they reached puberty their
husbands were quite old already. Such a woman was kept until the death
of her husband, when she fell to the lot of his younger brother or the
nearest relative (tribal brother) who wished to keep her.
The practice of the Levirate seems to be very widespread.[155] To
us it seems to be in the first place the expression of the idea of
complete right of a man over his wife. With his death this right was
not extinguished, but only passed to his nearest relative. If she were
elderly she would probably become the property of a young boy, as these
were usually deprived of wives. Such couples--of which one was quite
young and the other more than mature--seem to be very frequent. In
these cases marriage lasted till the death of the older party. From
this it may be concluded that it was the husband's interest to keep his
wife. As to the latter, the only way in which she could have dissolved
the marriage bonds appears to be by finding a protector with whom to
elope. This undoubtedly occurred from time to time. But then it was
not a simple pacific dissolution of marriage, only an act of violence,
always pursued with varying vehemence, as shown above.
[155] Howitt, _S.E. Tr._, pp. 193, 224, 227, 236, 248,
Kulin tribe, p. 255; Yuin tribe, p. 266; Kurnai tribe,
_Kam. and Kurn._, p. 204; _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118;
Wotjobaluk, Wakelbura, Turribul, _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118;
J. Dawson, p. 27; _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170 (Gason on the
Dieri); _Ibid._, p. 194 (Inspector Foelsche on the Pt.
Darwin tribes); Lumholtz, pp. 160, 161; Salvado, p. 278.
From all this we may conclude that marriage was not as a rule an
ephemeric occurrence among the Australian natives. In the majority of
cases it lasted for life; anyhow, for a long period. To supply here
the _experimentum crucis_, let us quote some contradictory instances.
Lumholtz says that the women usually change their husbands so often
that the children do not generally know their fathers and never grow
very attached to them (_loc. cit._, p. 193; comp. below, p. 245).
Salvado, speaking of the unhappy lot of an aboriginal beauty, mentions
that she has very often to pass from hand to hand, being continually
coveted and captured by some new lover who is stronger than her actual
possessor. The same is related by Grey. Lumholtz's cursory statement is
not explicit enough to enable us to judge whether it were not formed
from observations of "civilized blacks." He was only a short time
in personal contact with the natives, and what he gathered from the
settlers applied probably in the main to blacks corrupted by contact
with civilization. Salvado's and Grey's information applies only to
exceptional cases when the belle excited special passions by her
personal charms. Besides, from all we know, elopement, and still more
capture, were not every-day occurrences which would follow each other
in the case of the same woman. On the contrary, if an exceptionally
desirable woman were taken away by some strong and influential
aggressor from her lawful husband, the former would have power enough,
personal and social, to retain her, if he had enough to secure her.
That elopements occurred and that they were more frequent in the case
of a beautiful and useful woman is beyond doubt. Still the picture that
we would form from these three statements does not seem to fit the
framework of the other facts.
The question as to the length of the normal duration of the Australian
marriage is a very important one. And, unhappily, the scanty
evidence does not allow of a sufficiently clear and detailed answer.
Nevertheless, the few statements that say anything about this matter
point to a lifelong duration, or at least to a long period of marriage.
At any rate the view often expressed that the primitive pairing family
is a highly unstable unit, formed and dissolved very frequently,
according to the whim of the moment, without any serious obligation
for a longer duration of the common life--this view appears absolutely
denied by the Australian evidences. It is impossible to find a direct
answer in the evidence to the question whether the general rule was
duration for life, or whether, after the wife became useless both
sexually and economically, she was repudiated. But our short discussion
pointed rather to the first view. Moreover, if marriage were not a
serious matter and if it were possible to form and dissolve it without
further ado, all its features set forth in this chapter (legality,
actual obligations, purchase, etc.) would be absolutely unnecessary; in
fact they would be quite unintelligible. In such a low society as the
Australian especially, when an institution (here individual marriage)
shows so many aspects, even in a rudimentary state, it proves that
this institution has a very firm basis. As the act that brought about
marriage was usually one of importance and subject to many conditions,
so also an attempt to dissolve it was grave in itself and in its
consequences.
Now let us summarize our results in a few words. Marriage was brought
about as a rule in the form of infant betrothal, which was binding on
both parties; it was accompanied by the exchange of relatives; always
there were certain mutual obligations. In cases when a man secured a
wife without her family's approval (but usually with her own consent),
this act was considered a trespass, both in the cases of a girl and of
a married woman. The couple was pursued, and unless the elopement was
in some way expiated and legalized, both were punished. The idea of
legality may be safely applied to Australian marriage in all its forms.
For in all there was the necessity of a previous or subsequent sanction
of society, and if this were absent society used actually to interfere
with the union. The idea of the individuality of marriage was also
quite clear to the aboriginal mind and expressed itself in many of the
facts connected with the marriage contract. It may be added that it was
only in marriage by elopement that the man and woman had a free choice.
In all the normal cases neither of them had any voice in the matter at
the time of actual marriage.