SEXUAL ASPECT OF MARRIAGE
The next point in our investigation is the sexual aspect of the
Australian marriage. Unfortunately it will not be much easier to draw
a decisive inference from the evidence in this case than it was in the
foregoing one. There is perhaps less patent contradiction between the
statements; and we are able here to reduce many of the incongruities to
geographical differences. But the whole question is very complicated
by the fact that the sexual features of marital life in Australia have
caused much discussion in connection with the hypothesis of primitive
promiscuity and group marriage. They have been very often interpreted
according to this hypothesis. Different customs have been pointed out
as unmistakable survivals of previous states of marital communism or
group marriage. Group marriage has even been said to be in actual
existence amongst some tribes.
In accordance with our opening statement, polemics will be strictly
avoided here, particularly in reference to questions of prehistory;
and, therefore, we need not concern ourselves with the problem whether
certain facts point to the previous existence of group marriage
or promiscuity; nor with the problem whether certain features are
survivals of a similar state of things.[230] Highly objectionable
from our point of view, however, is the fact that our best informants
(especially Howitt and Spencer and Gillen) describe the facts of sexual
life of to-day in terms of their hypothetical assumptions. To gain,
therefore, a clear picture of the actual state of things we shall have
to disintegrate all that is hypothetic in the statements from the
actual facts.
[230] The solution of this problem would, in the first
place, require a revision of the concept of _survival_, in
order to avoid arbitrariness when classifying one custom
as a survival, another as an innovation. I venture to
say such classifications have been made too carelessly.
I think it will be clear from the whole of this book,
that the individual family should not be considered as a
mere innovation, and that, accordingly, there is hardly
any justification for treating the customs in question as
survivals. But this is only by way of parenthesis; these
problems lie outside our task. They must be treated on a
broader basis than that of the Australian ethnographic area
only.
That is the first reason why it will be necessary to submit here
and there the statements to some discussion. But there is another
reason. Being concerned with the problem of the individual family and
individual relationship, we must keep in mind that although the sexual
aspect of family life is very important, nevertheless, it is only
one side of the picture, and that to outline this picture correctly,
we may not exaggerate one side of it. Now, by a quite illegitimate
silent assumption, the sexual features are often treated as the most
important--in some cases as the exclusive factors of marriage. But
marriage, as we saw and shall have the opportunity to see still more
clearly, is rooted in all the manifold facts that constitute the
family life: mode of living, economics of the household, and above all
the relation of the parents to their children. Unless it is proved,
therefore, that the unity of family life and the individuality of the
family break down on all these points, no general inference as to
group marriage can be drawn from the mere facts of sexual communism.
In other words, sexual licence is nothing like group marriage. How far
we have the right to infer the _actual_ existence of group marriage
(_ergo_ group family) from sexual facts in Australia, must therefore
be discussed now, while we are concerned with the sexual aspect of the
Australian family.
I wish to make it quite clear that any discussion upon our evidence
will be carried out merely with the aim of getting a clear picture
of the actual state of things. It is not our task to polemize with
the general theories as to the previous state of things, origin of
family, etc., set forth by our authors. For a criticism of Howitt's,
and Spencer and Gillen's speculations on the origin of marriage, the
reader may be referred to the excellent chapter in Mr. Thomas's work.
This criticism seems to me to leave no doubts that the general views
expounded by the ethnographers mentioned above are hardly founded on
any of the Australian facts. These views are mere hypotheses, drawn
theoretically from facts. Personal knowledge of these latter could
hardly have enabled the ethnologists to theorize more correctly on
them. From Mr. Thomas's criticism it results also, that it is no
exaggeration to say that the continual application of these hypotheses
to the actual state of things considerably obscures the clearness and
value of their evidence. It is necessary to add, nevertheless, that
Howitt especially always gives very first-rate information concerning
family life, the institution of marriage, etc.; and, according to my
view, his theories are contradicted by the excellent and admirably
rich information he himself gives on social matters. If we can seldom
agree with him as speculative sociologist, we always admire him in his
ethnographic research.
The following statements are intended to give an account of all the
features of sexual life in Australia, especially as far as they bear
upon family life. We shall, therefore, in the first place pay attention
to the way in which sexual intercourse is limited and determined by
marriage. Are the marital relations the exclusive right and privilege
of the husband? Or has he only a certain over-right, modified by some
other factors (which we must endeavour to determine). Or is there (at
least in some tribes) really a sort of group marriage (using the word
"marriage" to designate mainly the sexual side of it)? In the second
place we must also pay some attention to the more general questions of
chastity, licence before marriage, and so on. And finally, the features
of the interesting and important forms of ceremonial and regulated
licence must be traced more in detail.
_Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai "the husband expected strict
fidelity from his wife, but he did not admit any reciprocal
obligation on his part towards her."[231] ... "The expected
fidelity towards the husband was enforced by severe penalties.
In cases of elopement her life was in his hands.... Each man not
only expected his wife to be faithful to himself, but he, on his
part, never lent her to a friend or to a guest."[232] In another
place,[233] Howitt says, about the same tribe, that sometimes wives
were exchanged "by order of the old men" to avert some impending
danger to the tribe. We see that with these rare exceptions, the
husband had quite exclusive sexual rights over a woman. Even the
general practice of wife-lending seems to have been entirely
absent. Now, as Howitt is a strong adherent of the theory of group
marriage, we may accept his statements asserting individuality of
"marriage" as especially trustworthy.
[231] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 205.
[232] _Ibid._, p. 202, Latin footnote; p. 205.
[233] _Smith. Rep._, 1883, p. 810.
Amongst the Murring[234] "the only occurrence of licence is when a
visitor from a distance is provided with a temporary wife by the
hosts.... In cases of elopement, when the woman is captured, she
becomes for a time the common property of the pursuers. With these
exceptions, marriage seems to me strictly individual."[235] (We see
that here again Howitt speaks of individual marriage where there
are only, in fact, individual sexual rights.) The only exceptions
were here, wife-lending to visitors and the characteristic form of
punishment.
[234] _Ibid._
[235] As Howitt uses the term "marriage" to denote only
its sexual side, we must understand that sexual rights are
strictly individual.
Curr says:[236] "Amongst Australians there is no community of
women. The husband is the absolute owner of his wife (or wives)."
He is very jealous and "usually assumes that his wife has been
unfaithful to him, whenever there has been an opportunity for
criminality; hence the laws with respect to women are very
stringent." A woman is completely isolated.[237] The husband will,
nevertheless, often "prostitute his wife to his brothers" or
visitors.[238] Here we see the same: the man can dispose of his
wife (the term prostitute is here probably used rather in rhetoric
sense, for it does not seem that the man would receive any direct
contribution for wife-lending); but he is very jealous in all cases
where anything might happen behind his back.
[236] _A.R._, i. p. 109. This may be considered as
trustworthy only in reference to the North Victorian
tribes, especially the Bangerang, whom Curr had under
personal observation.
[237] See below, Chap. V.
[238] _A.R._, i. p. 110.
On the West Victorian aborigines Dawson writes[239] that
illegitimate children were rare, and the mother was severely
beaten, sometimes even put to death, by the relatives. "The father
of the child is also punished with the greatest severity and
occasionally killed." The woman's relatives do not even accept his
presents as expiation. "Exchange[240] of wives is permitted only
after the death of their parents and, of course, with the consent
of the chiefs, but is not allowed if either of the women has
children." What is said about illegitimate children, would point
to sexual morality before marriage. But we can hardly conceive how
in a society, where females are handed over to their husbands,
often before, and at the latest at reaching puberty, there could be
illegitimate children at all. The whole statement is not clear.
[239] _Loc. cit._, p. 28.
[240] He doesn't say if temporary or permanent exchange.
Probably the first, as he speaks below of divorce.
Beveridge[241] says of the aborigines of Victoria and Riverina:
"Chastity is quite unknown amongst them." "In their sexual
intercourse ... they are not in the least bit particular,
consequently incest of every grade is continually being
perpetrated."[242]
[241] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.
[242] This assertion of incest is quite in contradiction
with all we know about Australians and undoubtedly false;
it may be true in the case of quite "civilized" blacks,
perhaps. I quote it as an instance of how, from one
statement only, one might draw absolutely false conclusions.
"Among the Wotjobaluk it was not usual for men to have more than
one wife, and they were very strict in requiring fidelity from
her, and did not lend a wife to a friend or to a visitor from a
distance." Death was the punishment for both the wife and her
accomplice in case of adultery.[243] According to this statement
not only fidelity is required in this tribe, but even chastity is
known as a virtue. This seems rather exaggerated, and as it is
given only by a correspondent of Howitt, we shall not attach to
it too much weight. Nevertheless, this, in agreement with all our
other statements on Victoria, shows that the standard of sexual
morality could not be very low there, as we might infer from the
foregoing statement.
[243] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 245.
"Marriage is not looked upon as any pledge of chastity, indeed,
no such virtue is recognized." And in a Latin footnote the
author enumerates the proofs: promiscuity of unmarried people;
wife-lending and exchange; general ceremonial licence.[244] But the
Adelaide tribes were much degenerated, and possibly some customs
relate to the Lake Eyre tribes, with whom the author was also
acquainted.
[244] Eyre, ii. p. 320, about the Lower Murray River tribes.
J. Moore Davis[245] speaks in a Latin passage of the licence at
corroborees and of the rights of access enjoyed by old men at the
initiation of the girls. The statement is not localized.
[245] Brough Smyth, ii. p. 319. This statement (and the
whole article) does not refer to any single tribe; there
are mentioned tribes from all over the continent.
Among the Narrinyeri, youths during initiation are allowed
unrestricted sexual licence.[246]
[246] Taplin, _loc. cit._, p. 18.
In the Turra tribe: "Women were bound to be faithful to their
husbands, also the husbands to their wives. Whoever was guilty of
unfaithfulness was liable to be punished by death at the hands of
the class of the offender."[247] This statement is very clear; but
if it is equally correct it reports quite an exceptional state of
things.
[247] Yorke Peninsula, Kühn, _loc. cit._, p. 286.
Schürmann writes about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Although the men
are capable of fierce jealousy, if their wives transgress unknown
to them, yet they frequently send them out to other parties, or
exchange with a friend for a night; and as for near relatives,
such as brothers, it may almost be said that they have their wives
in common."[248] But does this community of wives refer merely to
sexual matters? It is probably so, as the author mentions it in
connection with the general description of this side of aboriginal
life.
[248] _Loc. cit._, pp. 222, 223.
C. Wilhelmi writes about the same tribes: "Although the men are
apt to become passionately jealous if they detect their wives
transgressing without their consent, yet of their own accord they
offer them and send them to other men, or make an exchange for
a night with some one of their friends. Of relatives, brothers
in particular, it may be said that they possess their wives
jointly."[249] This statement and the foregoing can hardly be
looked upon as independent; for Wilhelmi knew the missionary
Schürmann personally, and had from him a good deal of his
information; the two statements are almost literally identical.
[249] Ch. Wilhelmi, p. 180.
Amongst the Yerkla Mining tribes: "A wife is bound to be faithful
to her husband." She is severely punished; if successively guilty,
killed.[250] Women are lent, but very seldom.[251]
[250] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 258.
[251] _Ibid._
A. L. P. Cameron reports some cases of sexual licence among the
Darling River tribes. They used to exchange wives "either at some
grand assembly of the tribe, or in order to avert some threatened
calamity." But the author adds, "This custom is, I think, rare at
present."[252] At any rate, we may bracket this statement with that
of Howitt, who also speaks of wife exchange, in order to avert
impending calamity.
[252] _Loc. cit._, p. 353.
Charles Wilkes writes, that jealousy is very strongly developed
among the New South Wales blacks. From it originate occasional
quarrels, and the women suffer especially from jealousy and
suspicions. There are also regulated fights and ordeals in order to
settle quarrels and enmities ensuing from sexual matters.[253]
[253] _Loc. cit._ (smaller edition), i., p. 226.
Tench mentions the sexual licence of unmarried girls among the Port
Jackson tribes.[254]
[254] _Loc. cit._, p. 199.
We read about the natives of Botany Bay, that the men were very
jealous.[255]
[255] Phillip, pp. 34, 35.
Turnbull says, that quarrels arise usually from jealousy in sexual
matters. The affair usually becomes more general and involves the
whole tribe.[256]
[256] _Loc. cit._, pp. 90, 99. Tribes of New South Wales,
probably from the neighbourhood of Sydney.
Amongst the Geawe Gal there were probably occasions on which
"promiscuous intercourse (subject to the class rules) took
place."[257]
[257] Rusden, _loc. cit._, p. 281.
Amongst the Kamilaroi "the punishment for adultery was, that when
a woman was _taramu_, that is, shifty, wanton, adulterous, the
husband complained to his kindred, who carried the matter before
the headman, and if the charge was found to be true, her punishment
was to be taken without the camp and to be handed over to all
comers for that night, and her cries were not heeded."[258] Women
were lent to friends, visitors, but with their own consent.[259]
This statement confirms again the majority of those relating to the
South-east tribes. The husband did not tolerate any trespass in
these matters; and the community intervened. On the other hand, he
had (with her consent) the right to dispose of her.
[258] C. E. Doyle in Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, pp. 207, 208.
[259] _Ibid._
Amongst the Euahlayi: "There are two codes of morals, one for men
and one for women. Old Testament morality for men, New Testament
for women."[260] This applies, probably, chiefly to sexual matters,
for we read in another place,[261] "Unchaste men were punished
terribly.... The death penalty for wantonness was enforced." Also
a girl "found guilty of frailty" is severely punished by her
relatives.[262] An "absolute wanton" is ignominiously treated,
the result being almost inevitably death.[263] This statement is
incomplete, as we are not told if adultery and wantonness are
punished only when they are perpetrated without knowledge of the
husband; in other words, we are not informed if the widespread
custom of wife-lending was absent or not among the Euahlayi.
[260] Mrs. Parker, p. 58.
[261] _Ibid._, p. 59.
[262] _Ibid._, p. 60.
[263] _Ibid._
Amongst the Dieri there was besides the regular Tippa Malku
marriage, the occasional _Pirrauru_ relation. The sexual
intercourse of the latter was confined to some festival or to
the case when the Tippa Malku husband was absent. The number
of _Pirraurus_ of each man was limited, and they were strictly
assigned to each other. There was sexual jealousy amongst the
_Pirraurus_. The husband had, apparently, the right to decline the
use of his wife to any _Pirrauru_. The _Pirrauru_ relation will
be discussed more in detail below. The custom of wife-lending is
prevalent: "continually their wives are lent for prostitution, the
husband receiving presents."[264] It may be noted, that this is the
only place where wife-lending is stated to take this form. Besides,
we are informed by Howitt that the unmarried girls and widows were
allowed a considerable amount of sexual freedom, this custom being
called _Ngura-mundu_.[265]
[264] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170. Gason in answer to Prof.
Frazer's "Questions."
[265] _Nat. Tr._, p. 187.
The Urabunna, living in the neighbourhood of the Dieri, had an
institution analogous to the _Pirrauru_ custom. Besides his _Nupa_
or individual wives, of whom he might possess one or two, who were
"specially attached to him and lived with him in his own camp,"
he could have several _Piraungarus_ to whom he had "access under
certain conditions."[266] (But we are not informed what these
conditions are; we may infer, however, that they are analogous
to those existing among the Dieri, which we know in detail: see
below.) Our authors inform us further that the _Piraungarus_ "are
to be found living grouped together."[267] We shall discuss below
this _Piraungaru_ relation more in detail.
[266] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 109.
[267] _Idem_, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 72, 73.
Amongst the Arunta nation, there are different occasions on which
men besides the husband have sexual access to the woman. There are
the customs at the "initiation" of the girls.[268] And there are
many cases in which the husband is compelled by custom to waive his
rights on behalf of some one else; such instances generally happen
in connection with ceremonial gatherings.[269] It is important to
note that on these occasions men have access to women with whom it
would be most criminal for them to have intercourse under normal
conditions; and a man may cohabit even with his mother-in-law, from
whom he is under normal conditions absolutely isolated.[270]
[268] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. iii. pp. 92-96;
and _Nor. Tr._, chap. iv., pp. 133 _sqq._ About these
ceremonies, some words were said above, pp. 42, 43, in
connection with marriage ceremonies.
[269] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 96, 97.
[270] _Ibid._, p. 97, and _Nor. Tr._, p. 137. The features
of these ceremonial licences will be discussed more in
detail below.
The ceremonies of initiation of girls in Central Australia, and
sexual promiscuity connected with them, are also mentioned by
W. H. Willshire. Women after initiation are sexually "at the mercy
of all who may get hold of them."[271] The same author mentions also
the sexual "immorality" of the natives in question.[272] This raw
statement, although inadequately formulated, corroborates Spencer
and Gillen's exact data.
[271] _Loc. cit._, p. 30.
[272] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.
Analogously in the Northern tribes there are several exceptions
from the individuality of sexual relations. The man may lend his
wife to his friends or to people whose favour he wishes to gain.
There are customs at the initiation of girls, when several men,
standing to the girl in a certain group (tribal) relationship,
have access to her. In the third place there is the sexual licence
connected with certain ceremonies, when men are obliged to cede
their wives to some of their tribesmen.[273] And we read the
description of the most horrid atrocities which men inflict as
punishments upon their unfaithful wives.[274] We read in the same
place that the charming away of women by magic was one of the
chief sources of fights and quarrels. About sexual jealousy in the
Central and Northern tribes, we read: "Now and again if a husband
thinks that his wife has been unfaithful to him, she will certainly
meet with exceedingly cruel treatment."[275]
[273] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, chap. iv. pp. 133
_sqq._
[274] _Idem_, _Nor. Tr._, p. 474.
[275] _Ibid._, p. 33.
We are informed about the existence of the practice of exchange of
wives among the Northern tribes (Port Darwin, Powell's Creek) in
the answers to Prof. Frazer's "Questions."[276]
[276] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 178.
J. D. Lang says about the aborigines of Queensland, that the
"conjugal relations are maintained with great decency." But he
mentions the custom of wife-lending.[277]
[277] _Loc. cit._, p. 237.
Amongst the Maryborough tribes, sexual licence is allowed before
marriage and there is a camp of unmarried girls.[278] Many,
however, "remain perfectly virtuous until their promised husband
fetches them."[279] Women who were wanton after their marriage "are
looked down upon as the prostitutes of the tribe, and are lent to
visitors as temporary wives."[280] Here chastity seems to be not so
strongly required. But the statement is somewhat odd as regards the
camp of unmarried girls.
[278] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 232.
[279] _Ibid._, p. 233.
[280] _Ibid._
Amongst the Kabi and Wakka tribes (Queensland, near Maryborough),
there are cases where the "seniors of the camp" have some rights
over a woman. In general none but the husband had any matrimonial
"rights over the wife, and the jealousy made him take good care she
was not interfered with, unless he was a consenting party."[281]
Here we have again the characteristic feature: the husband had
exclusive sexual rights over his wife; but he might dispose of her,
and used to do so.
[281] J. Mathew, pp. 161, 162.
Amongst the North-west Central Queensland aborigines[282] there is
a certain licence before marriage "unless they should happen to be
betrothed"; in that case the husband does not like it. "Morality in
its broadest sense is recognized a virtue." And in another place we
are informed that "if an aboriginal requires a woman temporarily,
he either borrows a wife from her husband for a night or two in
exchange for boomerangs, a shield, food, etc., or else violates the
female when unprotected, when away from the camp, out in the bush."
In the latter case, if the woman is unmarried "no one troubles
himself about the matter." If married, a quarrel would ensue if the
husband came to know anything.[283] Roth gives also an account of
the initiation ceremonies, in which females, arrived at puberty,
are ceremonially deflorated by old men. It is important to note
that the exogamous class rule is disregarded on such occasions,
when several men of forbidden degrees have access to the woman,
but blood relations are strictly excluded. A girl acquires a new
designation, corresponding to the new age grade; she becomes
marriageable and enters altogether into a new status.[284]
[282] Roth, Bull. 8, p. 7, § 3.
[283] _Idem_, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 182, § 327.
[284] _Ethnol. Stud._, pp. 174 _sqq._
Among the natives of Cape York the unmarried girls are allowed to
have free intercourse, but a female once married is required to
be absolutely faithful to her husband, and this requirement is
enforced by severe punishments.[285]
[285] Macgillivray, ii. p. 8.
Amongst the tribes of West Australia: "The crime of adultery is
punished severely--often by death."[286] Grey speaks also of
the "stern and vigilant jealousy."[287] "... the bare suspicion
of infidelity upon their part is enough to ensure to them the
most cruel and brutal treatment."[288] But he mentions also the
continuous rows and plots that issue round a beautiful woman,[289]
who knows sometimes how to evade the precautions of her husband.
Grey speaks emphatically of the "horror of incest."[290] Fidelity
seems, therefore, to be severely enforced in these tribes. Grey
says nothing about wife-lending. Chastity does not seem to have
obtained there, nevertheless.
[286] Grey, ii. p. 242.
[287] _Ibid._, p. 252; also see p. 248.
[288] _Ibid._, p. 249.
[289] _Ibid._, pp. 248, 249.
[290] _Ibid._, p. 242.
We read in Oldfield, about the West Australian tribes, that there
was an "initiation" ceremony before a female was considered fit
for marriage; in it "all the males of the tribe" partook. Women
sometimes betray their husbands.[291]
[291] _Loc. cit._, p. 251. The tribes in question are those
of the Murchison district.
Mrs. D. M. Bates reports, that among the tribes of West Australia
she had under observation, there exists a "certain tribal morality"
and "bad or loose living women (according to their ideas) occupied
much the same status in a certain degree as our unfortunate sisters
do amongst us." There were even contemptuous names for women of
bad conduct.[292] Unfortunately, this statement says absolutely
nothing of what would be the most interesting thing to know, viz.
the ideas of the natives about sexual matters, in other words,
the code of the "tribal morality." Here, besides the fidelity
which was strictly required, a complete chastity is affirmed. On
the whole it seems to agree roughly with Grey's and Salvado's
statements; he also does not mention any regulated licence. As our
information on West Australia is so scanty, we can hardly decide
whether sex morality stands there much higher than in the Central
and North-eastern peoples; but as we have reason to regard both the
information of Grey and of Salvado as trustworthy and accurate, we
may assume that this difference actually existed.
[292] _Loc. cit._, p. 51.
Similarly Bishop Salvado speaks of the great jealousy of the
natives of South-west Australia and of their morality. "Le sauvage
ne pardonne jamais l'insulte faite à la pudeur des femmes qui lui
appartiennent; c'est un outrage qui se paye cher et le plus souvent
par la mort."[293] "... je n'ai jamais observé autour de nous un
seul acte tant que ce soit peu indécent ou déshonnête parmi eux ...
au contraire j'ai trouvé les mœurs louable au plus haut point."[294]
[293] _Loc. cit._, p. 279.
[294] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.
Scott Nind informs us about the natives of King George's Sound,
that "infidelity is by no means uncommon. The husband keeps a
jealous eye on his wife, and on the least excuse for suspicion she
is severely punished."[295]
[295] _Loc. cit._, p. 39.
In reviewing this material, the first thing to be noted is a
considerable geographical variety of custom and law in sexual matters.
There are clear and radical differences between the South-eastern
tribes, the South Central, North Central, and Northern Queensland
tribes. The views on sexual morality apparently differ as much as the
actual practices. Whereas in Victoria, South-eastern New South Wales,
and the Southern territory of South Australia there are no traces of
regulated licence, or at least not in a very conspicuous form--in
the South Central tribes the features of _Pirrauru_ relations; in
the Central and North Central different forms of ceremonial licence
are highly developed, and play an important part in tribal life. In
Queensland there does not seem to exist such a very strict sexual
morality, as far as we can gather from our statements. Our five
statements from West Australia do not give a very clear picture.
Undoubtedly these geographical differences, as here indicated, must
be conceived as merely rough approximations. There are too many
contradictions between the statements concerning the South-eastern
area; the data as to Queensland and West Australia are too few and
vague to allow anything beyond mere generalities. But broadly, as is
indicated above, these local differences undoubtedly exist.
Besides the data contained in the statements there is, to confirm
this view, the opinion of A. W. Howitt. In his article on the tribal
and social organization in Australia, this writer directly points out
the radical differences existing between the South Central and the
South-eastern tribes in sexual matters; and as he knew from personal
acquaintance or from reliable informants the whole area, we may
consider this geographical difference as thoroughly established.[296]
[296] See _Smith. Rep._ for 1883, pp. 804 _sqq._ Chap. iv.
on "Marital groups," p. 810, and _Trans. R.S.V._, pp. 115
_sqq._
Let us now draw some general conclusions from the evidence. The points
selected at the outset for special attention were: first, the problem
of the rights, privileges, and restrictions of the husband in sexual
matters; second, the question how is chastity in general, considered
and valued? third, a survey of the cases of ceremonial or regulated
licence.
1. The first question may be broadly answered by saying that the
husband had in general a definite sexual "over-right" over his wife,
which secured to him the privilege of disposing of his wife, or at
least of exercising a certain control over her conduct in sexual
matters. In some cases this over-right amounted to quite an exclusive
right, which even in some exceptional tribes was never waived. We read
of cases where the husband was not only never compelled by custom,
or any other social force, to dispose of his wife, but apparently
never did it on his own impulse. In these cases we may say that the
absolute faithfulness of a married woman was enforced, and that her
chastity was recognized as a virtue. (Wotjobaluk, Turra, and the
South-western tribes according to Salvado.) Besides there are several
other statements, from which it appears that the sexual rights of the
husband were nearly exclusive, and that he was not inclined to waive
these rights in order to derive therefrom any personal profit. So among
the Kurnai there was no wife-lending nor any other similar custom,
and wives were exchanged only in quite exceptional cases in order to
avert impending evil. The same is asserted in Cameron's statement.
Among the Yerkla Mining women are but seldom lent. Mrs. Parker writes
that wantonness was considered a crime among the Euahlayi, and nearly
the same has been said by Mrs. Bates about the West Australians. Roth
speaks of morality in a broad sense. Grey and Macgillivray write that
women were expected to be strictly faithful to their husbands. But in
these two last cases we do not know whether lending or exchange of
wives was entirely absent, or is only not mentioned by the authors.
All the statements which affirm strict and vigilant jealousy, without
further analysis, leave the question open as to whether the husband
ever allowed adultery to his wife, or whether he punished it only when
perpetrated without his consent. But interpreting these statements
according to the other more detailed ones, it may be said that in
general, such exclusiveness of marital rights and appreciation of
chastity seem rather to be an exception; and some caution must be used
in accepting the above-mentioned cases of absolute faithfulness and
chastity required from married women. As a rule, even where there is
not regulated licence, wife lending and exchange, hospitality, etc.,
seem to be more or less practised.
In the majority of statements these customs are found in one form or
the other; in these cases we cannot speak of an absolute fidelity or
exclusive individual sexual right of the husband. We read in fifteen
of our thirty-eight statements of the customs of wife-lending or
exchange; and in twelve some form of sexual licence is mentioned. But
in all these cases, where the woman is given away, this is done with
the consent and generally on the initiative of her husband, who in
the majority of cases derived some benefit from the transaction.[297]
Exchange of wives obviously implies an advantage to the husbands. The
same must be assumed in the case of hospitality and wife-lending
when the courtesy of the husband presupposes a reward in one form or
another. In the case of ceremonial licence as related by Spencer and
Gillen, wife-lending is always a kind of retribution for religious
services. Payment of this nature occurs also for other services, and
may be used as bribery towards an avenging party.[298] The husband
always disposes of his wife, who is never allowed to take the first
step in this matter, and it is consequently he who benefits from her
conduct. This conduct does not seem punishable or wrong in any sense to
the native mind. Quite otherwise is it with the woman who trespasses
without the sanction of custom or without her husband's approval. In
all such cases she is considered culpable and more or less severely
punished. This is directly stated by Shürmann and Wilhelmi, and appears
in nearly all the other statements.
[297] It is to be mentioned that we find an indication in
a few statements that fidelity was binding only on the
female, the males considering themselves free from any
obligation (Howitt's statement on the Kurnai, and Mrs.
Parker's statement on the Euahlayi.) This holds good,
probably, in all the tribes.
[298] See below, page 107.
The punishment dealt out in cases of elopement was discussed above in
connection with the mode of obtaining wives. We saw that as a rule
the punishment is severe. Sometimes the kindred of the offended party
(_i. e._ the husband) help him to punish the offender; sometimes the
whole local group takes his side. Several of our statements assert
that in cases of elopement, the woman when caught becomes the common
property of all her pursuers, and that afterwards she has to undergo
severe punishment (Kurnai, Murray tribes). In some statements we read
that adultery is punished with death (Wotjobaluk, Turra, Kamilaroi,
Euahlayi, South-western tribes); in others, that the punishment for
adultery or even a suspicion of it is very cruel (Curr, Spencer and
Gillen, J. Mathew, Grey). It appears, therefore, that the husband is
very careful about maintaining his over-right over the sexual life of
his spouse. He very often has to submit to some customary practices,
and often subordinates his wife to some private aim; but he must always
give the initiative, or at least have the sexual life of his wife under
his control.
2. In the second place a word about the chastity of the unmarried women
is necessary. Here we may remark at the outset that this question seems
relatively unimportant, as we know that girls are handed over to their
promised husbands on arriving at puberty, or even before.[299] On the
other hand, it seems hardly probable that girls would have sexual
intercourse in their extreme youth (that is, before being married);
during this period, girls are continually under the control of both
parents, and especially of the mother, and as it will appear from
the statements referring to the "bachelors' camp," it is probable
that males and females are kept apart from each other before reaching
puberty.
[299] Comp. Chap. II., and Chap. VII. p. 257.
That girls had no sexual intercourse before marriage is also suggested
by the custom of "initiating" girls by the old men, which takes place
immediately before they are handed over to their husbands. From the
detailed descriptions of Spencer and Gillen and W. E. Roth it appears
that at this initiation girls are deflowered (Central, North Central
and Central Queensland tribes).[300] On the other hand, the custom of
levirate--_i. e._ of handing over the widow to the deceased's brother
or nearest relative--seems to be very widespread (compare above, page
63); so that there are hardly any marriageable and unmarried widows in
the aboriginal society. Accordingly we find but little indication of
any misconduct in the case of unmarried females, and the few instances
we meet with are so little detailed that they do not throw much light
upon this question; it is especially uncertain whether they are
exceptional innovations, or whether they have any more serious social
_raison d'être_. It is mentioned that there exists an unmarried girls'
camp with sexual licence (Maryborough tribes, see below, p. 266). Roth
mentions that unmarried girls are free in their conduct as long as they
are not promised in marriage. We read of a similar freedom in the
Dieri tribe, as also in the statements of Tench and Macgillivray. The
most important form of licence before marriage seems to be, therefore,
the practice of initiation just mentioned.
[300] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. iii., and _Nor.
Tr._, chap. iv. Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 174, § 305.
Speaking now of chastity in general, and summing up both what was said
under the first and the second heading, it may be affirmed that it is
not considered in the light of a necessary virtue. Before marriage
the girl has to submit to a general sexual intercourse, and after it
the woman becomes on many occasions the property of another man. This
refers more especially to the tribes described by Spencer and Gillen
and Roth. It was said at the outset that a much stricter morality seems
to have prevailed in the South-eastern tribes, although there, too,
we read of sexual licence (during initiation among the Narrinyeri,
and in general, according to Beveridge and Moore Davis). But as it
was there possibly much more rarely practised--we are informed by our
very best source, Howitt, about several tribes, that they knew and
practised chastity (Kurnai, Turra, Wotjobaluk, etc.)--we may keep to
the geographical distinction.
3. Let us in the third place speak more in detail about customary
and ceremonial licence, as it merits for many reasons our special
attention. Here belong, besides the ceremonial defloration of girls by
old men (just spoken of), the different forms of licence practised at
large tribal gatherings, and especially the _Pirrauru_ relationship,
found in several of the South Central tribes.
Besides the exact and detailed data about ceremonial (or ritual)
defloration that are given by Spencer and Gillen and Roth, these
ceremonies are mentioned also by Willshire, Beveridge, Moore Davis,
Mathew, and Oldfield. But the short notes of those latter authors
are hardly sufficient to allow any further discussion; they may be
considered as a confirmation of the more exact evidence, but the
latter, and especially Spencer and Gillen's data, must serve as
material for all analyses. These ceremonies, on the one hand, seem to
correspond to the initiation ceremonies of the males. It is only in
this light that they are represented by Roth, who does not mention any
close connection between these ceremonies and marriage, but represents
them as the condition of marriageability. The said ceremonies possess,
as a matter of fact, many points of analogy with the male initiation
ceremonies. They are performed on arrival at puberty; Roth states
that the girl then acquires a new name and new status. The operation
performed then upon the initiated is also to some extent analogous
in both cases.[301] On the other hand Spencer and Gillen represent
these ceremonies as directly connected with marriage. What the
underlying ideas in this connection are, it is difficult to say. It
has been suggested that such ceremonies express a kind of expiation
for marriage.[302] But as this idea is not directly embodied in this
institution, and as it is not necessarily a condition of its existence,
and, moreover, as it has not been directly affirmed by the natives, it
may be treated merely as an assumption.
[301] See Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 133,
where this is explicitly mentioned. The names of both
ceremonies in the Arunta seem to indicate this analogy;
_atna--ariltha--kuma_ and _pura--ariltha--kuma_ (for their
meaning see the place just quoted).
[302] _Idem_, p. 96, apply this concept, due to Lord
Avebury, to this special case.
A very important and striking feature of ceremonial licence in general,
is that the sexual intercourse, which takes place on that occasion,
is not subject to class rules. We are indebted to Messrs. Spencer and
Gillen for a very minute account of customary licence, which takes
place as a rule during corroborees and other ceremonies. "In the
Eastern and North-eastern parts of the Arunta, and in the Kaitish,
Iliaura and Warramunga tribes, considerable licence is allowed on
certain occasions, when a large number of men and women are gathered
together to perform certain corroborees. When an important one of
these is held, it occupies perhaps ten days or a fortnight, and during
that time the men, and especially the elder ones, but by no means
exclusively these, spend the day in camp preparing decorations to be
used during the evening. Every day two or three women are told off
to attend at the corroboree ground, and with the exception of men who
stand in the relation to them of actual father, brother, or sons, they
are, for the time being, common property to all the men present on the
corroboree ground."[303] On all such occasions the class rules are
disregarded, they are even broken, so to say, in the most radical way:
a man may have, in connection with certain performances, access to his
mother-in-law, who under normal conditions is most strictly tabooed
to him.[304] And again, in the Warramunga tribe an example is quoted
when a tribal father has access to his tribal daughter on ceremonial
occasions.[305] This example refers to a case where the woman was
offered by her husband as a kind of retribution for some services
rendered in performance of ceremonial functions. In the same tribe
there are other occasions (in connection with burial) on which a man is
bound by custom to offer his wife to a man who was useful to him.[306]
The class rule is disregarded in such cases, too. This holds good also
in the case when a man receives this form of reward for having been
useful to the community as a messenger.[307] When an armed avenging
party is sent to carry out a sentence on some other local group, the
latter may attempt to bribe the members of the avenging party by
offering them some women. If these are accepted, the sentence is not
carried out, and the avenging party returns peacefully home. Sexual
intercourse under this condition is also not subject to the class
rule.[308] It may be said, therefore, that on all occasions[309] when
ceremonial licence takes place, the strict class exogamy does not hold
good; whereas incest, as regards blood relationship, is always strictly
forbidden. This refers both to the initiation rites and to ceremonial
licence in the tribes described by Roth and by Spencer and Gillen.
[303] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 96, 97.
[304] See _ibid._, pp. 96-99 (for the Arunta tribe).
[305] _Nor. Tr._, p. 138.
[306] _Ibid._, p. 139.
[307] _Ibid._
[308] _Ibid._, p. 140.
[309] The _Pirrauru_ custom excepted.
In this place a somewhat extensive digression concerning the _Pirrauru_
custom must be made. This question plays such an important part in
all speculations about a former state of group marriage, and it is
undoubtedly such an interesting fact by itself, that it would be
impossible not to give here an account at least of its most essential
features. The custom in question consists in the fact, that in certain
of the South-east Central tribes a man and a woman are put into a
relationship which involves occasional sexual connection and some
other mutual rights and obligations, to be discussed in detail below.
This custom is found in the tribes living North, South and East of
the Lake Eyre, the Urabunna, the Dieri, Yantruwunta,[310] and other
kindred tribes. We know the most about the Dieri, whom Howitt chooses
and represents as a typical example of all these tribes, and whose
_Pirrauru_ practices in his opinion differ only slightly from those of
the neighbouring tribes. This is important, for our knowledge about the
Dieri practices is much more ample than in the case of any other tribe;
and it does not agree in all particulars with what we are told about
the Urabunna by Spencer and Gillen.[311] We shall, therefore, rely in
the first place upon the information given about the Dieri by Howitt,
Gason, and Siebert, and in our general view of the _Pirrauru_ we shall
be guided by this information.
[310] For a detailed enumeration and description of all
tribes among whom practices of the _Pirrauru_ type exist,
see Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. pp. 31-34. In this article, which
is nearly exactly reproduced in Howitt's last work (_Nat.
Tr._), we possess, undoubtedly, the best information about
the _Pirrauru_ custom. In another place (_Folk-Lore_,
xviii. p. 184), Howitt assigns a still wider area to the
_Pirrauru_ practice. "Altogether, Dr. Howitt reckons that
the tribes which practised a form of group marriage like
the _Pirrauru_ of the Dieri must have occupied an area of
some 500,000 square miles, extending for a distance of
850 miles from Oodnadatta, the northern boundary of the
Urabunna, to the eastern frontier of the Dieri, or of the
Mardala tribe between the Flinders Range and the Barrier
Range."--Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 371.
[311] We have reasons to doubt whether these authors were
as well informed about the Urabunna tribe as about the
Arunta nation. Anyhow, the information they give about the
_Piraungaru_ custom is much inferior as well in respect of
quantity as quality (the inconsistency of their statement
is shown above) than that about the Arunta, and the
conclusions they draw therefrom are not quite in accord
with the facts as they relate them (see below, p. 118).
It is first to be noted that the custom in question exists side by
side with individual marriage. We find this expressly stated in three
places by Howitt.[312] But besides these merely verbal assertions of
authorities, we have much better proofs of the assertion in the facts
related by them concerning the _Pirrauru_ customs. From these facts it
clearly appears that individual marriage existed quite independently of
the _Pirrauru_ relation, and that it was even only slightly affected
by this relation. We shall enumerate the most important features of
the _Pirrauru_ custom of which we are informed, occasionally remarking
under each heading what is the difference between marriage and the
_Pirrauru_ relation. It will appear that many of the factors that
constitute marriage are completely absent in that relation, and that
others play in each quite a different rôle.
[312] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 53, _Smith. Rep._, p. 807, _Trans.
R.S.V._, p. 100. In _J.A.I._, xx. p. 53, Howitt says that
among all these tribes there are two forms of marriage.
"There is a marriage ... which may be spoken of as
'individual marriage.'" "There is also a marital relation
existing between a man and a number of women, or between
a woman and number of men. This latter connection may be
spoken of as group marriage." We see that Howitt uses here
the word "marriage" only to design the individual union,
and speaking about the _Pirrauru_, correctly employs the
words "marital relations." This sounds quite differently
from the repeated denial that the "individual marriage does
not exist in the tribes" made by Spencer and Gillen (_Nat.
Tr._, pp. 63, 109; _Nor. Tr._, p. 140). And again Howitt
says (_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115), "Individual marriage in
Australian tribes has been evident to every one, but beside
it exist also group marriages."
1. In the first place, let us ask how was the _Pirrauru_ relation
brought about. We are informed that on the occasion of large tribal
gatherings such as corroborees, invitation gatherings, etc., when the
whole tribe was present, the old men and the heads of the totems,
assembled in camp council, decide which men and women should be
allotted to each other. The result of this decision is then publicly
announced.[313] Now we know[314] that the individual or Tippa Malku
marriage is brought about in quite a different way: the girl is
promised as an infant to her future husband. Such an infant betrothal
is usually accompanied by exchange of females; and the decision lies in
the hands of the girl's family (her mother's brother). We see that the
mode of obtaining the individual Tippa Malku wife is quite different
from the way in which the _Pirrauru_ relationship is established; and
we see also that the latter does not show any of the characteristics
which enforce and express the individual character of marriage.
[313] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56. _Smith. Rep._, p. 807.
[314] See above, p. 41.
Undoubtedly it has its legal aspect, for it rests on the authority of
the camp council of old men, which seems to be the only form of tribal
authority known in these tribes. The old men seem also to keep an eye
on the _Pirrauru_ connections in their subsequent course (see below
under 5). These relations, therefore, bear, thanks to this sanction of
the tribal elders, the character of validity and legality, and are to
a certain degree compulsory. (How far they are compulsory in the case
of the husband of the allotted woman, see below under 6); but they
involve neither the mutual obligation of two families, nor a period of
long engagement, nor any factors expressing collective ideas of the
individuality of mutual appropriation of a man and a woman.[315]
[315] Collective ideas which closely correspond to our
ideas of monogamy, of monopolization of the marital
rights and relationship in the widest sense of the word;
special stress being laid on the point, that by the word
"marital" relations I do not mean sexual relations, either
exclusively or even in the first place.
There are still two points connected with this heading which emphasize
the difference between the individual marriage and the _Pirrauru_
relation,[316] namely that individual marriage must precede _Pirrauru_
relations; in other words, that only married women may be made
_Pirraurus_. Secondly, that although any woman may have only one Tippa
Malku husband (men may have several Tippa Malku wives), she may have
several _Pirraurus_. This very point induced many writers to consider
the _Pirrauru_ as a form of group marriage.[317] That this relation
bears a group-character is beyond doubt. That it must be clearly
distinguished from marriage is just what we try to show here.[318]
[316] Points to which attention was drawn by Mr. N. W. Thomas,
_loc. cit._, p. 129.
[317] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 187. _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.
Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 73; _Nat. Tr._, p. 64.
Howitt, _Smith. Rep._, p. 197.
[318] The same was argued from a different point of view by
Mr. N. W. Thomas, _loc. cit._, pp. 127 _sqq._
2. Another interesting point about the _Pirrauru_, is that no consent
of the parties is asked.[319] But this appears, according to other
data, to hold strictly good only as far as the woman is concerned.
For we are told[320] in another place that a woman's wishes are not
taken into account unless through the mediation of her husband. Hence
it seems that on one side a man's wishes may be taken into account,
and on the other side a man may even dispose of his own wife. This
points to the fact that a husband's consent or mediation when his
wife is concerned may be of some weight. The same conclusion results
from the fact (already noticed by Mr. Thomas in this connection) that
two men may eventually exchange their wives in connection with the
_Pirrauru_ custom.[321] All this appears quite plausible if we bear
in mind that[322] the old men keep the greatest number of females for
themselves--at least all the most comely ones. And that these very
men have afterwards the right of disposing of their wives. They will,
on the one hand, exchange some of the females with each other; on the
other hand, they will allot perhaps some of their wives to one or
another of the young men living in celibacy. In fact, we read that very
often old and renowned warriors give their wives to some youngster,
who regards it as a great honour.[323] In conclusion it appears
probable that the man had a voice in the choice of his _Pirrauru_ or
had not, according to his personal influence. As to the woman, it was
her husband's part to decide, or at least to influence the opinion of
the camp council. But statements are not clear on this point, and we
are left here to a great extent to our own conjectures.
[319] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.
[320] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 181, 187.
[321] _Ibid._, pp. 181, 182, 187.
[322] See below, pp. 255 _sqq._
[323] Howitt says, explicitly (_Nat. Tr._, p. 184), that
"the leading men in the tribe have usually more Tippa Malku
and _Pirrauru_ wives than other men." The Pinnaru, Jalina
Piramurana had over a dozen wives, and to get one of them
as _Pirrauru_ was a great honour for a man.
3. From the foregoing, it results that the husband still retains
some over-right and control over his wife. And that is a very
important point. For in the light of this fact, the waiving of sexual
privileges connected with the _Pirrauru_ custom does not appear to
encroach any more on the husband's right to his wife than the custom
of wife-exchange or wife-lending. This fact of the necessity of the
husband's consent is confirmed by Howitt's explicit statement. We
read[324] that a man has right of access to his _Pirrauru_ only during
the absence of her husband or, if the latter were present in camp, only
with his consent. It is evident, therefore, that the husband's rights
are by no means annihilated or superseded by the _Pirrauru's_ rights.
He waives his rights voluntarily, and his consent is essential.
[324] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56; _Nat. Tr._, p. 184; _Smith.
Rep._, p. 807, under 5.
4. Another point of importance is that this relationship does not
constitute a permanent status, and that it may be actualized only at
intervals. In the first place, the sexual licence involved in this
custom is exercised during the tribal gathering, for the night in which
the assignation of _Pirraurus_ took place; the licence lasts for about
four hours.[325] This relation is probably renewed during some of the
next gatherings; during the husband's absence; when a man is sent on an
embassy with his _Pirraurus_; in some cases where the husband gives
his consent. But although none of our sources say so expressly, we may
safely deny the assertion that the _Pirrauru_ relation had a permanent
status. For, if it were actually valid and exercised permanently,
we would not be informed, as we are, as to the special occasions on
which it takes place, and of the conditions under which it may be
exercised. Again, if the _Pirrauru_ involved a permanent status or,
more explicitly, if groups of men and women who are _Pirraurus_ to
each other respectively, normally and permanently live in marital
relations, no one of our authorities, who plead so strongly for the
character of group marriage in the relation in question, would omit
to emphasize such an important feature, which would support their
views in the highest degree. For this is a crucial question indeed:
if the _Pirrauru_ right entitles, in the first place, only to a short
licence and establishes permanently merely a facultative right, then,
even in its sexual aspect, it does not approach the rights established
by Tippa Malku marriage in these tribes. And, although the evidence
on this point is not quite decisive, we are, as we saw, entitled to
suppose that the sexual licence connected with the _Pirrauru_ is only
an occasional one.
[325] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 56.
Besides the facts and reasons enumerated above, I may adduce a very
important passage from Howitt's last work, which may be considered the
ultimate opinion of this eminent ethnographer concerning the problem of
group marriage in Australia--a hypothesis of which he always has been a
most ardent supporter. "A study of the evidence which has been detailed
in the last chapter has led me to the conclusion that the state of
society among the early Australians was that of an Undivided Commune.
Taking this as a postulate, the influence on marriage and descent of
the class division, the sub-classes and the totems may be considered
on the assumption that there was once an Undivided Commune. It is,
however, well to guard this expression. I do not desire to imply
necessarily the existence of complete and continuous communism between
the sexes. The character of the country, the necessity of moving from
one spot to another in search of game and vegetable food, would cause
any Undivided Commune, when it assumed dimensions greater than the
immediate locality could provide with food, to break up into two or
more communes of the same character. In addition to this it is clear,
after a long acquaintance with the Australian savage, that in the past,
as now, individual likes and dislikes must have existed; so that,
admitting the existence of common rights between the members of the
Commune, these rights would remain in abeyance, so far as the separated
parts of the Commune were concerned. But at certain gatherings, such as
Bunya-bunya harvest in Queensland, or on great ceremonial occasions,
all the segments of the original community would reunite. In short,
so far as the evidence goes at present, I think that the probable
condition of the Undivided Commune may be considered to be represented
by what occurs on certain occasions when the modified Communes of the
Lake Eyre tribes reunite."[326]
[326] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 173, 174, beginning of chap. v.
This shows that after a long and mature consideration of the problems
in question, Howitt came to the conclusion that "group marriage" never
could have existed as a permanent status, and that it could have been
established only in connection with large tribal gatherings. In such a
light the hypothesis of former or even actual "group marriage" becomes
very plausible, or rather it ceases to be a hypothesis and it becomes
one of the best established facts of the Australian ethnology.
But at the same time, although we may accord the term "group marriage"
(if any one wishes at any price to retain it), we must note that such
a state of things is radically different from marriage in the usual
sense of the word, and in particular from marriage as found in actual
existence in the Australian aboriginal society, and described in this
study. It will be sufficient to point out that such an occasional
sexual licence lasting several hours during an initiation gathering
could not create any bonds of family, such as may result from community
of daily life and community of interests, common inhabiting of the same
dwelling, common eating, especially common rearing of children--all
factors which, as will be shown below, act only in the individual
family and tend to make out of the individual family a well-established
and well-defined unit.
We must adduce one fact which stands in opposition to what is just
said. I mean the statement of Spencer and Gillen, that amongst the
Urabunna the Piraungarus are "generally found living grouped together."
This statement might possibly point first to a permanent state of
marital relations, secondly to a common mode of living. Now it may be
remarked that such an offhand statement on such a crucial point shows
undoubtedly that the authors were insufficiently informed themselves on
this point, and that, therefore, we must accept this statement with the
utmost caution.[327]
[327] Compare above, p. 108, note 2.
The problem of the mode of living of the _Pirrauru_ groups involves two
questions--first, what persons constituted the local group (temporary
or permanent); and second, how the members of a _Pirrauru_ group lived
within it. The statement of Spencer and Gillen may mean that a group
of _Pirraurus_ constituted a given temporary local group. But within
this group husband and wife must have formed a distinct unit. Now as to
the question of how far such a grouping of _Pirraurus_ (if we accept
the above statement as correct) would imply a permanent marital status
between the _Pirraurus_, it is impossible to answer. On this point,
too, the information about the Urabunna is vague and defective, and
it is safer to base our conclusions on the more explicit and reliable
material given by Howitt in the case of the Dieri.
5. Did the _Pirrauru_ union last for the whole life, or could it be
dissolved? In one place we read that the relation in question lasts for
life; in another place we are told[328] that the old men watch over
the _Pirraurus_ in order that there may result no trouble from mutual
jealousy; and if a man has too many _Pirraurus_ they compel or advise
him to limit himself to one or two. No answer can be given, therefore,
to this question.
[328] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 182.
6. We mentioned above that if the _Pirrauru_ relation, according to
Howitt's supposition there quoted, only involved sexual licence during
big tribal gatherings, this relation would be absolutely deprived of
any of the characters that are the chief constituents of marriage
and family. But here we must indicate that such an assumption is not
quite justifiable. In fact, in some of the facts related about the
_Pirraurus_, there are hints pointing to the existence of economic
bonds and of community in daily life between _Pirraurus_. We read[329]
that if in the absence of her husband a woman lives with one or two
of her _Pirraurus_, she occupies with them one hut and shares with
them the food. Therefore, in the absence of her husband, a _Pirrauru_
actually took his place, and in this case the _Pirrauru_ relationship
is not merely a sexual connection, but it assumes the real form of
marriage. In another place[330] we read that a man possessing several
_Pirraurus_ may lend one of them to some one who is deprived of this
advantage. Thus it seems that the _Pirraurus_ acquire a kind of real
right over their _Pirrauru_ wives; and that it goes as far as the
faculty of disposing of them. And again we are informed that if a woman
has a young man for a _Pirrauru_ she is often jealous of him and looks
strictly after him, and if he does not obey her readily enough, tries
even to compel him by punishment.[331] All these instances, which could
perhaps be further multiplied, show that under certain circumstances,
which we unfortunately do not know with sufficient precision, the
_Pirrauru_ relationship assumes a much more serious character than a
mere sexual licence exercised during a few hours.
[329] _Idem_, J.A.I., xx. p. 57.
[330] _Ibid._, p. 58.
[331] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 183.
7. There remains still to examine what form the relationship of
children to parents assumes in the tribes where the _Pirrauru_
relationship exists. Here we are quite well informed that the
individual relation between the children of a woman and both their
parents (their mother and her Tippa Malku husband) is fully recognized
by the aborigines. It is true that Spencer and Gillen say that there
is only a "closer tie" between the married couple and their children,
and that the children acknowledge the _Pirraurus_ of their parents
as parents.[332] But this statement is very unsatisfactory; such a
complicated question cannot be answered by a short phrase; for we are
by no means aware what the words "closer tie" mean. As unsatisfactory
is Howitt's remark, that owing to the promiscuous sexual intercourse,
no woman can know if the children are the offspring of her husband or
of the _Pirraurus_, and, therefore, the children must be considered
as possessing group fathers and not individual fathers.[333] Apart
from the objection that this applies merely to paternity and not to
motherhood, which would remain at any rate individual, we must point to
our subsequent investigations, which will show that the physiological
question of actual procreation does not play a very important part in
the determination of relationship. Probably it does not play in these
tribes any part at all, as they (at least the Urabunna) seem not to
have any knowledge of the actual physiological process of procreation.
So we see that although both Howitt and Spencer and Gillen try to prove
the existence of group relationship between the _Pirraurus_ and their
children, their conclusions appear to be ill founded in facts, and to
be rather the fruits of speculation than of observation. Our suspicions
are strengthened by the unsophisticated remark of Gason, to which we
must ascribe much weight, as he knows the Dieri tribe better than any
one else, and as he has no theory of his own to prove or to demolish.
He says: "The offspring of the _pirraoora_ are affectionately looked
after and recognized as if they were the natural offspring of the real
husband and wife." Although this phrase is not very happily formulated,
its meaning appears to be that the married couple recognize all the
children of the woman and treat them with kindness and affection,
without making any distinction. If, according to the views just
mentioned, the children were accepted by all the men cohabiting with
a given woman, _i. e._ by her husband and all the _Pirraurus_, the
phrase quoted above would be obviously quite meaningless; for why
should the offspring be recognized as if they were the husband's own
children in order to be treated well? It may also be pointed out that
the Dieri father is very affectionate to his children.[334] And in all
the statements referring to this subject we clearly see that it is a
question merely of the individual father and by no means of a group of
fathers.
[332] See below, p. 243.
[333] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 58.
[334] See below, pp. 195, 238 and 243.
After this survey of what appear to me to be the most important points
referring to the _Pirrauru_ custom, we see that nearly each one of them
is involved in contradictions and obscurities. To draw any general
conclusion we must proceed with the utmost care and precaution. Our
information about _Piraungaru_ of the Urabunna is nearly worthless.
And we may safely repeat with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew
more facts and knew them better than we can do from their description,
then perhaps their conclusions, drawn from these unknown facts, may be
correct; but if they draw their general conclusions only from the facts
they communicate to us, then we are justified in rejecting them.
Our chief aim in discussing the features of the _Pirrauru_ relationship
was to ascertain how far this relation possesses the character of
marriage. That it is a "group relation" is beyond doubt.[335] That it
is a form of marriage has been accepted by Howitt, Fison, and Spencer
and Gillen without much discussion.[336] Mr. Thomas has shown already
how unsatisfactory the reasons are, on the strength of which _Pirrauru_
is considered to be a form of group marriage, or even a survival of the
previous stage of group marriage. He has shown how insufficient, in the
light of an exact definition, the information is, how many essential
points we still want to know to be able to make any more conclusive
assertion. Mr. Thomas' criticism bears especially on the lack of a
strict use of the term "group marriage." He gives a correct definition
(page 128 of the work quoted) of this term, and consistently puts to
its test the views propounded by the previously mentioned writers. From
this discussion he concludes that in the _Pirrauru_ relationship we can
find neither the features of an actual group marriage nor the traces
of such a previous state of things.[337] This criticism and conclusion
appear to me so convincing and final, that I would have simply referred
to them without entering again upon this rather perplexing question,
were it not a good opportunity for pointing out again by means of this
example, that the sexual aspects of marriage and the family cannot be
discussed separately, detached from each other; and for showing how
incorrect it is to represent the sexual side of marital life as the
complete and unique content of marriage. On the contrary, marriage may
not be, as so often repeated here, detached from family life; it is
defined in all its aspects by the problems of the economic unity of the
family, of the bonds created by common life in one wurley, through the
common rearing of, and affection towards, the offspring. In the above
points I tried to show that in nearly all these respects the _Pirrauru_
relationship essentially differs from marriage and cannot, therefore,
seriously encroach upon the individual family. This will appear still
more clearly when all these points are exhaustively discussed in their
bearing upon the individual family.
[335] Compare, however, the definition given by N. W. Thomas,
_loc. cit._, p. 128, who shows also how misleading an
indiscriminate use of such terms may be.
[336] And some others. For instance, Prof. Frazer in
his new work, _loc. cit._, i. pp. 363 _sqq._, where the
theories and views of these authorities on _Pirrauru_ are
accepted without any criticism.
[337] _Loc. cit._, p. 136.
Now I would like to show that Howitt, as well as Spencer and Gillen,
based his assertions as to the group marriage character of the
_Pirrauru_ relation upon a misleading exaggeration of the importance
of the sexual side of marriage. Spencer and Gillen say that every
man has one or two individual wives or _Nupa_ "allotted to him as
wives, and to whom he has the first but not the exclusive right of
access."[338] But besides these there is the _Pirrauru_ institution in
which "a group of women actually have marital relations with a group of
men." And as a conclusion, it follows simply, that in Australia there
exists a group marriage, and that not a "pretended" one (Spencer and
Gillen criticize here Dr. Westermarck's expression), but a "real" one.
This reasoning would inspire some mistrust by its summary and laconic
character alone.[339] But it is also evident that in the passage quoted
the authors speak exclusively of the sexual side of marriage, and that
they actually mean to imply that this sexual side is everything which
requires attention, if marriage in a given case should be described.
And this is obviously false. The incorrect reasoning is repeated by the
same authors in their later work.[340] From the fact that sexual access
is open to the _Pirraurus_, and that there are no special names for
the individual parents and children (which does not seem to hold good
for the Dieri, however), the inference is drawn that group marriage
exists instead of individual marriage. Not even the conditions under
which a man has access to his _Pirrauru_ are discussed! Our discussion
(from Howitt's detailed data) has shown that even in sexual matters the
_Pirrauru_ are far behind the Tippa Malku; indeed, that there is no
comparison between the sexual rights of an individual husband and of a
_Pirrauru_.
[338] _Nat. Tr._, p. 109.
[339] Mr. Thomas has also remarked (_loc. cit._, p. 128)
that Spencer and Gillen, who speak on page 109 of the real
and not pretended group marriage among the Urabunna, say
on the next page, that in the same tribe group marriage
preceded the present state of things--and so contradict
themselves. Such a carelessness is remarkable in a work,
which in all other respects is a masterpiece; and all these
reasons induce us to suspect that the subject in question
must have been in theory as well as in facts not very
familiar to our authors.
[340] _Nor. Tr._, p. 140.
The same insufficiency of reasoning is shown by Howitt. He says in one
place[341] that there is individual as well as group marriage among the
Australian aborigines. But under the word marriage he understands the
right of sexual access. And on this ground he asserts that among the
Kurnai there existed individual marriages exclusively; and among the
Dieri there was also group marriage. It is characteristic that no one
of these writers tried to give any explicit definition of marriage; but
from what I have quoted it appears quite clearly how one-sidedly and
narrowly they conceived marriage.[342] And this conception was not only
fatal to the theories and views held by them on the question, but it
vitiated to a certain extent also the information they gave us about
these facts. For they did not try to ascertain and to inform us about
the most important particulars, which were perhaps not quite out of the
reach of their investigation.[343]
[341] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115.
[342] In order to appreciate my argument, the reader is
requested to peruse the passages referred to from the works
of Howitt, and from Spencer and Gillen, and judge from
their full text whether I am not right. The full quotations
of these passages would have encumbered the present work.
As polemics are always rather barren, I preferred to
abstain from them.
[343] This is an instance of the general truth that
descriptive ethnography is highly dependent on the
theories known and accepted by the investigator, and that
information may be useful or useless according to whether
the theoretical principles are correct or not. It is
impossible for an observer to go below the surface if he
does not discuss the phenomena and theorize on them. On
the other hand such speculations, if carried on by the
untrained faculties and unaided efforts of the writers, or
under the influence of a theoretical prepossession, may be
entirely misleading.
We have based our discussion of the _Pirrauru_ relation on a broad
conception of marriage, determined by factors of the daily life,
the household, the relation to children, etc. In our systematic and
objective description of facts relating to the _Pirrauru_ relation we
found in the first place that individual marriage exists besides the
custom in question; that it has its radically distinctive features--a
different form of betrothal or allotment of a wife to a man; an
entirely different kind of sexual rights and privileges; and, what
is perhaps the most important fact, an absolutely different aspect
of the child question, connected with the fact that only a man and
his wife form a real household, live in the same wurley, and share
their food supply together and in common with their children. All
these points constitute a real and radical difference between the
individual marriage connected with the individual family, and the
purely sexual connections involved in the _Pirrauru_ relation in its
usual form, _i. e._ when the husband is present in camp. It is only
during the latter's absence or during diplomatic missions that the
_Pirrauru_ relation assumes at all the character of marriage: then
both _Pirraurus_ occupy the same camp, the woman provides food for her
_Pirrauru_, etc. But these occasions are only temporary and exceptional
ones, and we are, unfortunately, not informed, even with the smallest
degree of approximation, how often they may on the average occur,
whether they are very rarely realized exceptions, or whether they are
facts that take place fairly often. At any rate, it is certain that
these essential features of the _Pirrauru_ relationship never take
place simultaneously with the individual marriage. In other words, the
individual marital relations are in force when the real husband is in
camp and all rights (even the sexual ones) of the _Pirraurus_ cease.
So that although the _Pirrauru_ relation, on exceptional and probably
rarely recurring occasions, assumes a few more of the characteristics
of marriage, it never becomes anything like actual marriage. And this
is to be noted, too: the full actuality of _Pirrauru_ relations may
come into force only under the condition that the husband be absent.
It is only by an incorrect and superficial exaggeration of the sexual
side of marriage, that the custom in question has been baptized group
marriage.[344] And still less acceptable is the assertion that this
"group marriage" is "the only form of marriage in existence" among the
South Central tribes.
[344] Unless we give to the word marriage a new meaning,
which would be hardly useful.
We may remark about the sexual features of social life in Australia
in general, that far from bearing any character of indiscriminate
promiscuity on the whole, they are, on the contrary, subject to
strict regulations, restrictions, and rules. Every form of licence
must be subject to customary rules. The principle of class exogamy is
maintained in the majority of cases: so the _Pirrauru_ relation is
subject to class rule, as is also wife-lending, wife-exchange, and
the rare cases of licence among unmarried girls and widows. But the
licence occurring during religious, totemic, and other ceremonies
is, as we have seen above, not subject to the class rule. Even the
most prohibited and tabooed degree--that between a man and his
mother-in-law--is violated by custom.
This fact is also noteworthy for the criticism of theories which see
both in class exogamy and in sexual licence survivals of former group
marriage. At some ceremonies of a magical and religious character
sexual licence occurs, in agreement with the principle that survivals
are always connected with religious facts. But if class exogamy is also
a survival of group marriage, why should _this_ fall in abeyance on
such occasions? For if these two principles were so deeply connected,
why should one of them (class exogamy) be entirely neglected on the
very occasion when the other (ceremonial licence) is most conspicuous?
Is that not again one of the serious difficulties in the way of the
hypothesis of a previous group marriage, a difficulty which at least
must be accounted for, and which is always completely ignored by the
authors concerned?
There is justification for saying that the notion of adultery and
the reprobation thereof is well known to the aborigines, and that
they punish and condemn unlawful unions of all kinds. As W. E. Roth
says, "morality in a broad sense" is well known to the Australian
aborigines. It could be even said that sexual morality does exist, only
according to a special code, which is obviously different from ours,
if we understand by "morality" the fact that there exists a series of
determined norms and that these norms are followed.
Closely connected with this question is the more psychological problem
of sexual jealousy. The existence of sexual jealousy, especially on
the part of the males, has been often referred to by various authors
in order to criticize the theories of primitive promiscuity and
group marriage. On the other hand, it was pointed out that motives
of jealousy are much less strong among some primitive peoples; and
many instances have been adduced to prove this assumption. So _e. g._
about the Australians, Spencer and Gillen say: "Amongst the Australian
natives with whom we have come in contact, the feeling of sexual
jealousy is not developed to anything like the extent to which it would
appear to be in many other savage tribes." ... "It is indeed a factor
which need not be taken into serious account in regard to the question
of sexual relations amongst the Central Australian tribes."[345]
[345] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 99, 100.
It seems to be beyond any doubt that sexual jealousy, as _we_ conceive
it, is completely absent from the aboriginal mind. It has always been a
serious defect in ethnological reasoning that such ideas and feelings
as those connected with our meaning of "jealousy" have usually not
been analyzed, nor the question asked whether they had any meaning and
place in a given society, or whether we must assume other corresponding
elements to give a new content to the word. Our sexual jealousy--the
ideas as well as the feelings involved therein--is moulded by
innumerable social factors; it is connected with the notion of honour;
it is the result of ideals of pure love, individual sexual rights,
sacredness of monogamy, etc. One of the strongest motives is the care
for the certainty of physiological fatherhood: paternal affection is
strongly enhanced by the idea of blood connection between a man and
his offspring. All these factors are obviously either absent or deeply
modified in the Australian aboriginal society. It is, therefore, quite
wrong to use the word jealousy and ask if it is present among them,
without trying to give to it its proper content.
In the first place, we may assume in this society, as in the whole of
mankind and in the majority of higher animals, a physiological basis
for jealousy in the form of an innate instinct;[346] a natural aversion
of an individual towards an encroachment on his sexual rights and a
natural tendency to expand these rights as far as possible--within
certain variable limits. That among the Australian aborigines such
instincts of jealousy are not absent, that they are, on the contrary,
very strongly developed, is evident from nearly all the facts quoted
and all general considerations. It is proved by the high esteem in
which in some tribes chastity is held; by the fact that fidelity is
required in all other tribes, and that it yields only to custom. The
demand for fidelity in all tribes has been discussed above. There
is a whole series of statements that emphatically affirm a very
strong feeling of jealousy; and connected with it is the fact that
the majority of fights and quarrels are about women (Curr, Dawson,
Mrs. Parker, Schürmann, Wilhelmi, Wilkes, Turnbull, Phillipps, Tench,
Spencer and Gillen). Now, that these instincts of jealousy do not
assume the delicate and refined form they possess in our society,
results merely from the difference in the corresponding collective
ideas which influence and mould the elementary instinct.
[346] This expression is perhaps inexact. But this is not
the place for psychological and biological analyses. The
reader may be referred to Dr. Westermarck's conclusion
that there is a strong instinct of sexual jealousy among
primitive races of men, both in males (_H.H.M._,
pp. 117-132) and in females (_ibid._, pp. 495-500). This
instinct is inherited from our animal ancestors (compare
Darwin, _Descent of Man_, ii. p. 395). Important for us are
the examples of female jealousy, quoted by Westermarck from
the Australian material; Narrinyeri, Taplin, p. 11; Palmer,
p. 282; Lumholtz, p. 213; Waitz Gerland, pp. 758, 781.
With our few data available we can attempt only a sketch of the
psychology of the feelings of jealousy among the aborigines. It may be
observed that although the sentiment of sexual love might be postulated
in all human hearts, it seems to be, to a certain extent, banished from
the majority of the Australian matrimonial matches by the very way in
which they were brought about.[347]
[347] Compare above, p. 83.
This must also to a great extent deprive jealousy of its violent
character. On the other hand, social opinion, which in our society
works through ideas of honour and ridicule, strengthening the feelings
of jealousy and giving to them a certain outer prestige, even in cases
when they may not be actually felt--in the Australian Aboriginal
Society uses these factors with a directly contrary effect. As a
matter of fact, in many cases, public opinion compels a man to give
his wife away; it is considered an incident of hospitality, a virtue.
In other cases it is an honourable duty, as _e. g._ in cases of wife
offering during a ceremony in order to express gratitude. We read
that in cases where a man begrudges his wife to a _Pirrauru_ he is
regarded as churlish. Obviously, these social factors act here to
modify and moderate the feeling of sexual jealousy. We find no instance
or statement which would point to a contrary influence of these
factors in the Australian aboriginal society.[348] But, as pointed
out above, the idea of individual sexual over-right and control over
his wife is strongly present in the aboriginal mind. This right is
undoubtedly realized as a privilege, and the natural tendency to keep
his privileges for himself, or dispose of them according to his wish
or interest, must create a strong opposition to any encroachment.
In other words, the sexual act has its intrinsic value, and it is
considered as an unquestionable advantage. And the right to this
advantage constitutes a kind of private property. The feeling of
jealousy exists here in its economic sense: the proprietor of a certain
object begrudges the use of it to any one whom he does not invite to
it, or who is not otherwise entitled to the privilege. And this seems
to me one of the strongest probable sources of jealousy, besides the
natural physiological impulse of aversion, mentioned above. I think it
is corroborated by the facts enumerated, which show that the husband
vigilantly watches over and keeps his over-right.
[348] Custom referring to a certain point--here _e. g._
to the question whether it is honourable or ignominious
to waive one's marital rights--stands in the relation of
correspondence to the collective ideas and collective
feelings on this point. The expression of Spencer and
Gillen that the feeling of jealousy is "subservient to
that of the influence of tribal custom" is therefore
incorrect (_Nat. Tr._, p. 99). It would be obviously quite
erroneous to assert that there is any collective feeling
which would not be subservient to the tribal custom. It
is consequently meaningless to affirm that the given
feeling here is subservient. We may, therefore, discard
also the logical conclusion at which Messrs. Spencer and
Gillen arrive from these premisses: viz. that jealousy is
a matter of no importance when dealing with the Central
Australians (_ibid._, p. 100). A certain tribal or national
custom expresses or formulates public feelings, and, on
the other hand, if there is a certain type of collective
feelings or ideas, they must have their legal or customary
forms wherein to express themselves. We should say: the
Australian customs show that there is no such collective
feeling as jealousy in our sense, which would obviously
object to such customs as theirs. The collective feelings
in Australia which correspond to our jealousy do not imply,
therefore, the idea of absolute exclusiveness; the idea of
inviolable personal access of a man to a woman does not
exist there; that is proved by the custom in question. But
outside the limits prescribed by tribal custom there is
little adultery; jealousy seems to be exceedingly strong,
and the same tribal law, which in some cases compels the
man to give up his marital rights, in other cases justifies
him in the utmost brutalities, and allows him even to
inflict death with impunity upon his wife. Owing to the
scantiness of our information we can hardly say whether
sexual jealousy is stronger or weaker in Australian than in
other societies; we can safely affirm that it is different.
In regard to the motive of jealousy as connected with the question
of progeny--the care to be sure of a man's own real paternity of
his children, we may remark that this motive must be absent in many
tribes, viz. in those tribes where the physiological rôle of the
father in procreation is not known. We know with all certainty that
this is the case in the Central and North Central tribes, as well as
in the North-east part of the continent.[349] But it appears to be
the case in the South Central tribes. It is stated that the Urabunna
have quite analogous beliefs in reincarnation of ancestors, in their
dwelling-places, and other totemic matters.[350] Spencer and Gillen do
not say anything definite about the appreciation or want of knowledge
of physiological paternity, but that is perhaps because they were
less well acquainted with the Urabunna, who were also probably in
a more advanced stage of decay. By analogy it may be inferred that
the Urabunna, like all the other neighbouring tribes, had with the
whole apparatus of analogous beliefs, also the lack of the knowledge
in question. We might infer the same about the Dieri and kindred
tribes, who seem to be almost identical in all respects with the
Urabunna, but of whose religious and totemic ideas we are by no means
so well informed as of their social organization; in fact, for these
psychological data it is undoubtedly to Spencer and Gillen that we owe
the major part of our knowledge about Australia.
[349] See below, pp. 209 _sqq._ and 226.
[350] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 146 _sqq._
Certainly the ignorance of physiological fatherhood in the South
Central tribes is of a hypothetical character. But provided it is a
fact, we see that the area occupied by tribes which believe in the
supernatural begetting of children extends over the whole Central and
North-east area. There is no evidence on this point in the case of the
Western tribes. We find only in the South-eastern tribes a knowledge of
the real process of procreation. It is interesting to note that thus
the area of greater sexual promiscuity and less pronounced jealousy is
conterminous with the area where natural paternity is unknown. Whether
there be any real dependence between these two series of facts it is
impossible to assert, as our knowledge of the natives' psychology is
too scanty. But if our information on this point be reliable, and if
these limits be correct, then the coincidence just noted is rather
suggestive.
To return to the question of jealousy, we have, after having stated
the general problems, discussed the influence exercised on it by
social pressure or custom and other psychical factors. Finally we have
shown that the sexual act is not in all tribes conceived as leading to
childbirth, and that this bears upon the problem of jealousy. But it
must be remembered that they have ideas of the sexual act which are
entirely foreign to us, and which may account also for some differences
in their views of, and feelings about, jealousy. Here come in ideas
of the magic influences and virtues attributed to the sexual act. In
Australia there are unmistakable signs of it.
The ceremonial act of defloration, in connection with the initiation
of females, is undoubtedly connected with some mystic ideas of its
magical character. This is shown especially clearly in the fact that
this ceremonial act is employed for medicinal or hygienic purposes, as
stated in Roth and in Beveridge.[351] We saw that the only instance of
the exchange of wives in the Kurnai tribe was when it was ordered by
the old men, to avert impending evil. The same is reported by Cameron
of some of the Darling River tribes. This shows clearly how feelings
of jealousy, which seem to have been fairly strong in this tribe, may
be subservient to a belief in the magical, beneficial influence of
sexual intercourse, performed in a certain prescribed way. The many
instances in which sexual intercourse, usually not between husband
and wife, takes place during certain religious ceremonies, as well as
the fact of sexual abstinence, which is often to be observed on such
occasions, shows that it has its magical side. From this conception
of the sexual act as endowed with some magic properties, there would
result differences in the ideas and feelings connected with jealousy.
On the one hand, such magic properties would require in some cases the
waiving of individual sexual rights, as we saw in some of the instances
just mentioned. And in these cases the instincts of jealousy would
be suppressed by the more powerful feelings inspired by supernatural
apprehensions. On the other hand, it is possible--although there
are no examples of it--that the very magical aspect of the sexual
act would make it especially subject to jealous watchfulness and
exclusiveness. Apart from any speculations, it appears certain that all
these different ideas and conceptions are in intimate interdependence,
and that we can only safely speak about jealousy (or any other such
compounded psychical complex) in a given society, when we know all such
connections.[352]
[351] Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, p. 174. Beveridge, p. 53,
Latin note.
[352] The idea of a radical difference in the psychological
aspect of jealousy among lower races of men is set forth by
Dr. Westermarck: "Jealousy ... is far from being the same
feeling in the mind of a savage as in that of a civilized
man."--_H.H.M._, p. 30.
To sum up our results in this survey of jealousy in the Australian
aboriginal society. _Negatively_: _A priori_ it may be said that
nothing like sexual jealousy in our sense of this word--save the broad
and uncertain physiological instinct--can exist. As a matter of fact,
a whole series of customs, duties, and tribal regulations absolutely
contradict the existence of jealousy in our sense. _Positively_:
The existence of strong instincts of jealousy in many cases must
be acknowledged. To understand the more definite forms which these
instincts assume, it is necessary to note the presence or absence of
motives which would influence, check, or develop these instincts. The
unquestionable physiological instinct of jealousy and the natural
tendency to keep up one's private exclusive rights, are two sources
from which jealousy seems to be derived. It is deeply influenced by the
ideas on the magical character of the sexual act which the Australian
aborigines undoubtedly possess; and in the majority of tribes by the
absence of the knowledge of physical paternity. The tribal customs show
that it does not amount to the idea of exclusive inviolable personal
rights which essentially characterize our conception and feelings of
jealousy. But within its narrower limits it seems to be very strong and
important.