MODE OF LIVING
I
The three points hitherto discussed refer more exclusively to the
relationship between husband and wife, and do not involve that between
parents and children. They bear more on marriage than on the family.
But, as so often repeated, the full description of marriage can be
made only in connection with, and on the basis of, a knowledge of
the family life in its larger sense. We proceed now to this more
general discussion, and in order to carry it out on broad foundations
it will be well in the first place to consider the family unit[353]
in connection with the territorial and tribal organization; that is
to consider the mode of living of the family in connection with the
higher territorial and tribal units. It has been repeatedly said that
each social unit should be discussed in connection with the general
structure of society and the general conditions of life in a given
area. When theoretically stated this appears a commonplace; in practice
it is seldom carried out by ethnologists.
[353] Under the term "family unit" I understand in this
study only the group constituted by husband, wife and their
children.
That the facts of aggregation are of the highest importance in
sociology appears also to be quite clear.[354] These facts have been
described by Mr. Wheeler for the Australian aboriginal society, and
we shall in several places refer to his work. It will serve us as a
basis in the following discussion, which nevertheless does not appear
superfluous as it is connected more exclusively with the problem of
family. In this connection the main question to be asked is: Do the
natives usually live scattered, in single families, or in larger
groups? All the features of family life--the husband's authority,
the sexual marital relation, the economics of the household, the
relation of children to parents--would appear in a different light,
and our ideas thereon might in many respects be modified according
to the answer we obtained to the above question. This point (_i. e._
the mode of living) would also be decisive in the problem of group
relationship: if the natives live normally in single families, which
assemble only occasionally, then the individuality of the family
relationship is placed beyond any doubt. And if there are, besides, any
group relations, they must radically and absolutely differ from the
individual one; for the latter, and it only, is constituted by the most
powerfully binding element--continuous daily contact. If, however, the
aborigines live in more or less numerous groups, our question is still
open, and we have to inquire: Do the families, which (permanently or
temporarily) form one body, live in a state of social communism and
promiscuity? Or are they more or less isolated from each other? That
will form the second part of our task.[355]
[354] "In the study of population ... the facts of
aggregation or grouping are the first to claim our
attention." (F. H. Giddings, _Princ. of Sociology_,
p. 79). In fact all the social phenomena of higher order
corresponding to differentiation and constitution depend
upon the facts of grouping. In the lowest societies, as
the Australian, the mode of living in very small groups
precludes _a priori_ the possibility of any higher social
formations. We may say that the social horizon of a
community extends as far as the contact of its members. In
higher societies this contact need not necessarily be an
actual one; as a rule in more developed communities members
of a social unit (nation, town, association) only come
exceptionally and in a diminutive degree into immediate
contact. But there are innumerable ways of mental contact.
On the contrary there is no other form of contact but the
personal one among the Australian blacks, and it is the
first condition for the formation of any social bonds
amongst them. In the discussion of all kinship bonds we
should never lose sight of the fact that it is highly
improbable that people who never were in personal contact
could feel more closely related than people who usually
live together.
[355] The importance of the aboriginal mode of living in
the study of family life and kinship bonds has been well
brought out by Dr. Westermarck (_H.H.M._, pp. 42 _sqq._,
especially pp. 43-47). His general inference--that in
low societies the scattered mode of living brings into
prominence individual kinship bonds, and isolates the
family unit--will be corroborated by our conclusions
drawn from the Australian material. The few Australian
examples--quoted and interpreted by Dr. Westermarck--have
been vehemently disputed by Herr Cunow (_loc. cit._, p. 122,
footnote). His criticism, if compared with the data
presented in this chapter, will appear quite unfounded.
Herr Cunow's book does not, by the way, deserve its good
reputation. There are many statements in it, given without
references, which I have been unable to verify in the first
hand evidence.
Let us now gather information about the first point, _i. e._ the size of
the groups in which the natives live. Our statements are at first sight
contradictory on this point; but this is largely due to the total lack
of fixed terminology. It will be well to settle the latter beforehand
and determine more exactly what we are to look for in the statements.
For that purpose we must forestall the results of our research and
broadly outline the state of things; it will give us a guiding thread
through the statements. Roughly speaking, in Australia the tribe as
a social unit is characterized by name, common speech, custom and
territory.[356] It is divided (and sometimes subdivided again) into
smaller groups; these consist of individuals closely related, possess
a sort of government, and are connected with a portion of the tribal
territory which they practically use in common.[357] For the social
division of the tribes is connected with and complicated by a parallel
territorial partition. And there is always a certain territory allotted
to the exclusive possession of a certain group. The tribe (as defined
above) cannot be considered as proprietor[358] of the territory, for
its different divisions may not encroach upon each other's grounds.
We shall call (by way of definition) a _Local Group_, such a division
of the tribe as possesses the exclusive right to use a given territory
and to dwell within its limits. In the following statements we will
give a series of examples of these local units, and the different forms
they assume in different tribes. It will be possible, too, to give a
more precise meaning to the word "proprietorship"; and to see in what
sense land may be possessed or claimed by the Australian blacks. The
authors seldom try to give to these terms any clear meaning, or to
discern all the existing differences; but these will be evident enough
from the facts contained in the statements. The problem of territorial
division is only the basis for our main question, viz. the mode of
living. The Local Group, which is the joint owner of its territory,
is, so to say, only the upper limit of aggregation; _i. e._ the body of
persons actually and normally living together cannot be larger than
that group, for only its members are (in normal conditions) admitted
to its grounds. But this Local Group may also live scattered over its
district. There will be several data in our information which would
rather confirm us in this supposition.
[356] See Wheeler, _loc. cit._, pp. 15 _sqq._, and the
references given there.
[357] _Ibid._, pp. 45, 46.
[358] To guard against misunderstanding I wish to
emphasize that such words and expressions as "proprietor,"
"ownership," "landed property," "rights to a tract of
country," etc., are not to be taken in the sense which
they possess in application to higher societies, to our
own society in particular. Their correct meaning will be
gathered from the following discussion. For the sake of
clearness and brevity it was sometimes needful, in the
text, to use the above expressions, instead of the more
correct ones like "possession," "claims to a country," etc.
The term "property" has a definite legal meaning, which
makes it impossible to apply it in its full sense to the
low society with which we are concerned.
Now let us review the statements, bearing in mind the exact meaning
given to the words Tribe, Local Group and Family. We have agreed to
call Local Group a unit owning in common a portion of country, and
we are asking how big this unit is in different tribes; if it lives
scattered or in a body; finally, what idea can we form of "land
ownership" in Australia.
_Statements._--The Kurnai were divided into five exogamous
"clans."[359] These were divided and subdivided several times,
"each subdivision having its own tract of hunting and food
ground, until the unit was a small group of kindred, frequently
an old man, his sons, married or unmarried, with their respective
wives and children." The author gives an instance of a family
claiming a certain island and the swans' eggs laid on it, as its
property,[360] and living under the authority of the oldest male
in the family. "Taking such a family[361] as the tribal unit of
the Kurnai, it was the aggregation of such families that formed
what may be called a division, inhabiting a large area, and the
aggregate of the divisions formed the clan."[362] This, and the
expression family as "tribal unit," shows that probably its members
lived actually together. It is a pity that Howitt does not give
even approximately the numbers. Again, in another place, he writes
of a "natural spread of families over a tract of country," and
of "elders as heads of families."[363] These "families" unite in
cases of mutual need for aid and protection[364] and in cases of
corroborees, initiations, etc.[365]--Here the local group was a
small unit of related persons. It claimed a certain territory and
exclusively used its products, and vested authority in its oldest
male. These local groups usually must have lived isolated from each
other, because of the exclusive right in using the given area.
Howitt mentions also the beginnings of individual claims to some
products (swan's eggs) being even transmitted by inheritance.[366]
[359] According to Howitt's terminology.
[360] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 73, 74.
[361] We would say _local group_, as we reserve the term
_family_ for an undivided group living in the closest
unity, and consisting of a man, his wife and his children.
[362] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 74.
[363] _Idem_, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 215.
[364] _Ibid._
[365] Compare chapter on initiations in Howitt's _Nat.
Tr._, and _Kam. and Kurn._, _passim_.
[366] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 232 footnote.
The statements of Howitt concerning the Murring tribes are not
quite clear. "Claims to a particular tract of country arose in
certain of these tribes by birth."[367] He does not say if these
claims consisted in actual right to live, roam and hunt over
the said tract of country. It is probable, however, that just
this is the meaning, as he speaks immediately afterwards of an
hereditary principle as to the grounds determining the habitation
where one lives--a father pointing out the bounds of his child's
country--"where his father lived, or himself was born and had
lived."[368] If we can assume that each "family" (= local group)
had its hunting-grounds so designated this would point to a
far-going subdivision of country and consequently of the tribe; we
can hardly infer anything conclusive from this statement alone.
But it appears clearer in the light of the following remark: "The
local group has in all cases been perpetuated in the same place
from father to son by occupation, I may almost say by inheritance,
of the hunting-grounds."[369] It seems, therefore, that generally
in the tribes studied by Howitt, the local group (he calls it the
"family," speaking of the Kurnai) was a very well-defined unit. And
that, in the tribes in question the people who inherit a certain
territory from father to son are just members of the local group.
Its rights to the hunting-grounds were based on some--perhaps magic
or religious--ideas of heredity.
[367] _Nat. Tr._, p. 82.
[368] _Nat. Tr._, p. 83.
[369] Howitt, _Smith. Rep._ 83, p. 816.
An analogous state of things is reported to have obtained among
the Wurunjerri (Victoria): "The right to hunt and to procure food
in any particular tract of the country belonged to the group of
people born there, and could not be infringed by others without
permission."[370] In the territory of the same tribe there was
a stone-quarry, the material of which was very valuable to
the natives. The quarry was the property of a group of people
living on the spot; the head of this group had special rights in
connection with it. "It was Billi-billeri, the head of the family,
whose country included the quarry, who lived on it, and took
care of it for the whole of the Wurunjerri community."[371] This
statement appears to me very important, as it shows how rights of
possession might belong to a local group and centre in the headman
of this group. This statement suffices to reconcile the apparent
contradiction between individual claims to a country and group
claims.
[370] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 311.
[371] _Ibid._
The local groups amongst the Bangerang, who lived at the junction
of the Murray and Goulburn Rivers, seem to have been more numerous,
owing, perhaps, to the easiness of food supply on the banks of
two fishy rivers.[372] The tribe was divided in two exogamous
moieties,[373] and the land "was parcelled out between these two
sub-tribes."[374] Each respectively lived in a body, although
moving sometimes from place to place. Curr speaks of their
head-quarters in places abounding with fish.[375] One of the
sections numbered about 150, the other somewhat less. These two
"sub-tribes" or moieties constituted, therefore, rather numerous
local groups. The "sub-tribes" of the kindred tribes mentioned
by Curr seem also to have been numerous,[376] and to have lived
each in a body,[377] so that they would be, according to our
terminology, numerous local groups. Curr speaks also of individual
property in land, but this seems to have had only a purely
fictitious meaning, having nothing to do with any real right.[378]
Private property in other things (_e. g._ fishing weirs, etc.) was
known.[379]
[372] Curr, _Recollections_, pp. 231, 240.
[373] Local exogamous moieties, not phratries!
[374] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 243.
[375] _Ibid._, p. 231.
[376] _Ibid._, p. 234.
[377] It is never said clearly; but compare the story told
in XIII, of the meeting of two tribes, and _passim_ through
the work, p. 174 and others.
[378] _Ibid._, pp. 243, 244.
[379] _Ibid._, p. 243.
Curr uses the term _tribe_ in place of our _local group_. In his
general work on Australia he gives a definition of tribe which
quite agrees with what we called local group.[380] "By the word
tribe I mean a number of men closely allied by blood, and living
in the strictest alliance, offensive and defensive, who, with
their wives and children, occupy, practically in common, and in
exclusion of others, a tract of country...." Everybody must respect
the customs of his tribe; and as no one may live apart from the
tribal community, "there is no alternative between compliance with
tribal custom and death."[381] "Although the lands of a tribe are
_nominally_ parcelled out amongst its members, it is the fact that
they are used in common, and for several reasons must have always
been used so." First, because for mutual protection the tribesmen
must have often associated. Secondly, because of the economic
conditions the tribe often was compelled to feed on a given
spot.[382]
[380] It is used here in agreement with G. C. Wheeler,
Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, etc.
[381] Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 61, 62.
[382] _Ibid._, pp. 64, 65.
Angas, describing his travels in the Murray River district, tells
that he met several times with native encampments; from the passage
in question[383] we may infer that they were small groups. He
says[384] that on the seaside (Encounter Bay), on the lakes, and on
the Murray banks, where means of subsistence were fairly easy, the
local groups were numerous. But this information is very loose.
[383] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 74.
[384] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 81.
Amongst the tribes of the Lower Murray River "particular districts
having a radius of from ten to twenty miles, or in other cases
varying according to local circumstances, are considered generally
as being the property and hunting-grounds of the tribes who
frequent them."[385] Eyre speaks of a further division of land
amongst single individuals; it is handed down hereditarily in
the male line. "A man can dispose of or barter his land to
others."[386] At any rate, all members of a "tribe" (= local group)
may roam over the common territory. It seems, nevertheless, to
be rather a formal than actual, exclusive right.[387] The local
groups may not trespass on their respective territories without
permission.[388] The whole local group congregates only "if there
is any particular variety more abundant than another, or procurable
only in certain localities. Should this not be the case, then they
are probably scattered over their district in detached groups, or
separate families."[389] Here we are well informed on our principal
points: the local group is the exclusive joint landowner; the
individual has some claims which are not quite clearly defined,
but surely do not mean exclusive economic _usum fructum_. They
live scattered in small parties over their area. There is another
passage in Eyre's book that confirms this latter point. He says
that each family is independent and governed by the father; but
that, "as a matter of policy, he always informs his fellows where
he is going." So that "although a tribe may be dispersed all over
their own district in single groups ... yet if you meet with any
one family, they can at once tell you where you will find any
other.... In cases of sudden danger or emergency, the scattered
groups are rapidly warned or collected" by messenger or smoke
signals.[390]
[385] Eyre, ii. p. 297.
[386] _Ibid._, pp. 218, 297.
[387] _Ibid._, p. 297.
[388] _Ibid._, ii. p. 297.
[389] _Ibid._, p. 218.
[390] _Ibid._, ii. p. 317.
Mitchell's expedition, when exploring the interior of South-East
Australia, met a party of blacks on the banks of the Murray,
whom they had seen before on the Darling a few hundred miles
distant.[391] This would apparently contradict the assumption
of fixed boundaries. But the general evidence shows that, in
exceptional cases, and with the leave of the neighbouring
tribes--especially if these were friendly--a local group or any
party of natives were allowed to travel even considerable distances
for purposes of warfare, barter or ceremonial gatherings.
[391] Mitchell, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 92.
Amongst the Aborigines of Encounter Bay and Lower Murray River
(the Narrinyeri) the local groups (H. E. A. Meyer calls them
"tribes,"[392] or "large families" of connected people) seem to be
numerous (the country abounds with fish and birds). These local
groups have their head-quarters, from which their name is derived.
But only in cases of great abundance of food does the local group
live and move together. Usually single families roam in parties;
the sick and aged remain in the head-quarters, and suffer often
from want of food. Not only in search of food, but for the sake of
performing corroborees, initiations, etc., and visiting each other,
do these local groups roam about the country.[393]
[392] H. E. A. Meyer, _loc. cit._, p. 198.
[393] H. E. A. Meyer, _loc. cit._, pp. 191, 192.
From a passage in Taplin[394] we may infer that the local group
of the Narrinyeri near Lake Alexandrina numbered about 200
natives.[395] The local groups of this tribe were, besides,
exogamous, totemic, and had a regular form of government. We have
not even a hint as to their mode of living; but if plentiful food
supply was the chief condition of larger aggregations, then these
latter would naturally have developed better in the lake country.
[394] Taplin, _loc. cit._, p. 35.
[395] _Ibid._, p. 36.
Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula there are local divisions;
each with a certain totem and with headmen.[396] This seems
analogous to the conditions among the Narrinyeri and Central
tribes; but the information is not detailed enough to be considered
quite reliable.
[396] T. M. Sutton, _loc. cit._, p. 17.
The Port Lincoln tribes seem to roam about in small parties of
several families.[397] This statement is not sufficiently clear;
probably a number of such parties constituted a local group.
[397] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 221.
We read, again, about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Each family has its
distinct place, where they live together."[398] The uncertainty as
to the sense in which the word _family_ is used here makes this
statement nearly useless. The same author says in another place:
"It has been remarked that the population and general condition
of the natives of Australia greatly depend on the nature of the
locality they occupy; where the country is sterile and unproductive
the natives are found to congregate in small numbers. In fertile
districts they are comparatively numerous."[399] This opinion is in
agreement with the fact that the population round Lake Alexandrina,
where food supply was plentiful, was extremely dense.[400]
[398] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 178.
[399] _Ibid._, p. 165.
[400] Compare T. Gill, _loc. cit._, p. 223, on the
authority of Dr. Moorhouse.
An author who has made his observations on the blacks of the
Murrumbidgee River (New South Wales) and Moreton Bay (Queensland)
writes: Each "tribe" (= local group) occupies a definite tract of
country; a trespass of its boundaries by a stranger is punished
with death.[401] This common district is subdivided among families
of the local group. "During seasons when all the members of the
tribe are not congregated together, each family hunts on its own
grounds." The author quotes, also, instances where trees were
marked and belonged to individuals.[402] This statement answers
both our questions as to land ownership and modes of living; in
both respects the "family" is the unit: it owns its area and
it lives on and uses it normally in isolation from the others;
proprietorship means here exclusive use. But we must bear in mind
that what is called here family may as well be a small local group
of closely related people, like those among the Kurnai. At any
rate it certainly means that the blacks live in very small groups,
perhaps in individual families, and that this scattered mode of
living rests on a territorial basis. (In general the authority of
G. S. Lang cannot be said to be of the best.)
[401] G. S. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 5.
[402] G. S. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 14.
We read in the travels of Gerstaecker that natives carefully keep
to the boundaries of their own district. So that a traveller, to be
quite safe, should always change his guide when entering upon a new
territory.[403]
[403] Refers probably to the Murrumbidgee tribes. _Op.
cit._, iii. p. 9.
We read about the tribes of New South Wales in general: "Though
they are constantly wandering about, yet they usually confine
themselves to a radius of fifty or sixty miles from the place
they consider their residence. If they venture beyond this, which
they sometimes do with a party of whites, they always betray the
greatest fear of falling in with some Myall or stranger blacks,
who they say would put them to death immediately."[404] We find
here again the local group owning its territory and having
head-quarters; as well as the sacrosanctity of boundaries.
[404] Chas. Wilkes (larger edition), ii. p. 187.
Turnbull remarks about the New South Wales tribes that the best
food supply, and consequently the largest gatherings, were possible
on the sea-shore and on the banks of fishy rivers.[405]
[405] _Loc. cit._, p. 89.
An example of family proprietorship in land is mentioned by
Collins.[406] From it, it appears that this sort of proprietorship
meant rather some mystic claim than any exclusive right of economic
character.
[406] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 599.
We are informed that among the natives of New South Wales there is
a great number of small tribes, each containing from forty to fifty
individuals. "Each tribe has a certain beat, or hunting-ground,
frequently of not more than twenty miles in diameter, from which
they never move, unless on certain occasions when they visit the
territory of a neighbouring tribe for the purpose of a fight, or a
ceremony. Sometimes, the tribe will wander about in parties of five
or ten; at other times all the members will encamp together."[407]
In substituting the word _local group_ for _tribe_, we get here
again a fairly good statement.
[407] Henderson, _loc. cit._, p. 108.
In the statements of Fraser we find again the local group; he
calls it "sub-tribe." It derives its name from a certain locality,
owns a tract of country, which is guarded jealously against any
infringement from any of the neighbouring sub-tribes.[408] This
statement is illustrated by an example, and therefore appears
rather trustworthy.[409]
[408] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.
[409] _Loc. cit._, p. 37.
"Each tribe is divided into independent families, which acknowledge
no chief, and which inhabit in common a district within certain
limits, generally not exceeding above ten or twelve miles on any
side." The tribes number from 100 to 300.[410] "The families
belonging to a tribe meet together upon occasions of festivals
at certain seasons, and also to consult upon all important
occasions."[411] The first phrase is not clear: we are not told
whether what he calls the tribe owns its area in common, or whether
the divisions called "independent families" possess each its own
district. From the context, however, we see that we must assume the
latter. Three hundred people occupy in Australia usually more than
a hundred square miles.
[410] Port Stephens tribe. R. Dawson, pp. 326, 327.
[411] _Ibid._, compare also p. 63.
Hodgkinson, speaking of the tribes between Port Macquarie and
Moreton Bay, says that the tribes (local groups) keep each within
very narrow limits. The district of each of them measures about
150 square miles; usually some ten to twelve miles of a river bank
and the adjoining hinterland. "The whole body of a tribe is never
united on the same spot, unless on some important occasion. They
are more generally divided into small parties of eight or ten men,
with their women and children, for the greater convenience of
hunting, etc., and these detached companies roam over any part of
the country within the prescribed limits of the main tribe to which
they belong."[412] This statement agrees with the general type of
information.
[412] Hodgkinson, _loc. cit._, p. 222.
Of the Coombangree tribe, New South Wales, it is said: "Each tribe
kept its own belt of country and separated into small camps, and
only collected on special occasions."[413] In this statement the
words "local group" should be substituted for "tribe."
[413] _Science of Man_, 1900, p. 116, article by A. C. McDougall.
The Dieri, divided into five local hordes, are still subdivided
into smaller "local groups, each having a definite tract of hunting
and food ground."[414] These local groups cannot be very numerous.
The whole tribe numbers about 250. There are at least ten local
groups, since they include about twenty persons each. But we do not
know whether such a local group lived in a body or scattered over
its territory.[415]
[414] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 46.
[415] Gason, _loc. cit._, p. 258.
We owe one of our best statements as to the nature of the
local group to Spencer and Gillen. Its totemic character, its
organization with the _alatunja_ at its head, the different
functions of magico-religious character and many other social
functions and characteristics define it perfectly well.[416] The
territorial division seems to be much the same in all the tribes
studied by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. "In all the tribes there is
a division into local groups, which occupy certain well-defined
areas within the tribal territory."[417] The possession of land is
vested in them. "There is no such thing as one man being regarded
as the owner of any tract of country. In every case the unit of
division is the local totemic group."[418] This statement is quite
clear. The local group owns a certain area, and all the individuals
have the right to hunt and roam over it. They do not do it in
one body, they live scattered in much smaller parties of one or
two families. "The members of this (local group) wander, perhaps
in small parties of one or two families, often, for example, two
or more brothers with their wives and children, over the land
which they own, camping at favourite spots, where the presence
of water-holes, with their accompaniment of vegetable and animal
food, enables them to supply their wants."[419] Here the picture is
perfectly clear: the territorial unit is the local group; within
its grounds all members have the right to hunt and roam; no other
people may trespass over the boundaries. Such trespasses do not in
reality frequently happen.[420] The area is not only economically
the property of the local group, there are much stronger ties
between the land, once the hunting and ceremonial ground of the
Alcheringa ancestors, and their actual descendants.[421] But the
local group does not form one body; division into single families
seems to be, under ordinary circumstances, the normal status. We
get here a good insight into the inner structure of a local group,
the chief feature of which is the isolation of families. The local
group acts as a body chiefly on ceremonial occasions. To sum up:
the local group is the joint land-owner; proprietorship means
exclusive rights to hunt and roam over the country; but in the
native's mind it has much deeper roots, and the connection between
the local group and its hunting-grounds is based upon all their
traditions and creeds. Their mode of living is scattered; they hang
usually round favourite spots (see below).
[416] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 9, 16 and _passim_ throughout both
works, especially in connection with the description of
totemism and totemic cult.
[417] _Nor. Tr._, p. 27.
[418] _Ibid._
[419] _Nat. Tr._, p. 16.
[420] _Nor. Tr._, p. 31.
[421] The ties between a totemic local group and its
hunting-grounds are based on the whole cycle of totemic
ideas on reincarnation, supernatural conception; on the
Oknanikilla and Ertnatulunga. The reader must be referred
to the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and Strehlow and
to what is said about these points below in connection with
the native ideas on conception (Chap. VI.).
Speaking of the totemic myths of the Northern tribes Mr. Mathews
says: "In those olden days, as at present, the totemic ancestors
consisted of families or groups of families, who had their
recognized grounds in some part of the tribal territory."[422]
[422] _J. and Pr. R.S.N.S.W._, xl. p. 108.
Among the natives of Queensland[423] the territory is parcelled
out completely amongst the different local groups; the boundaries
are well known and mutually respected. This district is again
subdivided amongst the members of the local group; the proprietor
"has the exclusive right to direct when it should be hunted over,
and the grass burned and the wild animals destroyed." If other men
aggregate and use the products of his land he is regarded as the
master of ceremonies. This statement gives us at least a clear and
consistent definition of private proprietorship, which seems to be
of a formal, ceremonial character. But it is not complete. We do
not know if normally each family enjoys its district alone, with
the head of the family always master of ceremonies, or whether the
whole local group, or parts of it, hunt and roam usually in bodies.
This statement is, therefore, not very useful.
[423] Moreton Bay. J.D. Lang, p. 335, 336.
We read about the Kabi and Wakka tribes of Queensland: "A few
families claiming the same territory usually camped and travelled
together, sometimes in smaller, sometimes in larger numbers. I
characterize such family groups as communities."[424] And again:
"Such communities were constituted by a few families occupying the
same small area in common."[425] This is a clear definition of what
we called local group, and agrees perfectly well with the general
picture already outlined.
[424] J. Mathew, i. p. 128.
[425] J. Mathew, i. p. 129.
E. Palmer says that the game and other products of a certain
country belonged to the tribe (= local group) there residing; the
boundaries were respected and trespassers punished by death.[426]
[426] E. Palmer, _J.A.I._, xiii. pp. 278, 279.
In North-West Central Queensland the "tribe" (our local group) has
its head-quarters.[427] This group has also an over-right over its
territory, "over which the community as a whole has the right to
hunt and roam."[428] There is still a further subdivision; each
family possesses hunting-grounds of its own, and no other has the
right to any product thereof without the family's permission.
In the case of tribesmen, transgression is a trifle; in that of
strangers, a very serious offence.[429] The statements of Roth
do not, however, say anything about their mode of living. The
mention of "head-quarters" points to a subdivision of land amongst
families and to a scattered mode of living. In all probability we
may assume here the following form: the local group as joint owner
of its land; and single families having special rights to certain
parts of it, and camping as a rule separately or in small groups,
and aggregating in cases of emergency at the head-quarters. This
is the only statement which attributes to families and individuals
respectively a virtually exclusive right over a certain ground. We
read in another place of the mode or rather the principle according
to which individual proprietorship is determined in the North
Queensland tribes: "The child's own country, its 'home' where it
will in the future have the right to hunt and roam, is determined
not by the place of actual birth, but by the locality where his
_choi_ had been held apart." _Choi_ is the spirit part of the
child's father, embodied in the father's afterbirth. The place
of this _choi_ is carefully determined after the child's birth,
according to a customary ceremonial.[430] The extent of a local
group is determined in the following statement: "there were from
twelve to twenty heads of families constituting the group, each
with its particular division, who together made the tribe."[431]
Here again the land seems to be allotted to the local group,
though, according to the foregoing passages, there was a further
subdivision according to families.
[427] Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 133, § 226.
[428] _Idem_, Bull. viii. p. 8.
[429] _Ibid._ and _Proc. R.S.Q._, pp. 50, 51.
[430] Bull. v. pp. 18, 23.
[431] _Idem_, _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 69.
As an instance showing that there were sometimes territorial
changes and shifting of tribes may be quoted the statement of
G. W. Earl, who says that a big tribe came from the interior and
established itself at the base of Coburg Peninsula.[432] How far
this statement is reliable it is difficult to say. Anyhow it is in
opposition to the numerous and reliable statements which affirm
that tribal boundaries were strictly kept and never changed.
[432] _Loc. cit._, pp. 241, 242.
The natives of Melville Island seem to have lived in more numerous
groups. Major Campbell says that their "tribes" number from thirty
to fifty persons each. On visiting an encampment he found about
thirty wigwams, which would point to about fifty persons at least.
"They lead a wandering life, though I think each tribe confines
itself to a limited district."[433]
[433] _Loc. cit._, pp. 156, 157.
A clear statement concerning the scattered mode of life is given of
the North-Western aborigines by J. G. Withnell, who lived amongst
them for twenty years. "The natives generally live in families at
various intervals of a few miles down the course of each river
and its creeks."[434] "In fact they are small families constantly
moving camp a few miles in any direction they please."[435] In
another place we read: "The natives are divided into many tribes,
having their boundaries defined." These tribes are obviously our
local group. The members thereof live scattered in small parties,
called by Withnell "families." Very interesting is Withnell's
information concerning totemic local centres quite analogous[436]
to those described by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. It is important
in our present discussion because it throws light upon the problem
of the connection between an individual or a family and a certain
tract of country. From Withnell's information[437] it results that
among the North-Western tribes there were also totemic centres,
allotted each to a "family" (local group or part thereof?) at which
ceremonies for the multiplication of the totem were performed. The
claim to such centres is hereditary.
[434] J. G. Withnell, _loc. cit._, p. 8.
[435] _Ibid._
[436] _Idem_, p. 31.
[437] _Loc. cit._, pp. 5, 6.
We read in Grey about the tribes of West Australia. "They appear
to live in tribes (= local groups), subject, perhaps, to some
individual authority; and each tribe has a sort of capital, or
head-quarters, where the women and children remain whilst the men,
divided into small parties, hunt and shoot in different directions.
The largest number we saw together amounted nearly to 200, women
and children included."[438] This directly asserts that the local
group lived in one body; for of course the men were bound to
return always to the head-quarters. Now if we had to assume that
the local group numbered about 200 individuals we could hardly
allow the possibility of obtaining food. Especially as in another
place Grey says: "Landed property does not belong to a tribe, or
to several families, but to a single male; and the limits of his
property are so accurately defined that every native knows those of
his own land, and can point out the various objects which mark his
boundaries." This land is divided by the father amongst his several
sons. But Grey does not define what proprietorship means. These
two statements are quite inconsistent with each other; if every
man of a big local group had to go to hunt on his own grounds (and
we know that the food area for an Australian family is not small)
they would have to spend their life in making journeys between
their hunting-grounds and head-quarters. We must either suppose
that Grey's tribes were quite small local groups which lived each
on its own territory, and that when he speaks of from 100 to 200
persons assembled he refers only to exceptional meetings, or that
the individual ownership of land had no real economic meaning, and
that the natives actually lived in these tribes in more numerous
bodies (perhaps the coastal tribes at least). This statement is,
therefore, not very useful.
[438] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 252.
Bishop Salvado asserts a subdivision of land among single families
(although he calls "family" a small party of related natives, see
p. 257) acquired by right of birth.[439] Neighbouring families,
small local groups, may enjoy their land in common.[440] Such
small parties are quite independent, and governed by the oldest
male.[441] They lead, as we may infer from that, normally a
solitary, isolated existence. This statement of Bishop Salvado is
also in agreement with the generality of our evidence. His "family"
is evidently a small local group. (It reminds us of a similar unit
amongst the Kurnai, also interrelated, owning a portion of land,
governed by the oldest male). He says such small groups have been
often incorrectly called tribes by other authors.
[439] _Loc. cit._, p. 265.
[440] _Loc. cit._, p. 266.
[441] _Loc. cit._, p. 267.
Mrs. Bates says the South-West Australians were divided into
tribes or families; "these tribes appear to have been aggregated
into geographical groups ... each occupied a definite tract
of country."[442] But in another place she says that "each
(family) occupied a definite tract of country" with well-marked
boundaries.[443] This statement is marred by the lack of precision
in using words like tribes, families, etc. The only thing that
can be made out of it is that there was some local unit owning a
definite tract of country. The right of ownership is defined by the
right of hunting. A man is allowed to hunt merely his own district.
But he has access to his wife's district too.[444]
[442] _Loc. cit._, p. 53.
[443] _Loc. cit._, p. 52.
[444] _Loc. cit._, p. 53.
In King George Sound each "tribe" (= local group) owns a certain
district; this is further subdivided among individual families;
each of these portions being hereditary in a certain family, which
is proud of the extensiveness of its grounds. But all the members
of the local group may roam and hunt over the whole territory.
"Under normal conditions and in its own district the tribe (=
local group) is divided into small parties or families; each party
forming a camp of six or eight wurleys."[445] Only on special and
important occasions does the local group aggregate. Strangers are
not admitted to the territory. We see here, again, the actual
proprietor of the land is the local group; families have some
merely formal (or magical) claim to portions of it. The local group
roams in parties, which are nevertheless not so very small. In
from six to eight huts there may live from three to four families
(we must count besides the married couples also the old people and
grown-up children).
[445] Browne, _loc. cit._, pp. 476, 478.
Scott-Nind says about the natives of King George Sound, "An
encampment rarely consists of more than seven or eight huts; for,
except the fishing and burning seasons, at which times large
parties assemble together, their numbers are generally small, and
two or three huts suffice. The number of individuals, however,
seldom exceeds fifty."[446] "These encampments generally consist
of near relatives, and deserve the name of families rather than
of tribes."[447] Natives who live together have the exclusive
right of fishing or hunting upon the neighbouring grounds, which
are, in fact, divided into individual properties; the quantity of
land owned by each individual being very considerable. Yet it is
not exclusively his, but others of his family have certain rights
over it; so that it may be considered as partly belonging to the
tribe. The individual owner must be present on his grounds when
the members of his group fire the country for game.[448] We have
here again the local group as real and exclusive land-owner, the
individual having only mere formal rights over the land. Scott-Nind
describes with details how in connection with and dependence
on plentiful food supply, the natives gather in larger numbers
at appropriate seasons.[449] He says in several places that the
parties in which the natives live and roam about number only a few
individuals.
[446] _Loc. cit._, p. 28.
[447] _Ibid._
[448] _Ibid._; compare also p. 44.
[449] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.
Out of the thirty-nine statements collected, thirty-one describe a
certain group or family as owning a definite tract of country in
common; this group is, by definition, what we called above the local
group. But there are some complications as to its rights of possession
over the given area. On the one hand there is some kind of "over-right"
of the tribe over the district inhabited by all the local groups
of which it is composed.[450] On the other hand there is a further
complication arising from the alleged individual claims to landed
property. As to the tribal over-right, it presents itself chiefly in
the fact that, first, tribesmen (members of related and friendly local
groups) are often invited and allowed on the territory of the local
group; secondly, in cases of trespass, while strangers are punished
severely (often by death), tribesmen are only considered slightly
culpable. The tribe may probably sometimes congregate as a whole on a
part of its grounds with the consent of the local group concerned. We
must imagine the local groups of the same tribe as living in amicable
relations and voluntarily exercising hospitality towards each other,
especially in cases when food is plentiful on their territory.[451]
But as a general rule the whole tribe neither uses its whole district,
nor has a local group, forming a division of the tribe, the right to
use any but its own territory without asking permission. The tribal
over-right seems therefore of little importance.
[450] Compare G. C. Wheeler, _loc. cit._, pp. 62-67. In
the above statements I did not include explicitly all the
contexts referring to this point, as it lies outside our
proper field of investigation. It may be found, more or
less explicitly, in some of them (J. D. Lang, _e. g._).
I mentioned it here only to give a fuller account of all
aspects under which possession of land presents itself in
Australia.
[451] Compare Wheeler, _loc. cit._, where this question is
thoroughly discussed, and also Curr, pp. 244 _sqq._, Roth,
Bull. 8, p. 9; Salvado, p. 265; Grey, ii. p. 272; Browne,
_loc. cit._, p. 445; G. S. Lang, p. 5.
The rights of a local group over its territory are, on the other hand,
the most important form of ownership, and the only one which possesses
economic features. These rights mean that all members of a local
group may roam over its territory and use all the products, hunt and
collect food and useful objects. In the case of the Central and North
Central tribes we are expressly told that no individual or family
claims may interfere with the rights that every member of the local
group has to the whole local area. In twenty-one of our thirty-one
statements referring to the right of the local group, we are not told
of any family or individual proprietorship. In the remaining eight
cases single families or male individuals seem to have some vague
claims to special tracts of country. In three cases the information
is ambiguous on this point. In the case of the Bangerang, Moreton Bay
tribes (J. D. Lang), King George's Sound natives (Nind and Browne),
this right is either of a merely mystic, intangible character,[452]
or it is a formal right which gives to the individual the priority
in decisions as to hunting, burning of grass, etc., and makes him
"master of ceremony" in cases of an assembly on the given spot. In
two instances this individual "land ownership" is stated to assume a
more economic aspect (G. S. Lang and W. E. Roth). There are, besides,
two statements on family "ownership" which do not mention the local
group. According to one of them (Collins) individual claims to land
have a mystic, fictional character; according to Grey's statement,
individual property in land was the only positive one; but this latter
statement is inconsistent and does not define the sense of the word
"property,"[453] and is therefore of little weight. So on the whole
we have three statements asserting that landed property of an economic
character was vested in individuals or in single families respectively.
On closer examination, one of them appears to be quite ambiguous
(G. S. Lang), and another one inconsistent with its context (Grey).
Roth's statement seems to be an exception. He says: "For one family
or individual to obtain, without permission, vegetable, fowl or meat
upon the land belonging to another family" constitutes a trespass; but
then he adds that owing to their great hospitality each family readily
invites its neighbours and friends to partake of the products of its
land. Roth's statement, although an exception, deserves to be noted,
owing to its explicitness and to the reliability of the author. It
is only regrettable he does not inform us concerning one point more,
whether these families or individuals respectively resided usually on
their territories and used them exclusively, or whether they usually
aggregated and lived on each other's domains, every one being only the
host on his own territory. It is only in the first case that individual
proprietorship would have an actual importance; accepting the second
hypothesis, we revert to the case where the local group (a number of
aggregated families) possesses the actual right of use of the land,
the individuals being only formal landlords of their parcels. If we
accept, on the other hand, the view that single families were in a
purely economic and legal sense owner of their own tract of land,
_i. e._ that they enjoyed the _usum fructum_ of the latter for
themselves, and that exclusively,[454] then we must also believe that
the families lived scattered, and assembled only in exceptional cases.
This consequence is important. But we see easily that although it is
inevitable, supposing actual land ownership in single families, still
the latter state of thing is not a necessary condition of it. Even
when land is invested in the group, single families may live scattered
(compare below). Claims to land by individuals and families in the
Northwestern Central Queensland tribes were also based on ideas of a
magico-religious character, being probably a mere magical connection
of an individual or family with a portion of the country. (Compare the
statement from _North Queensland Ethnography_.)
[452] This mystic character of some individual claims to
a particular tract of country appears also from Roth's
statement, and from a passage of Oldfield (_loc. cit._,
p. 252). "Every male is bound to visit the place of his
nativity three times a year." But this writer could not
ascertain the purpose of it.
[453] Compare Grey, ii. p. 233, and the letter of G. S. Lang
quoted by him therein. It appears that both these writers
were to a certain extent inspired by a humanitarian
tendency, namely to show that the Australian aborigines
were not quite without ideas of property in land, and that
they were wronged by the white settlers, and thus deserved
compensation for the loss of their hunting-grounds. The
letter mentioned was written to some humanitarian society.
We may, therefore, still more distrust these statements.
We have seen that the idea of possession of land, of an
exclusive right to use a certain tract of country, was well
known to our aborigines, but that they conceived of it as
vested in a group, not in individuals.
[454] It is well to remember that there cannot be drawn a
sharp line of distinction between a "family" and a "local
group"; moreover, in the use of these terms our authorities
are mostly careless and indiscriminate. As to the
individual possession of land, it has been pointed out in
connection with Howitt's statement on the Wurunjerri, that
the individual rights of some influential man (headman)
might be the expression of the rights of his local group.
Summing up, there are three different kinds of "proprietorship" in the
aboriginal society; or more correctly three kinds of claims to, and
connections with, a certain territory. First, actual rights of roaming,
hunting, fishing and digging; these rights belong usually to the local
group (exceptionally, perhaps, to single families or individuals).
Secondly, the customary right of local groups forming a tribe,
mutually to use their hunting-ground; these forms of proprietorship
have been designated "tribal over-right."[455] Third, the immaterial
claim of individuals or families to a portion of the local district;
this special right seems to be rather exceptional, and it appears
problematic whether it has any economic character. In the light of this
distinction it can easily be understood how the actual right of the
local group was modified in two directions. The tribesman was tolerated
on or invited to the ground, whereas the non-tribesman was killed. On
the other hand, individuals or single families had possibly some claims
of an unimportant character to particular spots. In general, we find
it expressed in nearly all the statements more or less explicitly that
the natives had a very clear idea of the rights of the local group to
its territory, and that the boundaries of it were respected without
exception.[456]
[455] In agreement with Mr. Wheeler.
[456] Compare nearly all of our statements, especially
those of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Curr. Mr. Wheeler
writes in his conclusions (_loc. cit._, p. 161).
"Territorial conquest is never sought, for the absolute
right of the local group to its district is fully
recognized." The respect for boundaries is also stated: in
_Science of Man_, xi. (1910), p. 197 ("tribal" area sharply
marked; death is the punishment for trespass). _Ibid._
(1900), p. 85. _Ibid._ (1901), p. 9.
We pointed out that the rights of individuals to a certain tract of
country had in general some vague magical character, and that they were
probably always derived from some mystical relation of the individual
to his birthplace or to another special spot. Now it may be added that
there are hints pointing to the fact that possession of land in its
real form, _i. e._ as invested in the local group, was probably based
to a considerable degree on ideas of religious or magical kind. The
information is unambiguous and detailed on this point as regards the
Central and North-Central tribes. We know of a whole series of ideas
of totemic character that bind a group of men to a given locality. How
far this was valid in the other parts of the continent it is difficult
to decide on the basis of the information available. But putting side
by side the facts we know about the extremely large area investigated
by Spencer and Gillen, with what we know of mystic individual rights
in other tribes, we are justified in supposing that everywhere the
rights of the local group (the only ones that present a real economic
character) were the sum or resultant of such individual rights of
magical or religious character, or that the group as a whole was
attached by such ties to its area.[457]
[457] It is impossible to enlarge here upon this
interesting subject, which would require a separate study
to itself. The two volumes of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen
especially are full of facts, showing that the tribal
traditions, the totemic cult, the initiation ceremonies,
and all other magical (or religious) functions were
intimately bound up with the locality in which a local
group lived. The local group itself was, so to say, an
offshoot of the local totem centre, the _Oknanikilla_; the
"spiritual parts" of its member, closely associated each
with its _Churinga_, are enshrined in the _Ertnatulunga_.
That the local group is intimately connected with its
territory is no wonder. Such a form of possession, although
it involves an extremely strong bond of union between man
and land, is evidently something quite different from more
developed forms of proprietorship.
Now to pass on to the main problem: to the mode of living. From the
previous discussion we may infer that when the local groups are very
small in themselves, then _ipso facto_ the natives live scattered in
very small groups (Kurnai, probably Murring, Dieri, New South Wales
tribes according to Rob. Dawson, and tribes described by Salvado).
The same applies to the cases where we are told that the families own
exclusively a certain area (Roth, G. S. Lang, Grey). But these cases
were found to be not quite beyond question. In some instances when
the local group is a larger unit, and there is no subdivision of land
amongst families, several statements mention that the natives lived
scattered in small groups, varying from two to four families perhaps.
(Murray tribes according to Eyre; the Central and North-Central tribes
according to Spencer and Gillen; the Moreton Bay tribes according to
J. D. Lang; New South Wales tribes according to McDougall, Henderson and
Hodgkinson; the Kabi and Wakka, West Australians according to Withnell,
Browne, Scott-Nind.)
In some cases there are reasons for supposing that the local group was
larger (Bangerang, Western Victoria, at Encounter Bay, on the lakes;
perhaps on the sea-shores in West Australia according to Grey). The
remainder of our information (fifteen statements) does not give any
clear answer to this question. From these approximately exact data
we come to the conclusion that the majority of tribes lived in small
groups of two or three families of six to nine individuals each, and
only in a few tribes were there larger bodies living in actual daily
contact.
To get a more reliable answer on this point it is better to drop the
less clear evidence and to take into consideration only such as is
better and more reliable. If only the fully reliable and unambiguous
statements be used, there are twelve affirming that aborigines live in
small parties, which in some cases shrink to one family only (Howitt
on the Kurnai; Eyre; R. Dawson; G. S. Lang; McDougall; Spencer and
Gillen in the Central and North-Central tribes; Henderson; Hodgkinson;
Rev. Matthew on the Kabi and Wakka; Withnell; Salvado). It should
be noted that (1) some of these authorities are our best informants
(Howitt Spencer and Gillen, Salvado); (2) that the area covered by
these peoples is very extensive, and that the tribes in question are
scattered over the whole continent. The statements which assert the
mode of living in larger bodies are much less reliable. But it appears
undoubted that the statements of Curr and Dawson, perhaps also those
of Meyer, Schurman and Taplin (confirmed by Angas), are of quite
unquestionable reliability. It is therefore clear that there were local
differences in that respect. And such a geographical difference in the
mode of living appears quite plausible, from general considerations.
The reasons which must have determined the degree of aggregation in the
Australian tribes were peculiarly economic ones: the scarcity of food
supply was conditioned partly by the aridity of the soil, partly by the
primitiveness of the means of procuring subsistence. Where the means
of subsistence were plentiful and not easily exhausted, there larger
groups could permanently aggregate. This was, in the first place, the
case where fishing was at all possible. The Bangerang tribe resided
in two large bodies at the junction of the Glenelg and Murray rivers;
the large group of the Narrinyeri on Lake Alexandrina; probably the
coastal tribes in general were larger and more sedentary. This seems
corroborated by the fact that they had usually larger and better-built
huts (see below). The same factors would also tend to produce a more
sedentary mode of living (the Bangerang, the Kurnai (partly at least),
and possibly other coastal tribes). The view that density of population
was directly dependent upon the nature of soil is strengthened by the
direct statements of Wilhelmi, Turnbull, Moorhouse and Angas.[458]
[458] The difference in physical geography between the
coastal regions and the Central parts, the greater variety
in the South-East region in general, and the relations
of these physiographical features to the social features
of the Australian aboriginal society, are well brought
out by Prof. Frazer in his beautifully written chapter
on Physical Geography (_Tot. and Exog._, chap. v. § 1,
pp. 314-339). Prof. Frazer's conclusion that the coastal
and South-Eastern tribes are more advanced involves the
assertion set forth here that coastal tribes, and in
general tribes living in more fertile regions, live in
more numerous, stable and permanent aggregations. Many of
the instances and quotations of Prof. Frazer's chapter
directly confirm our results, and the reader is referred
to this chapter, which reviews nearly all the geographical
differences that can be traced in Australia. That I do
not agree with Prof. Frazer's views as to group marriage,
etc., and with all his conclusions referring to prehistoric
times, hardly needs to be pointed out, and does not affect
the importance for my argument of his splendid collection
and exposition of facts. Especially the two passages from
Grey, quoted by Prof. Frazer _in extenso_, which had
escaped my attention, are very valuable. They show that
on the coast, where the soil is more fertile, the natives
lived in larger bodies.
It may be mentioned that in places where, and times when, plenty
of food was available, large numbers of natives gathered, but only
temporarily, _e. g._ when a whale was stranded, or the Bunya-Bunya nuts
were ripe, etc.[459] But as the major part of the continent is arid, we
must suppose that the usual mode of living was in very small groups of
one to three families; these groups being in exceptional cases regular
local groups, in the majority of cases merely portions of them.
[459] Tom Petrie, _Reminiscences_, chap. i. Besides,
compare gatherings at initiation. R. H. Mathews, _Proc.
R.S.N.S.W._, 1904, pp. 114-123. _Science of Man_, xi.,
1910, p. 192. Bunya-Bunya gatherings.
Let us briefly examine whether this general assumption contradicts
any other features of Australian tribal life. If we consider their
modes of procuring food, we find that the women had to go in search of
roots, grubs, etc., in short do purely collecting work. It is obvious
that this kind of work is never done well in big bands. On the other
hand it is probable that one woman alone would be afraid to go on
remote wanderings. The most favourable unit would be a group of two
to three women with their children. The men hunted their game also in
rather small groups. There do not seem to be any collective methods of
hunting. The kangaroo was perhaps tired out by the common effort of
several men. For the hunting of the smaller game, which was practically
also a kind of searching, it would be rather unfavourable to go out
in big parties. Considerations of an economic order, therefore,
give no reason for discarding our assumption; on the contrary it is
corroborated by them. To the question whether for security's sake the
aborigines would not be compelled to aggregate, we must also return a
negative answer. War was not the normal condition of the Australian
blacks.[460] And I have not been able to find any statement of
collective methods of organized defence.
[460] Compare G. C. Wheeler, _loc. cit._, p. 161, and chap. ix.
on War, pp. 148 _sqq._
To sum up our results in a few words: the territorial division points
only exceptionally and problematically, even in these exceptional
cases, to possession of land by single families. The territorial unit,
called by us Local Group, although varying in its extent according
to the locality, appears to consist usually of several families. But
these families in their turn live usually either in one smaller group,
numbering two or three families or, exceptionally, one only. In more
fertile tracts, near big rivers and fertile coastal districts, the
number of families living in permanent contact appears to be greater;
in the extensive arid areas the number of families grouped together
seems to be rather small.
II
The second part of our problem must now be faced: whenever there is a
certain number of families aggregated (permanently or temporarily),
what are the features of their social contact in daily life? What are
their dwellings? Do they belong to several families or only to one?
Are there any rules of camping, or do they camp quite promiscuously?
And if there are any customary rules, of what status are they the
expression? Besides the answers to these questions, we shall find
also that there are rules for occupying the huts, for eating, etc. In
general, all our questions will tend to elucidate whether there is
a quite unlimited, promiscuous social contact among the members of
an aggregate, or whether there are facts pointing to the isolation
and separation of the individual families. Undoubtedly there is a
difference between aggregation which is merely temporary and that which
is permanent; we shall try to find traces of this difference indicated
in the statements. These latter are not very rich in information. The
facts themselves seemed perhaps to the majority of our informants much
too commonplace and unimportant. But we owe to some of the deeper
and more conscientious observers highly interesting details in this
connection. More especially this remark applies to Howitt and some of
his correspondents. We begin with these statements.
_Statements._--We have a clear and detailed description of the
mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as
of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461] As a
rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some
families[462] were closely related,[463] a certain distance was
kept between their camps, which increased as the consanguinity
diminished.[464] A man's parents could occasionally sleep with
him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his
brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465] We see, therefore,
that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even
near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy
were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the
individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand
side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the
children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the
little girl";[466] bigger children camped separately. We shall find
this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules
and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South
Wales (Murring)[467] as to the Wurunjerri[468] of East Victoria.
[461] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 208-210, and _Nat.
Tr._, pp. 773-776.
[462] I use the word family only in the sense of a man, his
wife or wives, and their offspring before reaching puberty.
[463] As in the example; _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 209.
[464] See this example and diagram in _Nat. Tr._, p. 774.
[465] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 209, 210, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 774.
[466] _Idem_, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 774, 775. Compare _Kam. and
Kurn._, p. 209.
[467] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 210.
[468] _Nat. Tr._, p. 775.
Amongst the Gournditsh-Mara Tribe (Lake Condah, West Victoria)
"each family camped by itself." During the meals "each wife was ...
obliged to sit beside her own husband," and not "near any other
man unless her husband sat between them."[469] It is a statement
pointing to isolation of females from sex jealousy. We shall meet
in the future with a few statements referring to the way in which
meals are taken.
[469] Rev. Stähle in _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 277, 278.
Customs pointing to the isolation of families, on the ground of
sex jealousy are referred to by Curr.[470] "A woman never sat in
a mia-mia (hut) in which there was a man, save her husband; she
never conversed nor exchanged words with any man except in the
absence of her husband and in reply to some necessary question,"
and only from a distance. Women had "no communication with persons
of the opposite sex except little boys." From the paternal hut,
where they lived, "their brothers of eight or ten years of age
were excluded at night." And again, "among the Bangerang and other
tribes I have known, each married couple had their own mia-mia, or
hut."[471] These statements are quite clear. They coincide with the
majority of our information. What is important and will interest
us further in detail is the fact that boys at the age of about ten
were excluded from the paternal hut. Females were given away about
the same age, so that we may say that only small children remained
with their parents. "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[472]
[470] _Recollections_, p. 250, refers to the Bangerang
tribe. Compare also _ibid._, p. 256 and _A.R._, i. pp. 65,
98, 100.
[471] _Recollections_, p. 259.
[472] Compare _A.R._, i. pp. 109, 110.
Describing the laying of a camp Curr says--
"As they arrived they formed their camps, each family having a fire
of its own some half-dozen yards from its neighbour's."[473]
[473] _Recollections_, p. 133.
From Dawson's description of the aboriginal habitations,[474] we
get a good glimpse into their mode of dwelling. Dawson says they
have either a permanent or temporary habitation, and describes
both. The former _wuurn_ is bigger, and may accommodate about a
dozen persons. But it serves only for the use of one family. "When
several families live together each builds its _wuurn_, facing
one central fire." But even the family, if the children are grown
up, does not live in one party; "the _wuurn_ is partitioned off
into compartments. One of these is appropriated to the parents and
children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to
the bachelors and widowers." Here we see that husband and wife
sleep also quite apart, with their small children. Grown-up but
unmarried male or female children have compartments of their own.
And if they were married they must have had their own separate
camp. The isolation seems to have been amongst these tribes much
less accentuated than amongst the East Victorians, for instance.
Although separated, grown-up children lived in the same habitation,
and even the _wuurns_ of separate families were situated round a
common fire, so that it "appears to be one dwelling." In their
temporary huts the isolation is more pronounced. "While travelling
or occupying temporary habitations each of these parties (parent,
male and female children) must erect separate _wuurns_." Moreover
each family must camp separately. A certain communism of living is
expressed also by the common cooking,[475] although each family has
its basket in which it cooks food.[476]
[474] _Loc. cit._, pp. 10, 11.
[475] _Loc. cit._, pp. 17, 20.
[476] _Ibid._
Eyre's information about the Lower Murray River blacks agrees to a
certain degree with Dawson's statements. "Sometimes each married
man will have a hut for himself, his wives and family, including,
perhaps, occasionally his mother or some other near relative. At
other times, large long huts are constructed, in which from five to
ten families reside, each having their own separate fire."[477] Of
course, here the communism is much greater, although the separation
of the fire circles is still kept. These natives, as well as the
tribes described by Dawson, were in better economic conditions,
and therefore able to adopt sedentary life; they were also more
skilful in the building of huts. The general type of a hut was a
rude shelter of boughs only affording protection against rain.[478]
[477] Eyre, ii. p. 302.
[478] Compare Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 97, and Prof. Frazer,
_Tot. and Exog._, i. pp. 321, 322.
Brough Smyth affirms also perfect order and method in the
arrangement of a camp. "The aborigines do not herd together
promiscuously." If the whole tribe is present the natives are
divided into groups each composed of about six dwellings. "Each
mia-mia (hut) is five or six yards distant from its neighbours."
If there are several "tribes" (groups), each camps in a separate
place, in a position marking whence it came. Each hut has its
separate fire (in opposition to Dawson's statement).[479]
[479] _Loc. cit._, p. 124.
Complete isolation and strict camp rules are stated by
J. Moore-Davis. "Married men each with his family occupying the
centre" of the camp.[480]
[480] Br. Smyth, ii. 318, refers to New South Wales.
A statement quite contrary to nearly all others is given by
Beveridge. He speaks of "the promiscuous manner they have of
huddling together in their loondthals."[481] We need not, however,
take this statement very seriously, as it is given in immediate
connection with another doubtful one, viz. of absolute, even
incestuous, sexual promiscuity.[482] Perhaps the observations were
made on natives who were quite corrupted by contact with white men.
At any rate this statement is directly opposed to all we know about
these two features of Australian aborigines in their natural state
of life. We may therefore discard them as unreliable.[483]
[481] _Loc. cit._, p. 24.
[482] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.
[483] Beveridge seems to have been in long contact with
the aborigines, but he never says in what state of social
decomposition they were. In all he writes, although there
is some interesting information, there may be seen a lack
of accuracy of observation and expression.
Collins writes: "In their huts and in their caves they lie down
indiscriminately mixed, men, women and children together."[484]
This statement is not quite clear, as we do not know whether these
"men, women and children" form one family, or are related, or
whether there is a great number of them, etc. It is also opposed
to what we learnt from Howitt and many others of the customary
order observed in occupying a hut. Besides, Collins had under
his immediate observation blacks hanging round the town of Port
Phillip, demoralized and degenerate; their females seem to have
been already addicted to prostitution.[485] They were no longer in
their primitive state; and all observations, especially relating to
their mode of living, which changes immediately with the conditions
of life, must be accepted with caution. I do not consider this
statement any more reliable than that of Beveridge which I
discarded. From other passages where he speaks of the small inland
huts "affording shelter to only one miserable tenant,"[486] and the
larger huts on the sea-coast, "large enough to hold six or eight
persons," we might infer that there was room only for one family in
each hut. Here also we read that the coastal tribes, which probably
had a better food supply and led a more sedentary life, had larger
and better-built huts.
[484] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 555.
[485] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 560 and _passim_.
[486] _Loc. cit._, p. 555.
We read concerning the Turra tribe of South Australia[487]: "In
camping, the place of the parents is to the right-hand side of
their son's camp; the brother to the left side; sister-in-law to
the right side or near his father's. In the camp the husband sleeps
at the right hand of the fire, his wife behind him, and her young
children behind her." This, less detailed than Howitt's statement,
corroborates it to the full. We see that each camp is occupied
exclusively by a married couple and their small children; and
that inside the hut as well as in the configuration of the camp
there is a strict customary order. It is important to notice that
these statements, reporting strict camp rules and referring to
tribes scattered over a great area (Victoria, New South Wales and
South Australia) are given by very reliable authorities, and that
Howitt at least gathered them by collecting information about the
ancient customs of the Kurnai and Murring from old natives; using,
therefore, the only correct method. They refer, therefore, to old
customs, which probably were no longer observed in the tribes
spoilt and demoralized by contact with settlers. Much weight is to
be ascribed, therefore, in this matter to the information of Howitt
and his correspondents.
[487] Rev. W. J. Kühn in _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 287.
Schürmann states shortly: "Each family occupies a separate hut;
and, if there be any unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of
their own."[488]
[488] Woods, p. 222.
Henderson says about the New South Wales natives, "Each family has
its own gunya and fire."[489]
[489] _Loc. cit._, p. 109.
George Barrington observes that among the Port Jackson natives each
hut was occupied by one family.[490]
[490] _Loc. cit._, p. 82.
When the families who formed a "tribe" (= local group?) meet "each
family has its own fire and provides its own substance."[491]
In the description of his travels Dawson tells us that when the
native party was joined by a stranger with his wife the latter did
not approach the other men, but slept alone by herself at a small
fire.[492] This points to the fact that a married woman normally
never slept in the immediate neighbourhood of any other man but her
own husband.
[491] R. Dawson, p. 327. Port Stephens Blacks.
[492] _Loc. cit._, p. 249.
Spencer and Gillen affirm, again, the complete isolation of
families who, according to them,[493] normally roam scattered on
the territory of the local group. "Each family, consisting of a
man and one or more wives and children, occupies always a mia-mia,
which is merely a lean-to of shrubs, so placed as to shield the
occupants from the prevailing wind." This statement is perfectly
clear, and we may fit it into the general picture we drew from all
the other evidence.
[493] _Nat. Tr._, p. 18.
Among the natives of Central Australia (probably of the Arunta
nation) a married woman "may speak to any but the young men."[494]
Thus she is practically excluded from any intercourse with them.
[494] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 183 (W. H. Willshire in Prof.
Frazer's _Questions_).
Among the natives of Moreton Bay the conjugal relation is
maintained by them "with great decency and propriety, every family
having its separate hut and fire."[495]
[495] J. D. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 337.
A very clear and concise statement is given on this point by the
Rev. J. Mathew, referring to the Kabi and Wakka tribes. "The
family, consisting of husband and wife, or wives, with their
children, constituted a distinct social unit. They occupied
the same gunya (dwelling), they ate together, they travelled
together."[496] After having described the construction of the hut
he adds: "This sufficed for a family. The dwellings were placed a
little distance apart, facing in the same direction, and each had
its own small fire in front."[497]
[496] _Loc. cit._, p. 153.
[497] _Loc. cit._, p. 84.
Roth says about the tribes of North-West Central Queensland: "The
husband sleeps in the same gundi as his wives."[498] The way of
taking meals is not quite uniform among all tribes observed by
this writer. At Cape Bedford "members of one family take their
meals together, except the single young men (above puberty),
who dine apart." In another tribe (Tully River) "each family
dines by itself." On the contrary, "on the Bloomfield River men,
boys and girls (up to four or five years of age) dine together;
all the other females ... mess apart."[499] Among the natives
of Koombana Bay, "in the family, the man, women and children
dined together."[500] There are three kinds of huts among the
North Queensland tribes: the simple shelter of boughs; a hut
built somewhat more carefully against rain; and a hut built for
protection against cold, this hut, being of course, the most
elaborate.[501] From the description of these huts we may infer
that they were occupied each by one family only.
[498] _Eth. Stud._, p. 182, § 327.
[499] Bull. iii. p. 7.
[500] _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 48.
[501] _Eth. Stud._, §§ 159, 160, 161, pp. 105-107.
The isolation of families caused by the jealousy of the husband is
plainly stated by Grey: "He cannot, from the roving nature of their
mode of life, surround his wives with the walls of a seraglio,
but custom and etiquette have drawn about them barriers nearly
as impassable. When a certain number of families are collected
together, they encamp at a common spot, and each family has a
separate hut or perhaps two. At these huts sleep the father of the
family, his wives, the female children who have not yet joined
their husbands, very young boys[502] and occasionally female
relatives; but no males over ten years of age may sleep in family
huts. They have got their own separate encampment."[503] If any
strangers are present with their wives, they sleep in their own
huts, placed amongst the married people. If they are unmarried
or without wives "they sleep at the fire of the young men."[504]
"Under no circumstances is a strange native allowed to approach the
fire of a married man."[505] Their huts being so scattered over a
rather large area, their conversation is held by means of a loud
chant.[506] It must be remembered that Grey asserts in several
places the great and vigilant jealousy of the natives.[507]
[502] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 252.
[503] _Ibid._
[504] _Ibid._
[505] _Loc. cit._, pp. 252, 253.
[506] _Loc. cit._, p. 253.
[507] _Loc. cit._, pp. 242, 253, 255.
Bishop Salvado, who speaks also of the great jealousy of the
males and the fidelity exacted from the females,[508] gives us
the following account of their mode of camping: "Lorsqu' une
famille se dispose à dormir, les garçons qui ont passé l'âge de
sept ans dorment seuls, autour du feu commun, les plus petits
avec le père, et les enfants à la mamelle, aussi bien que les
filles, quel que soit leur âge, avec la mère. Les femmes
jouissent du droit d'ancienneté, la première dort plus près du
mari, ainsi de suite."[509] Another passage[510] testifies also
that they roam in single families; the reason alleged is easier
food supply.
[508] _Loc. cit._, p. 279.
[509] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.
[510] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 317.
We read in Browne that one hut holds only two or three persons.[511]
[511] _Loc. cit._, p. 448.
The general inference to be drawn from these twenty-four statements is,
roughly speaking, that the general features of native camp arrangements
were orderliness, fixed rules, isolation of families, settled and
restricted social contact, and by no means social communism and
unregulated social promiscuity.
Five instances give strict rules which obtain in arranging camps. These
were probably much more widespread than might be supposed from these
few instances. But, as mentioned above, these camp rules would probably
fall into abeyance at once when the natives came in contact with
civilization. It was only by attentive inquiries that Howitt extracted
them from the natives. Besides these we read in fifteen statements
that each family camped separately. So that twenty of twenty-four
statements assert that there was in this respect complete isolation
of the families. Sexual motives played undoubtedly an important part
in this isolation. We are told so expressly in several places (Curr,
Grey, Salvado, J. D. Lang). In the case of even friendly strangers
a certain amount of mistrust--of evil magic as well as of actual
bad intentions--may have operated. There are indications of it in
statements of Br. Smyth and Grey. But in the detailed examples given by
Howitt, where all the camping families are closely related and usually
consist of more than one generation (father and sons, etc.), we can
hardly conceive that either of the above-mentioned motives would come
into play. At any rate this regulated camp order shows how important
this question was in the native social life and how strong the idea
must have been that each family had its own place apart from the
others, and the more remotely related people were, the less intimate
contact would be.
The aborigines possess different kinds of huts. Of interest for us is
the fact that the majority of them are made to hold only one family.
Fourteen statements assert it explicitly or implicitly. In three
instances we are told of the existence of larger huts (Eyre, Dawson,
Collins). In two of them the separation of families is maintained in
spite of the larger dwellings. Only Collins' information is doubtful in
this respect.
Within these huts the family camped according to fixed rules. We have
five instances given by Howitt and his correspondents, and Bishop
Salvado. These rules show clearly that each hut, each fire-place, was
reserved for one family, and that this _status_ had its customary form
and sanction. There were three instances of separation during meals
(Gournditsh-Mara, some of the North-West Central Queensland tribes,
and the Kabi and Wakka). In three statements we are told that both
sexes separated during meals (Curr, Angas, Roth). What Curr tells us of
the marked social separation of families is remarkable; especially in
respect to the isolation of the women.[512]
[512] It is well to notice here that the isolation of
families was closely connected with the isolation of both
sexes. The men were in contact only with their wives
and perhaps with their near female relatives. That this
isolation cannot be due to motives of sexual jealousy is
certain; it is in great part due to the dread of evil
magic. But to work out this question would lead us too far.
Compare Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 776, 777.
Two statements were rather in contradiction with our general results:
Beveridge's statement of promiscuous huddling and Collins' vague
information. We stated our reasons for not giving them much weight,
and they cannot outweigh the sum-total of reliable information which
is fairly unanimous on this point. It is also in general agreement
with the information we gathered on sexual matters as well as with our
conclusion as to territorial distribution, and it corroborates our
results on both these points. For on the one hand it was found that
in normal life there exists individuality of sexual relations; on the
other hand the usual scattered mode of living would correspond to a
fairly complete isolation in cases of tribal assembly.
Our last considerations have clearly demonstrated how the individuality
of the family unit shows itself in the aboriginal mode of living. A
single family is normally in contact with a few other families only;
sometimes it roams alone over its own area. But even when there are
several families living together, the camp rules keep them apart from
each other in nearly every function of daily life. The children, who
live in intimate contact with their parents in the same hut, must
necessarily set them apart from all their (the children's) other
relatives. We must assume, therefore, that the individuality of the
relation of each child to its actual parents is deeply impressed by all
the circumstances of daily life on the child's mind. This assumption is
in accord with the information we can gather on this point. But before
we begin to look it through, let us discuss the theoretical side of the
kinship (or relationship) problem.