identical with consanguinity in our sense. But he wrongly restricts
kinship to a specific kind of ideas about community of blood. "Though
kinship, however, is not equivalent to blood relationship in our sense
of the term, it is founded on the idea of common blood which all within
the kin possess, and to which all outside the kin are strangers. A
feeling of solidarity runs through the entire kin, so that it may be
said without hyperbole that the kin is regarded as one entire life,
one body whereof each unit is more than metaphorically a member, a
limb. The same blood runs through them all, and 'the blood is the
life.'"[572] This definition, illustrated as it is by many examples,
is one more instance showing that the idea underlying kinship may
be different from the idea of consanguinity in our sense, _i. e._
consanguinity of blood through procreation. But the affirmation that
kinship is always based on some idea of common blood, seems to be not
in accord with the facts. Moreover this passage, which is the only one
designed to define kinship, is quite inadequate to the importance of
the subject, especially in a treatise devoted to primitive paternity,
and the result is that in this admirable work the purely sociological
side presents some obscurities. The following remark: "Kindred with the
father is first and foremost juridical--a social convention"[573] is
also incorrect in the light of the foregoing discussion of the legal
aspect of kinship.
[572] _Primitive Paternity_, i. pp. 257-258.
[573] Sidney Hartland, ii. p. 99.
Dr. Rivers defines: "Kin and Kinship.--These terms should be limited to
the relationship ... which can be demonstrated genealogically." This is
quite a formalistic definition and does not at all meet the full facts
of the case. Moreover it seems that in this way we define the unknown
by what is still more indeterminate. For to draw up a genealogy we must
first know who are the individuals between whom the line of descent is
to be drawn; in other words we must know how fatherhood is defined in
a given society. Among the Todas, Dr. Rivers had to ascertain in what
way the father of a given child is determined, before he could proceed
to draw up the genealogies.[574] In any case the problem of kinship
requires in the actual state of things not only a purely formal
definition, but a detailed analysis. Much more important as regards
the present problem is the way in which Dr. Rivers has described the
kinship of the Torres Straits Islanders.[575] In introducing the study
of the functions of kin he points to a series of important facts which
determine some social aspect of kinship and afford an insight into some
of the collective ideas concerning this relation. It must be borne
in mind, however, that the set of functions described by Dr. Rivers
gives us only a partial knowledge of the social aspect of kinship. The
every-day functions corresponding to treatment, behaviour, feeding and
so forth, which characterize the intimate or home aspect of the kinship
relation, ought not to be omitted. They correspond, according to our
analysis, to feelings which make an essential part of the relation
in question. The social functions of kin collected by Dr. Rivers,
expressing certain duties and privileges of the kinsmen involved,
correspond to certain customary norms. A complete collection of all
legal norms and all moral rules would be an essential addition. That
such moral rules do exist among the Torres Straits Islanders appears
certain from the precepts given at initiation to youths.[576]
[574] Of course I insist here only upon the logical and
methodological priority of the psychological determination
of kinship over the genealogical. In reality, wherever
individual paternal kinship exists, the genealogies may be
drawn first, and they possess an independent value, even
if we did not know what is the content of the aboriginal
idea of kinship. There is a series of highly valuable
sociological conclusions that may be drawn from a system of
genealogies (compare Dr. Rivers' article on this subject in
_Sociological Review_, 1910, pp. 1 _sqq._).
I do not, therefore, agree with the following remark of
Sir Laurence Gomme (_op. cit._, p. 232): "It is of no use
preparing a genealogical tree on the basis of civilized
knowledge of genealogy if such a document is beyond the
ken of the people to whom it relates. The information for
it may be correctly collected, but if the whole structure
is not within the compass of savage thought it is a
misleading anthropological document." If it is possible
at all to collect a genealogy, that means that individual
kinship exists in such a community; in other words the
"structure is within the compass of savage thought," only
it is not apprehended by them in the same manner as by us.
It is certainly true that in many cases the knowledge of
this aboriginal apprehension is essentially needful for a
sociologist. This has been argued in the text.
[575] _Camb. Univ. Exp._, v. chap. iii. on Kinship, pp. 129
_sqq._ In particular, pp. 142-152, under the headings "The
Functions of certain Kin," and "Kinship Taboos."
[576] Recorded by Dr. Haddon, _loc. cit._, v. p. 210.
Messrs. Fison and Howitt in their treatise on Australian kinship[577]
do not give anywhere a clear definition of the concept in question. The
only place where something like definition is given is page 121, where
kinship is said to be "membership in the same tribal division," and
where there is an acknowledgment that beyond "kinship" there still lies
"personal relationship" between the parent and child. This is true, but
this is only the first distinction upon which the actual discussion of
the problem ought to be based. That the want of such a discussion is a
serious defect in the book is obvious.
[577] _Kam. and Kurn._
The important distinction between kinship (_parenté_) and
consanguinity, which is one of the chief results of the foregoing
pages, has been made already by Prof. Durkheim.[578] Nevertheless
the exclusive stress that M. Durkheim lays upon the legal aspect of
kinship would not seem adapted to the complexity of the facts. "La
parenté est essentiellement constitué par des obligations juridiques
et morales que la société impose à certains individus." This is not
enough. There are certain ideas which affirm a strong bond between
parent and child, and undoubtedly these ideas, although neither of
legal nor moral character, exercise a strong influence on the relation
in question. Possibly the difference could be reduced to the broader
sense in which Prof. Durkheim uses the words _legal_ and _moral_; as
his remarks are necessarily short, being contained in a review, it
is difficult exactly to ascertain their sense. We have tried to show
that, especially in reference to low societies, both these terms must
be used with caution, and that a definite sense must be given to them.
Besides, I do not share Prof. Durkheim's view that by substituting the
word "kinship" for the word "consanguinity" all Morgan's deductions
could be rectified.[579] The constitution of the family is something
quite different from and much more complicated than the sexual aspect
of marriage, and it cannot be at once seen whether the nomenclature of
kinship (systems of kinship terms) could be shown to be rooted in the
former with the same ease as it can be shown in the latter case. This
would require a special study.
[578] _A.S._, i. p. 316.
[579] _Ibid._, p. 318.
M. A. van Gennep also clearly establishes the distinction between
_parenté sociale_ and _parenté physique_.[580] According to our
terminology the latter would correspond to physiological consanguinity,
while the former would be identical with what we called parental
kinship. We see that this distinction is quite in agreement with our
theory. Only we called social consanguinity a special case of kinship,
where the collective ideas on procreation play the essential rôle.
Obviously these ideas may be more or less physiologically correct or
erroneous. But where they are completely absent (as in Australia)
we prefer not to use the suggestive term _consanguinity_, and to
distinguish these cases from the former we use the term _kinship_.
M. A. van Gennep remarks further that the Central Australians do not
know the real cause of procreation in spite of some illusory appearances
(we shall deal with this question in detail below and solve it quite in
agreement with the author in question); he shows the wide extension of
this negative belief in the Australian continent, and speaking of the
South Australian tribes, points out that the most important aspect is
that they prove the independence of kinship and consanguinity.[581]
[580] _Loc. cit._, p. lxiii. (of the Introduction).
[581] "L'indépendance réciproque du point de vue biologique
et du point de vue social chez les Australiens." (_Ibid._,
p. lxv.)
The same distinction between consanguinity and kinship is also made by
Prof. Westermarck in his discussion of the classificatory system of
relationship, and Prof. Westermarck has already brought the important
objection against Morgan, viz. that the latter has "given no evidence
for the truth of his assumption that the classificatory system" is a
system of blood ties,[582] an objection which has appeared also to us
as fundamental. Unfortunately, Prof. Westermarck has not given any
exhaustive discussion of the concept of kinship.
[582] _H.H.M._, p. 89.
Finally, I wish to mention a passage by Sir Laurence Gomme, which
contains suggestive remarks nearly identical with some views set
forth in this chapter. "It is of no use translating a native term as
'father,' if father did not mean to the savage what it means to us. It
might mean something so very different. With us fatherhood connotes a
definite individual with all sorts of social, economical and political
associations, but what does it mean to the savage? It may mean physical
fatherhood and nothing more, and physical fatherhood may be a fact of
the veriest insignificance. It may mean social fatherhood ... and thus
becomes" (in some cases), "much more than we can understand by the term
father."[583]
[583] _Loc. cit._, pp. 232, 233; compare also above
p. 182, footnote. Apart from the naturally somewhat loose
terminology (the passage about kinship is intended as an
example only, and does not aim at a full treatment of the
subject)--the passages quoted express the same ideas which
served as a starting-point for this chapter.
I came across the paragraph in question unfortunately only
after the MS. of the present chapter had been finished
and the foregoing chapters had been printed. The opinion
of Sir Laurence Gomme would also have been of value in
support of the views expressed in the Introduction, pp. 6,
7, where I try to show that it is meaningless to use the
word "family" as a rigidly determined concept of universal
application. "The family as seen in savage society, and
the family as it appears among the antiquities of the
Indo-European people, are totally distinct in origin, in
compass and in force" (Sir Laurence Gomme, _loc. cit._,
pp. 236, 237). And the author applies his criticism to the
same two writers who have been the objects of my attacks
(Mr. A. Lang and Mr. N. W. Thomas, see _op. cit._, p. 236,
footnote 1). And, again, Sir Laurence Gomme argues that
the unqualified use of the term "family" is very harmful,
"because of the universal application of this term to the
smallest social unit of the civilized world, and because of
the fundamental difference of structure of the units which
roughly answer to the definition of family in various parts
of the world" (_op. cit._, p. 235). Certainly there is also
a _fundamental analogy_ of structure between all forms of
human family; but the problem must be set forth and it
must be acknowledged that this social unit undergoes deep
changes as other elements of social structure change.
It may also be pointed out for the sake of completeness that in the
great majority of human societies parental kinship assumes the form of
consanguinity; the ideas that underlie kinship are generally gathered
round the facts of procreation. These facts are connected with such
deep and powerful instincts and feelings that in the majority of
cases they naturally shape and influence the ideas of maternity and
paternity. But the few exceptions to this rule which we meet with in
very primitive societies are of the highest theoretical interest,
both from the evolutionist's and psychologist's point of view. The
final remark I would like to make here is on the well-known fact
that physiological maternity is much more easily ascertainable than
physiological paternity. Paternal kinship, therefore, will much more
frequently differ from what we called consanguinity than maternal
kinship. But some of the Australian examples and our previous general
considerations should make us cautious in laying down _a priori_ any
assertion of the purely physiological character of maternity.
II
SOME EXAMPLES OF KINSHIP IDEAS SUGGESTED BY THE AUSTRALIAN FOLK-LORE
The foregoing remarks on kinship, and the sketch of a general
definition of kinship given above, of course bear upon the whole of
the present investigations, since parental kinship being one of the
relationships involved in the individual family, all that refers to
this latter unit relates more or less immediately to parental kinship.
In the other chapters we attempt to discuss the existence of the
individual family, and of those of its features which appear to be
universal, and which have, therefore, been adopted as the basis of
parental kinship. The general features of the Australian individual
family are given in the concluding chapter, and a comparison of the
results presented there with the foregoing general definition of
kinship[584] will be sufficient to satisfy the first point of this
definition, _i. e._ to prove the existence of individual parental
kinship in Australia and to describe its constant elements. In the
following chapter (Chap. VII.) attention will be paid to the functions
of kin, which correspond to the collective feelings of parents to
children. Here we shall discuss the data taken from Australian
folk-lore, which bear upon the parental kinship, and shall thus satisfy
that part of our definition in which it was laid down that the ideas of
kinship must be investigated.
[584] pp. 198 _sqq._
The survey may commence with the Central tribes, the folk-lore of
which we know best, owing to the excellent information given by Messrs.
Spencer and Gillen, subsequently confirmed in its main lines by the
joint publication of Herr Strehlow and Frhr. von Leonhardi. In these
works we possess a very detailed description of the aboriginal views on
conception and birth, which are connected with their totemic beliefs.
These views will not be reproduced here _in extenso_, and the reader
is referred to the sources and the special works.[585] The reader is
therefore, supposed to be acquainted with the aboriginal views on
conception, and only the ideas which in these theories refer directly
to our subject, _i. e._ those underlying parental kinship, will be
dealt with here.
[585] Here in the first place must be mentioned the works
of Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 123-127, 255; _Nor.
Tr._, pp. 144, 163 _sqq._, 169 _sqq._, 174-176, 150, 330,
331; Mrs. Parker, pp. 50 _sqq._, 61, 98.
Strehlow, _loc. cit._, i., on the second and third pages
of the Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi (there is no
pagination), ii. pp. 51 _sqq._, iii. pp. x.-xi. of the
Preface by Frhr. von Leonhardi. A short notice on totemic
conception and on local distribution of spirit-children
is communicated by Rev. L. Schultze, _Trans. and Proc.
R.S.S.A._, xiv. p. 237 (1891). R. H. Mathews communicated
in several places beliefs in reincarnation and totemic
conception. See _Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W._, xl. pp. 108
_sqq._, _ibid._, xli. p. 147. And _Queensland Geographical
Journal_, xx. p. 73, and xxii. pp. 75, 76. _Am. Anthr._,
xxviii. p. 144. _Bull. Soc. of Anthr._, Paris, vii. serie
v. p. 171. Herbert Basedow, _Trans. R.S.S.A._, xxxi.
(1907), p. 4. (Short communication concerning the Larrekiya
tribe of the Northern territory, South Australia.) Amongst
the sources must be quoted the communications given by
Prof. Frazer on the authority of Dr. Frodsham, Bishop
of North Queensland, and the Rev. C. W. Morrison, which
refer to the Northern and North-Eastern tribes in general.
Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i., p. 577.
In fact, the theory of totemic conception is so closely
connected with the whole of the aboriginal totemic beliefs
that it is necessary to be acquainted with the latter in
order to understand the former; and for this the perusal
of both the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and of
Strehlow is necessary.
Among the theoretical works dealing with primitive views
of conception and paternity (in Australia and in general),
we must place first the treatise of Mr. E. S. Hartland,
_Primitive Paternity_, which is the most extensive
and thorough examination of all beliefs, referring
to a supernatural cause of birth and all its social
consequences. The beliefs in question play an important
rôle in Prof. Frazer's work on _Totemism and Exogamy_. See
especially vol. iv., on origins of Totemism.
We may mention also the works of van Gennep, _Mythes et
Légendes d'Australie_, especially chaps. v. and vi. of
the Introduction, pp. 44-67, in which the ignorance of
the natives is illustrated by several interesting remarks
and inferences from other facts (for example, the beliefs
of the aborigines about the rôle and nature of the sexual
organs, pp. 111 _sqq._). Compare also the article of
Frhr. v. Reitzenstein, _Z.f.E._, xli., pp. 644 _sqq._ Mr.
A. Lang's views (comp. above, p. 181, footnote 1) are
expounded in _Anthrop. Essays_, pp. 203 _sqq._, and in _The
Secret of the Totem_, chap. xi.
Roughly speaking it may be said that these totemic beliefs and theories
of conception prevent the aboriginal mind from forming the idea of
physiological paternity and even probably weaken the social importance
of maternity. For the only cause of pregnancy is that a "spirit-child"
entered the body of a woman. "The natives one and all in these tribes
believe that the child is the direct result of the entrance into
the mother of an ancestral spirit individual. They have no idea of
procreation as being directly associated with sexual intercourse, and
firmly believe that children can be born without this taking place.
There are, for example, in the Arunta country certain stones which are
supposed to be charged with spirit children, who can, by magic, be made
to enter the bodies of women, or will do so on their own accord."[586]
Accordingly no tie of blood can be supposed to exist between the
father and his child; there is no room for any ideas of physiological
paternity; in other words, using our terminology, social consanguinity
between father and child does not exist.[587] This is the most general
conclusion that can be drawn from the beliefs quoted. But in connection
with this question there are still some details, some controversial
points into which we must enter in order to dissipate any doubts as to
the correctness of our general conclusions just mentioned, as well as
of some subsequent reasonings.
[586] This refers to the whole Central and North Central
area. Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, p. 330. In a short
note of recent date (_Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562), we
read that Prof. B. Spencer has found the same absence of
physiological knowledge in the tribes living North-West of
the "Northern Tribes" (from Roper River to Port Darwin).
According to his opinion this belief obtains from the South
Coast of Australia over a broad belt right through the
Centre to the North Coast. (_Ibid._)
[587] It may be remembered here that this is not in
contradiction with the passage in M. A. von Gennep's work,
_Mythes and Légendes d'Australie_, p. lxiii, implying
that there is social but not physiological consanguinity
between father and child in the Central Australian tribes.
The difference in terminology is explained above, p. 178,
footnote 1, and reasons are given explaining why I did not
adopt M. A. von Gennep's terminology, although I completely
share his views.
(1) There seems to be some incertitude as to the complete absence among
the natives of any knowledge regarding the physiology of procreation.
We read in Strehlow,[588] "Übrigens wissen die alten Männer, wie mir
versichert wurde, dass die cohabitatio als Grund der Kinderkonzeption
anzusehen sei, sagen aber davon den jüngeren Männern und Frauen
nichts." This phrase might evoke some doubts as to whether we should
attribute so much importance to the alleged ignorance.[589] But
according to subsequent information in the same publication,[590] we
must not attach to this phrase too much weight. Possibly the knowledge
of the old men comes from alien sources; at any rate we see from the
explanation given below by Frhr. von Leonhardi that this phrase does
not rest on any concrete facts, or any well-founded information. From
the point of view of collective ideas it must always be remembered that
it is in the social institutions of a given people and in the whole of
their beliefs that we must look for the foundation and confirmation of
a given creed. It would be a superfluous digression to point out how
deeply the totemic theory of conception is connected with all the other
beliefs and the whole social life of the Australian aborigines--as this
has been done by so many students of the subject, and pre-eminently
by Prof. Frazer in his recent work on _Totemism and Exogamy_. Some
doubts might also arise from the fact that the natives apparently know
the real process of propagation in the case of the animals. There
is undoubtedly some difficulty here; and additional information on
this point would be most valuable. Nevertheless the case is not quite
hopeless: if we assume that this correct physiological knowledge is of
a relatively late origin, it is quite natural that it would arise first
in relation to the animal world, because the ideas about man, being the
most important and elaborate, would be the most conservative. Anyhow
this point requires further elucidation.[591]
[588] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 52, footnote 7.
[589] Attention was drawn to this phrase by P. W. Schmidt
in his article in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_ (1908),
p. 866 _sqq._, where the theory of conception among the Arunta
is discussed. He doubts: "Ob wirklich eine vollständige
Unkenntniss des Zusammenhanges von Koitus und Konzeption in
primitivem Zustande vorhanden ist."--_Loc. cit._, p. 883.
[590] Strehlow, iii. pp. x., xi.
[591] Frhr. von Reitzenstein shares the view here accepted;
comp. his review of Mr. Hartland's "Primitive Paternity" in
_Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie_, 43 Jhg. (1911), p. 175.
(2) We must insist upon another point, which might at first sight cast
some shadow of suspicion even on the foregoing one. We read in Spencer
and Gillen[592] that sexual intercourse "prepares the mother for the
reception and birth also of an already formed spirit-child who inhabits
one of the local totem centres." And this belief of "preparation,"
although at first denied by Strehlow,[593] was substantiated by him
after a more careful investigation and emphatically affirmed.[594]
Although there might seem to be at first sight some room for doubt,
whether this belief does not create some connection between copulation
and pregnancy, and so a bridge for the formation of ideas of paternity,
a moment's reflection dissipates these doubts. For in this belief
there is absolutely nothing that would point to any _individual_ male
as the father of the child. We do not know whether, according to the
native beliefs, there must be this preparation for each incarnation,
or whether it means only that a female cannot conceive without being
deflorated. Considering the emphasis with which, according to Spencer
and Gillen, the natives deny any causal connection between copulation
and birth, the second supposition seems to be the more probable. But
even if the first supposition were the right one, it does not imply any
knowledge that a given man has contributed to the body or soul of the
child. The latter, already formed (although diminutive in form) enters
the womb of a woman. We see therefore that our general conclusion of
page 209 is by no means contradicted by this detail in the aboriginal
beliefs.
[592] _Nat. Tr._, p. 265.
[593] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 52, footnote 7.
[594] _Loc. cit._, iii. p. xi.
(3) In the third place I would like to deal with the question whether
the totemic beliefs concerning conception contain the idea of any
reincarnation of ancestors, as this point will be subsequently of
importance to us. And on this important question there is controversy
too. Spencer and Gillen emphatically state: "In the whole of this
wide area, the belief that every living member of the tribe is the
reincarnation of a spirit ancestor is universal. This belief is just
as firmly held by the Urabunna people, who count descent in the female
line, as in the Arunta and Warramunga, who count descent in the male
line."[595]
[595] _Nor. Tr._, p. xi. Compare also pp. 145, 606. Spencer
and Gillen's statement is corroborated by various other
independent authors, some of them being even critically
disposed. The reincarnation of ancestors is asserted by the
missionaries Teichelmann and Schürmann, in reference to the
Adelaide tribe (compare below, p. 217, note 4). Mr. Thomas
has shown (_Man_, 1904, § 68, pp. 99, 100) that the belief
in reincarnation is implied in the Rev. L. Schultze's
statement. Mrs. Parker quotes also beliefs containing the
idea of reincarnation (_loc. cit._, pp. 50, 56, 73, 89;
quoted by Mr. E. S. Hartland, _loc. cit._, i. p. 243). Mr.
R. H. Mathews also emphatically affirms the existence of a
belief in reincarnation amongst the Central and even all
the other Australian tribes (_Trans. R.S.N.S.W._, 1906,
xi. pp. 110 _sqq._). He says: "In all aboriginal tribes
there is a deeply-seated belief in the reincarnation of
their ancestors." And he gives illustrations of this belief
among the Arunta. Mr. Mathews also draws attention to a
series of analogous statements from older authors (Taplin,
_loc. cit._, p. 88, Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 235). Prof.
B. Spencer has ascertained the existence of ideas about
reincarnation in his recent investigations among the
natives of the extreme North Roper River to Port Darwin.
_Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562.
On the other hand, the belief in reincarnation is expressly and
explicitly denied by Strehlow and Leonhardi: "Den Glauben an eine immer
wiederkehrende Reincarnation dieses altjirangamitjina (= alcheringa
of Spencer and Gillen), den Spencer and Gillen gefunden haben wollen,
hat Herr Strehlow nicht feststellen können."[596] In another passage
of the same work the expression of Spencer and Gillen, "in every tribe
without exception there exists a firm belief in the reincarnation of
ancestors," is simply designated as misleading ("irreführend") by the
editor (Frhr. v. Leonhardi).[597]
[596] Bn. Leonhardi in Strehlow, i. Introduction (third
page; there is no pagination).
[597] Strehlow, ii. p. 57, end of the long footnote.
We seem here to be again at a loss. For behind the mere assertions
of both parties there is a considerable amount of fact which seems
to corroborate each of them. Spencer and Gillen do not give us bare
statements. Such concrete and detailed accounts of beliefs as those
quoted below[598] are very cogent. We see by them that Spencer and
Gillen's assertion concerning the existence of reincarnation is the
general expression of a series of positive facts; as there cannot be
any doubt as to the authenticity of the latter, the general assertion
of our authors is convincing! But if we inquire more precisely into
the nature of this reincarnation we find certain "contradictions" and
"inconsistencies" in these beliefs, and we can quite safely agree with
Frhr. von Leonhardi that if we "take the expression exactly to the
letter"[599] we are compelled to deny the existence of any ideas of
reincarnation. The only objection is that any attempt to give "strict"
or "exact" sense to aboriginal ideas is completely misplaced. The
aborigines are not able to think exactly, and their beliefs do not
possess any "exact meaning." And if an attempt be made to interpret
them in this way, we shall always fail to understand them and to trace
their social bearing. We must accept those beliefs as they stand in
their quaint concreteness, full of contradictions and inconsistencies,
and endeavour to mould our ideas upon the given folkloristic material,
of which an adequate knowledge is indispensable for sociological
purposes and gives us a very deep insight into the mechanism of
different social groups. So, for instance, the aboriginal beliefs of
reincarnation will be found to be of some importance as regards the
idea of kinship.
[598] Compare p. 216.
[599] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 56.
But let us return to our analysis of this aboriginal idea of
reincarnation. To define the word _exactly_ the expression of Baron
Leonhardi may be accepted; reincarnation means "that the given
totemic ancestor himself continually undergoes rebirth." In other
words the belief in reincarnation logically defined consists in a
strict identification of a given man with a given ancestor. From this
it is obvious that one would look in vain for such a belief amongst
the Australian savages, who do not know anything of logic, and can
neither affirm identity nor perceive contradictions.[600] Instead of
identifying two things, they feel only a strong but mystical bond of
union between them. In this sense the new-born child is obviously a
reincarnation of a given ancestor. For it is "identical" with the
spirit-child or _ratapa_ of which it is the incarnation, and this
again is "identical" with a given Alcheringa: obviously using the
word "identity" in the sense indicated above, _i. e._ that there is
some mystical tie between the Alcheringa and the spirit-child which
has emanated from him or her.[601] That this tie exists, we know from
the data,[602] from those given by Strehlow as well as from those
of Spencer and Gillen.[603] And consequently it may be said that the
Central Australians regard each man as the reincarnation of a given
ancestor; this being, of course, understood with the restriction here
laid down. Thus, any doubt as to this point--namely that all human
beings are reincarnations of _Alcheringa ancestors_--may easily be set
at rest.
[600] M. Lévy-Bruhl writes: "En appelant la mentalité
primitive 'prélogique,' je veux seulement dire qu'elle ne
s'astreint pas avant tout comme notre pensée, à s'abstenir
de la contradiction. Elle obéit d'abord a la loi de
participation."--_Loc. cit._, p. 79.
[601] In primitive thinking the identification is
accomplished not according to logical categories, but
according to the _loi de participation_ introduced by
M. Lévy-Bruhl. (Compare foregoing footnote.) To this work
the reader must be referred for a deeper insight into the
standpoint adopted in the present discussion.
[602] This assertion ought to be proved by a detailed
analysis of the beliefs mentioned. As the problem is of no
immediate importance, this discussion cannot be undertaken.
The aboriginal ideas of reincarnation have been treated
from the point of view of the _loi de participation_ by
M. Lévy-Bruhl.--_Loc. cit._, pp. 396 _sqq._
[603] Spencer and Gillen themselves in many places make
statements that stand in direct contradiction with a
theory of reincarnation _literally_ understood. Frhr. von
Leonhardi takes the trouble to adduce several instances of
these contradictions (ii. p. 56, footnote 1). They might
easily be multiplied, but as argued in the text they do
not affect in the least the value of the information. The
description of these beliefs given by Strehlow (_loc.
cit._, ii. pp. 51 _sqq._), does not differ radically from
what we know about them from Spencer and Gillen, although
Strehlow's account is more detailed.
There still remains, however, the question, much more important to us,
whether there be amongst these tribes the belief in the reincarnation
of _human ancestors_. Strehlow's information seems absolutely to deny
any idea of repeated reincarnation;[604] a man after death goes to
the _ltjarilkna-ala_, where after a certain time his ghost undergoes
perfect and final destruction.[605] A man who has lived his life never
returns. I confess that to assume amongst savages the existence of
such a neatly defined and categorically-formulated belief in absolute
destruction or annihilation seems to me rather suspicious; and there
is perhaps some misunderstanding of a rather theoretical character
on the part of the Rev. C. Strehlow. Moreover, we are informed by
this latter author that besides this belief in annihilation there
are ideas according to which the souls of "good" men go to heaven to
Altjira,[606] and the souls of the "bad" people are eaten up by the
_atna ntjkantja_.[607] Consequently not all souls perish after death,
and reincarnation is from this standpoint not impossible. And even
if there were some belief as to this annihilation, it might perfectly
well be connected by the natives with the ideas of reincarnation.
The primitive mind, as has often been urged, does not perceive
contradictions. It is not to negative instances that we must look for
an answer, but always to positive ones: if we do find indications
of a belief, we are then sure that it exists, even if it were in
contradiction with ever so many others. If we do not find it, we can
say nothing, and especially we are not justified in proving its absence
by showing that it stands in contradiction with any of the beliefs
ascertained.
[604] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 56.
[605] _Loc. cit._, i. 16, ii. 7.
[606] The Altjira is the "good god (?) of the Aranda," i.
p. 2.
[607] I cannot help feeling that this very belief in future
rewards (by the _good god_) and punishment appears somewhat
tinged by Christian teachings.
Now Spencer and Gillen adduce in several places concrete instances of
beliefs which prove beyond doubt that the idea of the reincarnation
of human beings actually exists in the Central tribes. As this point
is of some importance in our present study, these instances must be
brought forward. One of them is the belief that infants, who either
die or are killed, soon undergo reincarnation. Such a belief exists
among the Arunta,[608] among the Kaitish and Unmatjera.[609] And
again, in another place, such a belief is reported to exist in all the
tribes examined by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen.[610] That this belief
is deeply rooted is shown by the fact that it serves as an excuse
for the practice of infanticide; for the natives believe that the
same child will soon undergo rebirth from the same mother. It might,
nevertheless, be objected that here rebirth is undergone only by
persons who died in infancy; and that this has little connection with
the reincarnation of ancestors dead long ago. But, first, this belief
is the proof of the existence of reincarnation ideas in general, and
moreover there are better instances still. There has been found amongst
the Urabunna the belief that a person at each reincarnation changes
sex, class and totem.[611] The same belief in the alternation of sexes
at each successive reincarnation is held amongst the Warramunga.[612]
The knowledge of these concrete and detailed beliefs enables us to
affirm without hesitation that the general idea of the reincarnation
of human beings exists among the Central Australian tribes.[613] A
mere assertion on the part of our informants might leave some doubts;
but if they adduce these beliefs in detail, the doubts can be only
as to their trustworthiness; and this is out of the question in the
present case. There are yet other facts confirming the assumption we
are dealing with. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen give a detailed account
of the wanderings and doings of the ghost after death.[614] They say
expressly that the ghost after a time goes to a certain place, where it
awaits reincarnation. A similar belief in a land where the souls of the
dead await reincarnation has been found in the Adelaide tribes.[615]
So that, dividing the problem of reincarnation into two questions--Is
there among the Central Australians (1) a belief in a reincarnation of
the Alcheringa ancestors? (2) a belief in the reincarnation of human
ancestors?--both must be answered in the affirmative.
[608] _Nat. Tr._, p. 51.
[609] _Nor. Tr._, p. 506.
[610] _Ibid._, p. 609.
[611] _Ibid._, p. 148.
[612] _Nor. Tr._, p. 358, footnote, and p. 530.
[613] And probably among the Australian tribes in general.
[614] _Nat. Tr._, p. 515.
[615] Compare Mr. Thomas' article in _Man_ (1904), p. 99,
§ 68, where he quotes Teichelman and Schürmann. The
widespread belief that white men are dead people
returned to life is a proof of the existence of beliefs
in reincarnation.
To sum up our somewhat extensive discussion of the totemic beliefs
of conception, we may say that the collective ideas of the Central
and North Central Australian[616] aborigines ignore expressly and
explicitly any connection of blood between a father and his child,
and probably greatly reduce the importance of the maternal blood tie;
that even allowing for the greatest amount of physiological knowledge
amongst these aborigines, there cannot be any question of paternal
consanguinity. We have seen further that in all these Central and North
Central tribes (and possibly in many others too) there is an idea
of reincarnation, not only of the Alcheringa, but also of the human
ancestors; the word reincarnation being used in the sense indicated
above, page 214.
[616] Including the tribes recently investigated by Prof.
B. Spencer.
So far the results regarding parental, and especially paternal,
kinship are purely negative; there is between father and child no
_consanguinity_.[617] But is there no kinship? According to the
theory of kinship sketched above, individual parental kinship must
be accepted as existing in the Central no less than in all the other
Australian tribes, for the reasons already specified. And, as was said
above, and will be discussed again, it is even possible on the basis
of the evidence extant to give an account of the emotional character
of this relation. The greatest difficulty is to know what idea the
aborigines themselves form concerning it; in other words, how is
fatherhood determined in the collective psychology of the natives? Some
indications at least of what we look for may be found.
[617] Compare above, pp. 176 _sqq._, for discussion of this
term.
If we examine the different items of the folk-lore, traditions, beliefs
and customs of the Arunta, we can at first sight hardly discover any
ideas that bear upon our subject. Fortunately, in the case of some of
the Northern tribes, we are in possession of information which appears
highly suggestive in regard to our problem. The Gnanji and Umbaia
tribes of the Northern territory share the belief in totemic conception
with all the more Southern tribes. But amongst them the child is always
of the same totem as its father, wherever conception may have taken
place. These tribes have a theory to reconcile these two beliefs that
apparently are incompatible, viz. descent of totem in paternal line and
birth by incarnation of a spirit-child.[618] They believe that spirits
of the husband's totem follow the wife wherever the married couple may
go, and that one of these spirit individuals enters the woman's body
whenever it pleases; no spirit-child of any other totem could enter
her. The infant is therefore always of the husband's totem, and it
is the _reincarnation of this individual spirit_ which has chosen to
follow the man and his wife on their wanderings. In this belief there
are, undoubtedly, contained ideas of a strong tie of sympathy, affinity
or kinship between the father and his future child. In the first place
the spirit-child, which undergoes reincarnation, belongs to the totem
of the husband; but that does not as yet create any individual relation
between the father and the child, although it constitutes a bond of
totemic kinship between them.
[618] _See_ Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 169 _sqq._
Nevertheless it must be remembered that the individual spirit-child,
which sometimes has even to follow the married couple on their
wanderings, chooses its mother on account of her husband and not in
all probability on her own; for it is not of her totem, and it is
improbable that the natives assume ties of preference between two
beings of different clans, if there are at hand two members of the
same clan--the father and the reincarnated child. Now this act of
choosing, this special preference of a certain woman on account of her
husband, clearly points to a very close tie between father and child.
Unfortunately, the writers who report the beliefs in question have
not investigated the side we have discussed, and as all hypothetical
inferences are dangerous in sociology, we must consider this belief
to be highly suggestive but nothing more. Nevertheless, setting one
against another the two facts--the social existence of a close tie
between father and child on the one hand (as we can affirm it on the
ground of the emotional character of this relationship), and the
existence of a belief that the reincarnated spirit-child is of the
father's totem, and is, so to say, attached to him in his roaming
life--it is difficult not to suspect some inner connection between
them. Now, if our supposition is right, and if this belief has its
social influence in defining fatherhood, it may be said that in the
Gnanji and Umbaia tribes the essence of fatherhood is seen in the
fact that a given man has determined a given spirit-child to take up
its abode in his wife's body, and that the close tie of kinship lies
in this mutual affinity or attraction exercised by the man on the
spirit-child. This is hypothetical, but we may note another statement
of Spencer and Gillen's which appears to bear upon our subject and
corroborates our first hypothetical assumption.
We read that in the three coastal tribes of the Northern
territory--Binbinga, Anula and Mara--the natives are very clear upon
the point that the spirit-children know which are the right _lubra_
for them respectively to enter, and each one deliberately chooses
his or her own mother.[619] Now descent in these tribes is strictly
paternal both as regards totems and classes.[620] This means that the
father determines the class and totem of his child. We must assume,
therefore, that the spirit-child chooses its mother chiefly in regard
to her husband, _i. e._ its future father. It may, therefore, be
once more repeated here that such an act of preference involves the
idea of a very close tie between the spirit-child and the father;
whether this idea is a real kinship idea, that is, whether it has its
positive influence upon the different functions of the relationship
in question, is not mentioned by our informants, and it would be
quite vain to speculate upon the subject. But again, putting the two
items--_i. e._ the belief in question and the existence of a close tie
of kinship--side by side, it is difficult to deny that a connection
between them appears very probable.
[619] _Nor. Tr._, p. 174. The same is related in the recent
note of Prof. B. Spencer (_Athenæum_, Nov. 4, 1911, p. 562).
We read there: "The spirit-children know into what woman
they must enter."
[620] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 119, 172. Compare N. W. Thomas, _loc.
cit._ Map No. 1, facing p. 40.
A similar social part appears also to be played by the most
general belief connected with the question of birth--the belief in
reincarnation. The question whether these beliefs may be assumed in the
Arunta has been discussed at length, and an affirmative conclusion has
been arrived at. Moreover, it has been seen that this belief appears
to be almost universal in Australia, and that it is reported by many
writers. There seems to be some reason for assuming that this belief
may possibly have some bearing on the aboriginal ideas of kinship.
As the child is an incarnation not only of a spirit individual, and
consequently of an Alcheringa ancestor, but also in the majority of
cases of a series of human ancestors, it comes into this world with an
already formed personality, and it stands in a definite relation to
an Alcheringa ancestor; to a Nanja place and to a given Churinga; it
has its place in a totemic group and in a class. We may, therefore,
reasonably assume that among other attributes the child brings its
individual kinship, derived from some vague ideas about a former life,
with it into the world. In other words, the child is probably supposed
already at its birth to stand in a definite kinship relation (dating
from a mutual previous existence) towards its individual parents.
In fact, if the child comes into the world as a member of other
social groups, it may be taken as very probable that it comes as the
individual kinsman of its father and mother. Father, mother and child
have already lived in the past; they may already have stood in a very
close relationship; perhaps they have even been members of the same
individual family.
This supposition may appear at first sight highly hypothetical;
plausible perhaps, but nothing more; yet there are other facts which in
considerable measure support it. There is the belief that the spirit
part of a child which is killed, or dies in infancy, comes to life
again by and by, and undergoes incarnation in the same woman.[621]
In this belief we see that the ties of individual kinship, once
established, do not give way after death, and that they determine the
rebirth of the child. This belief may be a special case of a more
general one, viz. that rebirth in all cases is determined by ties of
individual kinship established in a former life. There is yet another
series of beliefs leading more directly to the same conclusion. I
mean the well-known fact that white men were considered to be returned
dead relatives, and treated accordingly. We know that there were
several cases in which the life of a man was saved by this belief.
The best known is the case of Buckley, a run-away convict, who lived
about thirty years among the natives. He was treated with the greatest
kindness and tenderness by his "relatives."[622] The same tokens of
affection are related to have been shown to a settler in the vicinity
of Perth by his "parents," who merely to see him would travel more than
sixty leagues through a country which was in parts dangerous.[623] In
another place we are informed that a white convict identified with a
dead relative was presented with a piece of land which "belonged to him
by right." Similar statements are numerous.[624] In order to establish
the relevancy of these facts to our problem, it may be remarked that
the most important features of the beliefs in question are (1) that
white men are identified with a given dead individual, (2) that they
get then _ipso facto_ a definite place in the tribe, in the local
group, and--what is most important as regards the present question--in
the individual family. The belief that people after death become white
may account for the identification of white men with the dead. But
the fact that in ever so many cases a white man was identified with a
certain individual, and became thereby entitled to a social position,
implies some additional beliefs. One of these beliefs is the idea of
rebirth or reincarnation that we have established above in another
way. The other collective idea, which must be assumed in order to
explain the ease and readiness with which feelings of affection as
well as worldly goods were bestowed upon these alleged relatives,
is that in the ordinary form in which dead men return to this life,
_i. e._ in reincarnation by birth, each individual brings with him,
or her, full social position, including individual relationship. And
this is the point at issue in the present discussion. The fact that
white men were recognized as dead relatives compels us to assume
that children--who were considered as reborn men--were also accepted
as relatives. If the natives had not their mind turned that way, if
they were not used to identify every new member of their society with
some ancestor of their own, could they do it so easily in the case
of white men, who were so different from them, and could not present
any striking physical similarity? Of course this inference is not a
cogent one. But putting side by side all the facts we have gathered:
the belief in reincarnation of the dead; the easy recognition of dead
relatives in white men; and the promptitude with which, in some cases,
the latter were given their places in society, their hunting-grounds,
their parents, relatives, and so on--all this allows us to affirm with
a high degree of probability that a new-born child was looked upon as a
reincarnated member of the tribe, and that an intimate kinship between
him and his parents was considered to be established on the ground of
kinship in a previous life. Is not the parental affection which was
bestowed on some of the white men one of the most astonishing traits
in the evidence in question? Of course white men were considered to
be immediate reincarnations, or rather a return of the dead in ghost
condition; whereas rebirth was a much longer process, and was, perhaps,
considered as reincarnation of a long-dead ancestor. Consequently
the ties of kinship between a white man and his "relatives" were the
repetition of an actual relation which had already existed for the
native in his life. Whereas if a reborn child is considered, as we
here assume, to be a "previous" kinsman, this kinship is based upon
a relation obtaining in some former existence. But it may be urged
that if we deal with aboriginal collective psychology no very clear
ideas can be expected. The only thing that we assumed here was that
the ideas of rebirth, combined with some other specific Australian
beliefs, suggest very strongly that children might have been both
held, and felt to be, kindred, on the ground that they come with
some sort of ready-made personality; and on the ground that, as
E. S. Hartland argues, rebirth is the result of some spontaneous action
of the creature to be reborn. I think that if we ask for the source
of the widespread belief in white men being returned ghosts, and
especially for the readiness and ease with which they were accepted
into the family and into the tribe--we must presuppose some beliefs
and institutions to account for it, and the explanation proposed above
seems to me very plausible.[625] But the best example of the ideas of
kinship of the magic order is to be found among the tribes studied and
described by W. E. Roth.
[621] Compare above, p. 216.
[622] J. Morgan, _Life and Adventures of William Buckley_
(Hobart, 1852). The value of this book and especially of
the ethnographic information contained in it, has been
disputed by Bonwick. See J. Bonwick, _William Buckley, the
Wild White Man_ (Melbourne, 1856), p. 7. I have not used
Morgan's book as a source. The life-story of Morgan told
therein is admittedly authentic.
[623] Stokes, quoted by M. Lévy-Bruhl, _loc. cit._, p. 400.
[624] Another instance where a white woman was received by
a man as his daughter and accepted into the tribe and into
all her rights and relationships, is told by Macgillivray,
_loc. cit._, i., p. 303. She was shipwrecked, came into
the power of the natives, and, of course, lived in a very
miserable condition. Her only comfort was derived from
the man who imagined that she was his reborn daughter.
Henderson says that among the blacks of New South Wales the
belief in white men being dead relatives who had returned
was quite general. Such white men were accepted into the
tribe and cordially treated. _Loc. cit._, p. 161.
For other statements about white men being reincarnated
dead relatives see Wilhelmi, _Trans. R.S.V._, v. p. 189.
Br. Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, ii. p. 224. (Article
by Chauncy) _ibid._, p. 307 (article by Howitt).
R. H. Mathews, _Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W._, xxxviii.
(1905), p. 349. W. E. Roth, Bull. 5th, p. 16. R. H.
Mathews, _Jour. and Proc. R.S.N.S.W._, xl. pp. 113, 114.
Earl, _loc. cit._, p. 241. Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 445,
446. The latter says that the natives were "ready to do
anything" for the white people, once they recognized in
them their relatives.
[625] Similar ideas have been enunciated by M. Lévy-Bruhl,
_loc. cit._, pp. 388-402. Some of the Australian facts
are quoted and interpreted there in an analogous way.
M. Lévy-Bruhl naturally does not enter into as many
particulars as has been necessary here, but his conclusion,
"l'enfant-esprit qui se réincarne est déjà dans une
relation determinée avec le père et la mère qui lui
donnent naissance," is nearly identical with what we have
endeavoured to prove here. Perhaps the word "relation" does
not quite coincide with what we are especially concerned
with in this place, _i. e._ individual kinship, and has a
wider, more general meaning.
Before we proceed to the North Queensland tribes, there may be
mentioned some customs of the _couvade_ type, referring to the Central
tribes. These customs, as has been said above, express an intimate
connection of a mystic character between father and child. They also
involve a considerable amount of paternal affection and care for
the welfare of the offspring, as they expose the father to various
inconveniences, privations and hardships for the benefit of the child.
Thus we read that among the Central tribes the father has to observe
certain taboos and restrictions during the pregnancy of his wife,
otherwise she would have a difficult confinement.[626] This only
shows a connection between the behaviour of the man and the act of
birth. But we read in another place that the non-observance of certain
hunting taboos by the man during the pregnancy of his wife would have
baleful consequences for the offspring.[627] We are informed, also, of
a few functions of parental kin expressed in different customs which
accentuate the intimacy of this relation. Thus the mother plays some
part in the initiation ceremonies,[628] as well as in mourning and
funerals. Concerning the important social functions of the father, I
may quote what Mr. R. H. Mathews writes about the Central tribes: "The
privilege of working incantations, making rain, performing initiatory
ceremonies, and other important functions, descends from the men of the
tribe to the sons."[629] Moreover all the ceremonies in common with
totems "are likewise handed down through the men."[630] We see from
this that many important social functions descend from father to son.
Messrs. Spencer and Gillen report that the position of the Alatunja is
hereditary amongst the Arunta.[631] And similarly the position of the
headman is hereditary amongst the Northern tribes.[632] All these facts
serve on the one hand socially to define individual kinship, and on the
other to show that there exist certain ideas of a mystic bond between
father and child. How far these ideas, as expressed in the customs of
the _couvade_ type, harmonize with the ideas dealt with above, it is
quite impossible to know. It may be said that in both respects we have
hints showing the existence of ideas on kinship, but that we can by no
means go beyond mere supposition when we try to reconstruct these ideas
and to find some mutual connection. Let us now pass to the other tribes.
[626] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 466, 467.
[627] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 344, 607.
[628] _Nat. Tr._, p. 250.
[629] _Trans. R.S.N.S.W._ (1907), p. 75.
[630] _Ibid._, p. 77.
[631] _Nat. Tr._, p. 10.
[632] _Nor. Tr._, p. 23.
The belief in a supernatural cause of pregnancy is spread not only
all over the Central and North Central area, _i. e._ among all the
tribes included in the researches of Spencer and Gillen.[633] The same
ignorance of physiological fatherhood is found in the whole of the
Northern territory, in Queensland, and probably in West Australia.
We read that among the tribes of the North-West territory of South
Australia (Port Darwin and Daly River) "conception is not regarded as
a direct result of cohabitation."[634] And we read in Dr. Frazer's new
work: "The view is shared by all the tribes of Central and Northern
Australia. In point of fact, I am informed by the Bishop of North
Queensland (Dr. Frodsham) that the opinion is held by all the tribes
with which he is acquainted both in North Queensland and in Central
Australia, including the Arunta; not only are the natives in their
savage states ignorant of the true cause of conception, but they
do not readily believe it even after their admission into mission
stations, and their incredulity has to be reckoned with in the efforts
of the clergy to introduce a higher standard of sexual morality among
them."[635] This is a very strong proof of the depth of these beliefs,
and of the absolute ignorance of the natives on this point.[636] In the
South-Eastern region this belief is to be found as far as the Northern
part of New South Wales. We have statements of Mrs. Parker[637] which,
although not very clear, seem at least to imply a great amount of
magical beliefs as to procreation, if not complete ignorance of the
physiological part borne by the father. With regard to the Western
tribes, Mrs. Bates writes in a letter to Mr. Lang[638]: "They did not
believe that procreation had anything to do with conception."
[633] _Ibid._, p. 330.
[634] H. Basedow, in _Trans. R.S.S.A._, xxxi. p. 4, of the
reprint quoted by Prof. Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 576.
This has been recently verified by Prof. B. Spencer; compare
above, p. 209, footnote 1.
[635] _Tot. and Exog._, i. pp. 576, 577.
[636] That the ignorance in question was complete is also
the opinion of Mr. E. S. Hartland, _loc. cit._, ii.
pp. 275, 276. He adduces several reasons and statements in
support of it. Compare also what we said above about the
completeness of this ignorance among the Central tribes.
[637] _Loc. cit._, pp. 50, 61, 98.
[638] See _Man_ (1906), p. 180.
That in spite of this absence of any kind of consanguinity, especially
in the father's case, there exists in the Queensland tribes an
individual kinship relation between both parents and their children,
is clear from the statements collected on page 245, and from the
conclusion on page 249, to which the reader may be referred, as well
as to the theoretical conclusion on page 198. Looking at the rich
and interesting collection of folk-lore of these tribes given by
Mr. W. E. Roth, it will be possible to find the way in which fatherhood
is determined by the animistic ideas of the aborigines. As just said,
among the North-West Central Queensland tribes, the causal nexus
between conception and copulation is not known. We read in Roth that,
according to aboriginal ideas, there are several ways in which a child
may enter a woman's body: it may be inserted into her in a dream;
she may be told by a man that she will be pregnant and so on. But in
whatever mode the child has come, "the recognized husband accepts it
as his own without demur."[639] This phrase seems to point to the fact
that a man has certain ways of recognizing a child as his own, and
ideas under which he conceives this tie.
[639] Roth, _Bull._ V. p. 22, § 81.
In fact we read that man possesses several "souls" or vital principles.
One of them, _ngai_, leaves the body soon after death; if the deceased
was a male his _ngai_ "passes into his children, both boys and girls
equally." The _ngai_ of a female goes to her sister or passes away.
Nobody has a _ngai_ before his father dies, but receives his father's
_ngai_ after the latter's death.[640] This is an important connection,
which by itself might very well serve to establish the most intimate
tie of kinship. The child is supposed to be its father's spirit's
heir. It shares in his most personal and individual element. Is this
spiritual communion not something quite as strong and deep as any
community of blood?
[640] Roth, _Bull._ V. p. 18, § 68. This refers to the
Pennefather River tribes.
In another tribe of this area there is a similar belief concerning the
_choi_ (another "soul"). The aborigines of Pennefather River believe
that babies are made out of swamp mud and then inserted into the wombs
of women by a being called Anjea. Now it is particularly important for
us to note that Anjea animates the baby with a piece of its father's
spirit if it is a boy, and with a piece of its father's sister's
spirit if it is a girl. For each new baby Anjea provides a new piece
of spirit. But he does not take these pieces from the spirit of the
living father or his sister. He has a special source from which to take
it; he takes it from the father's or father's sister's afterbirth.
When a child is born a portion of its spirit stays in its afterbirth.
Hence the grandmother takes the afterbirth and buries it in the sand,
and marks the place by thrusting sticks into the ground. So when Anjea
comes along and sees it, he knows where to look for the father's (or
father's sister's) spirit, which he wants in order to animate the new
baby. And in this way all babies are animated by a spiritual part of
their father or paternal aunts.[641]
[641] _Ibid._
Both these examples illustrate perfectly well the general definition
of kinship ideas we have given above. Here the relation between father
and child is established in the native ideas by a purely spiritual
connection. But obviously this connection is a very important one. The
deep tie between a man and his child is here explicitly indicated and
not inferred by us, as in the foregoing cases, in which we could only
state that the beliefs and facts point to such a tie. In the present
case the father's spirit is the material from which the child's soul is
to be built up. It is not his bodily germ that procreates the child,
but his spiritual germ. What does it matter that the mother gives birth
to the child? The latter is animated by the father's (or father's
sister's) spirit, and this spiritual connection is of course as strong
a bond of kinship as can possibly be imagined.
There is in the second of these examples a complication produced by
the fact that a female child is not animated by her father's, but by
her father's sister's, spirit. But this complication is more apparent
than real. We must always remember that the aborigines do not think in
clearly defined ideas, and that there is always a question rather of
some broad emotional connection than of a tie logically apprehended.
And here the connection between the female children and their father
is broadly marked by the spiritual tie between his sister and the
children. It may be said that "spiritual propagation" follows the male
line exclusively, for all children are animated by a spirit taken from
their father or his sister.
We have still a few examples to quote where there appears to be
involved a tie between father and child established on other grounds
than the sexual act. In some of the North Queensland tribes (Cairns
district) "the acceptance of food from a man by a woman was not
merely regarded as a marriage ceremony, but as the actual cause of
conception."[642] A similar belief obtains among the Larrekiya and
Wogait of Port Darwin. "The old men say that there is an evil spirit
who takes babies from a big fire and places them in the wombs of women,
who must then give birth to them. When in the ordinary course of events
a man is out hunting and kills game or gathers vegetable food, he gives
it to his wife, who must eat it, believing that the food will cause her
to conceive and bring forth a child. When the child is born, it may on
no account partake of the particular food which produced conception
until it has got its first teeth."[643] In these cases we might look
also for some material from which the ideas of individual paternity
might have been evolved, but this is a supposition merely, which
obviously is much less well founded than our inferences referring to
the Central and North Central tribes.
[642] J. G. Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 577, on the
authority of Bishop Frodsham.
[643] H. Basedow, _loc. cit._, quoted by Frazer, _Tot. and
Exog._, i. p. 576.
Let us turn to another portion of the continent, to the South-Eastern
tribes, where the natives have to a certain extent inverse ideas on
procreation. They seem to know that conception is due to copulation.
But they exaggerate the father's part. The children are begotten
"by him exclusively; the mother receives only the germ and nurtures
it; the aborigines ... never for a moment feel any doubt ... that
the children originate solely from the male parent, and only owe
their infantine nurture to their mother."[644] This theory is not a
logical and consistent one, but none of the aboriginal views possess
these qualities! But this theory of procreation is quite clear and
categorical in acknowledging exclusively what seems to the native
mind important for the formation of consanguineous ties in the act of
procreation. Let us adduce the examples in detail, as they are very
instructive. The Wirdajuri nation[645] believe that the child "emanates
from the father solely, being only nurtured by its mother." There is
a strong tie of kinship between the child and the father; the latter
nevertheless has not the right to dispose of his daughter in marriage;
that is done by the mother and the mother's brother. We see here that
curiously enough strong paternal consanguinity coincides with weakening
of the _patria potestas_ (provided the information be accurate on both
points). For disposal of the daughter is one of the chief features
of a parent's authority over the child. Among the Wolgal the child
belongs to the father, and he only "gives it to his wife to take care
of for him."[646] This is probably an interpretation of the facts of
procreation. In this tribe the father disposes of his daughter; in fact
"he could do what he liked" with her on the ground of his exclusive
right to the child. Here, apparently, the ideas on kinship enhance
the paternal authority. A strong proof of this unilateral paternal
consanguinity is given yet more in detail in the case of the Kulin
tribes. There, according to a native expression, "the child comes from
the man, the woman only takes care of it."[647] And when once an old
man wished to emphasize his right and authority over his son he said:
"Listen to me! I am here, and there you stand with my body."[648]
This is clearly a claim to kinship on the basis of consanguinity.
It is interesting to note that in the examples just quoted this
consanguineous kinship seems to give some claims to authority.
Analogously amongst the Yuin the child belonged to his father "because
his wife merely takes care of his children for him."[649]
[644] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xii. p. 502.
[645] Cameron, _J.A.I._, xiv. p. 351.
[646] Aboriginal phrase quoted by Howitt, _Nat. Tr._,
p. 198.
[647] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 255.
[648] _Ibid._
[649] _Ibid._, p. 263.
Withal this information leaves us in the dark about the detailed
working of these ideas. Especially we are not quite clear whether the
assertions of "being of the same body," of "belonging to him," etc.,
do actually refer to the act of procreation, whether they form an
interpretation of this act, or whether they have quite a different
basis; although it seems from the expressions quoted above that the
first alternative is the right one. On the other hand, when we read
that the mother only nurtures the child, that she merely takes care
of it and so on, does it mean that the aboriginal mind _decrees_ or
interprets that during pregnancy the mother is a kind of nurse only,
that she is the soil in which the father has deposited the seed? And
as the relation between the plant and the seed is closer than that
between the plant and the soil, so the relation between father and
child is nearer than that between mother and child? All this is left
to hypothesis, strongly supported by the statements, but unfortunately
not affirmed by them in a clear and unambiguous way. We are not at all
sure whether all these ideas, instead of being theories of the act of
impregnation, have not some mystic, legendary basis like the beliefs of
the Queenslander dealt with above.
A survey of different points of Australian folk-lore has been made in
order to find some kinship ideas corresponding to the definition given
on page 183. From all the results obtained, the most certain and best
founded one is the negative fact that the majority of the Australian
tribes are wholly ignorant of the physiological process of procreation.
This result, although at first sight a negative one, leads, when viewed
in the proper light, to sociological conclusions of some importance. In
regard to the discussion on consanguinity (given pp. 176 _sqq._), it
follows from this fact that we cannot speak of paternal consanguinity
among these tribes in the social sense of this word,[650] and that
the individual tie of kinship, which does nevertheless exist between
father and child, must be conceived of by the natives in some different
way. This conclusion is also very important, for it obviously tears
asunder the intimate connection between the sexual side of marriage and
kinship, a connection that has often been assumed hitherto. The lack of
sexual exclusiveness found in Australia does not affect the structure
of the individual family, of which kinship is the index. Waiving the
question whether this holds good for primitive mankind in general, it
may be assumed as quite a final result for the majority of Australian
tribes.
[650] It has been already remarked above on page 179, that
there can be no question of physiological consanguinity for
other reasons.
The positive ideas of kinship enumerated in this survey fulfil the two
conditions set up on page 183; they refer to the individual relation
between father and child,[651] and they affirm a close tie between
the two. But in order to prove that such ideas are sociologically
relevant ideas of kinship, it must yet be shown that they possess some
social functions; that is to say, that they play an essential part in
the collective formulation of the various norms regulating individual
parental kinship. Now it was not possible to find any data on this
point, so this gap remains unfilled, and therefore the results arrived
at here must be considered as incomplete. It was necessary to introduce
the conjectural assumption that all the facts known which give
sociological evidence of individual parental kinship stand in close
connection with the beliefs in question. Nevertheless, this assumption
is neither arbitrary nor scientifically barren, as far as I see. It
may first be remarked that the complete absence in our ethnographic
information of any attempt to connect the data of folk-lore and the
facts of sociology is not astonishing at all, as it is the consequence
of one of the shortcomings in social science at the present day. This
lack is due to reasons connected with the ethnographer and not with
the material. The intimate relation which must exist between social
beliefs and social functions was quite a sufficient justification
for the introduction of this assumption. Moreover, this assumption,
although hypothetical, lies quite within the limits of verification. A
conjectural assumption referring to facts which lie necessarily outside
the reach of observation, incurs much more the risk of scientific
barrenness. But this cannot be the case with new points of view, the
enunciation of which imposes itself as an inevitable logical inference,
and which, being capable of verification, may serve as a fertile
working hypothesis.
[651] Defined at first only as members of the same
individual family.