PARENTS AND CHILDREN
I
Consideration may first here be given to the cares and benefits a child
receives from its mother during the first few years of its infancy.
These facts constitute a very strong bond of union between the child
and its nurse. Suckling is a physiological tie between the child and
the mother, and next to the fact of birth it marks very strongly the
individuality of this relation. Group motherhood has therefore never
been a very popular idea and has never found a favourable reception
amongst sociologists. We saw above, however, that it is very probable
that the facts of birth may lack any social significance in the native
mind. If it be further possible to imagine in the same tribe suckling
performed, according to Dr. Rivers's suggestion,[652] not by the actual
mother, but by a group of kindred women, group motherhood would be
quite comprehensible in such tribes.
[652] Compare above, p. 6.
In Australia, however, suckling seems to be strictly individual. This
might indeed be inferred in the first place from the aboriginal mode of
living. Communism in suckling and rearing a small child would involve a
complete communism in life; and we know that unless two women are wives
of the same man, they are to a great extent isolated in daily life. It
is also highly improbable that in the two or three families which are
roaming together there would be always a woman at hand who could help
the other in these cares.
There are several other reasons which still more strongly support our
view. The best argument may be deduced from the statements referring
to infanticide. It is practised amongst all Australian natives. One
of the chief reasons given for it is that the mother cannot possibly
suckle and carry two children at one time, especially as children are
not weaned before their third to fifth year. If there were a custom
of common suckling and nursing a child, and another woman who would
replace the mother in her functions could be easily found, the practice
of infanticide could scarcely be attributed to the above-mentioned
reasons. Let us adduce a few statements.
_Statements._--Infanticide is carried on among the Lower Darling
natives to prevent the toils and troubles of carrying and caring
for too many children. The mother's brother decides if the child
should be killed or not.[653]
[653] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 125.
Amongst the Encounter Bay natives "no mother will venture to bring
up more than two children, because she considers that the attention
which she would have to devote to them would interfere with what
she regards as the duty to her husband in searching for roots,
etc."[654]
[654] Meyer in Woods, pp. 186, 187.
Amongst the Adelaide tribes "female infants at birth are not
infrequently put to death for the sake of more valuable boys who
are still being suckled."[655]
[655] Wyatt in Woods, p. 162.
As justification of infanticide "women plead that they cannot
suckle and carry two children together."[656] It is clear from this
statement that the impossibility of suckling more than one child at
a time is given as justification for infanticide by the _natives
themselves_; and that it is not only an inference of the observer.
[656] Chas. Wilhelmi, quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 51. (Port
Lincoln Tribes.)
Infanticide was practised among the Port Lincoln tribes. "In
extenuation of this horrible practice the women allege that they
cannot suckle and carry two babies at once."[657] This statement
also quite unmistakably points to the fact that children were
suckled and attended by their own mother.
[657] Schürmann in Woods, p. 224.
Bennett writes that among the New South Wales natives women
practice infanticide in order to avoid too much trouble in carrying
their infants about.[658]
[658] _Loc. cit._, i. pp. 123, 124.
Another statement, maintaining still more strongly the view that
only the mother suckled her child, is that of Collins.[659] He says
that he knew two instances in which infants were killed by the
father at their mother's grave, the reason alleged being that as no
one else could be found to suckle the child and to rear it it must
have died a worse death. Collins supposes that this is a general
custom.
[659] Collins, i. pp. 607, 608.
Gason states that among the Dieri nearly thirty per cent. of the
children were destroyed by their mothers at birth to avoid the
cares and trouble of rearing.[660]
[660] In Woods, p. 258.
"The Arunta native does not hesitate to kill a child--always
directly it is born--if there be an older one still in need of
nourishment from the mother; and suckling is continued up to the
age of three years and even older."[661] And again: "The child is
killed ... when the mother is ... unable to rear it owing to there
being a young child whom she is still feeding."[662]
[661] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 264.
[662] _Ibid._, p. 51.
Among the Kabi and Wakka: "The motive for infanticide with these
tribes could not be to save food in times of dearth, for the food
supply was constant and plentiful. It would be mainly, if not
entirely, that mothers might escape the irksomeness of nursing
and caring for infants and of carrying them on their frequent
journeys."[663]
[663] Mathew, p. 166.
Mrs. D. M. Bates writes that when a mother died at childbirth the
infant was put to death.[664] We are not informed what reasons the
natives gave for this practice; but most probably they are the same
as those mentioned by Collins.
[664] _Loc. cit._, p. 50.
All this evidence makes it nearly impossible to suppose that suckling,
carrying the baby and caring for it, was the task of a group of women.
For then it would not be necessary to kill the infant at the death of
its mother, or to kill it when there was another one to be suckled,
as the toils could easily be shared by the other women of the group.
The assumption we are now able to draw, namely that the mother always
suckles and nurses her own child, is of great importance.[665]
[665] It is very important to note that this individual
rearing is, in all probability, deeply connected with the
aboriginal mode of life; viz. their scattered manner of
living in small groups and their roaming habits. Both these
latter seem to be, on the other hand, dependent upon the
economic conditions of the stage of primitive hunting and
fishing, and it may be assumed that all lower races have
passed through, broadly speaking, the same circumstances of
life; it is, therefore, probable that the fact of common
nursing can never have taken place in very low societies. I
do not think, consequently, that Dr. Rivers's hypothesis,
basing group motherhood on communism in suckling and
rearing, can be accepted even in its general form.
Amongst the Australian aborigines suckling establishes undoubtedly much
stronger bonds between mother and child than amongst civilized races,
for it lasts much longer. As we saw and shall see in a few statements,
the child is never weaned before its third year, and sometimes suckling
lasts much longer. Between a bigger child and its mother this constant
dependence upon each other must necessarily create a strong bond of
union. The child must be continually with its mother. During infancy
it is carried by her in a pouch or bag on the shoulders. Afterwards
it accompanies her on all her wanderings and in all her work. A
great addition to her work is the continuous care she must display
towards it. This will be exemplified in our statements referring to
the economic division of labour. To sum up, we may say that natural
necessities of nurture and of the earliest cares, combined with the
aboriginal mode of living, make the child absolutely dependent on the
personal, individual help it receives from its mother, and creates
therefore an intimate relation between the two.
This is not so much in evidence as regards the relationship between
the father and child. But here it must be remembered that owing to the
character of the native mode of living the man lives in close contact
and to a great extent in isolation with his wife, and consequently
also with his wife's children. Some of our statements show that he
shares to a certain extent in the cares and labours connected with
carrying children, feeding them, etc.; he seems to have a great
affection towards them and never to treat them with severity. So that
we may infer that the general character of his feelings is of the same
description as that of the mother's, _i. e._ one of parental love and
attachment.
II
An attempt will be made to illustrate by a series of statements all
these characteristics of domestic life as far as they embrace the
relations of parents to children. The chief points of inquiry will
be: Is there between parents and children any kind of affection? What
is the general character of the treatment of children by parents? Are
rudiments of education given by father or mother to their offspring?
In what way does the position of the father differ from that of the
mother--is there any special trait of severity? In what consists the
paternal authority and how does it show itself? Is there any strong
difference made between male and female children?
_Statements._--"In infancy the young Kurnai is an object of love
and pride to its father and mother. From observation of various
tribes in far distant parts of Australia, I can assert confidently
that love for their children is a marked feature in the aboriginal
character. I cannot recollect having ever seen a parent beat or
cruelly use a child; and a short road to the good-will of parents
is, as amongst us, by noticing and admiring their children." The
greatest grief is exhibited at the death of a child by all the
relatives in a camp. These observations refer as well to the Kurnai
and the other South-Eastern tribes, as to the Dieri, of whom the
author gives an illustrative story.[666] The boy lives with his
parents and "is very much under the control of his mother."--This
statement is very valuable. It gives us the opinion of perhaps our
best Australian observer on the psychology of parental feelings;
it refers to all the tribes known to Howitt, _i. e._ to a very
extensive area. And it states in plain terms that the feelings of
love and affection for children which form the chief characteristic
of parental relations are to be found with an intensity which is as
strong as that prevailing in our society. In another place the same
author quotes an instance "of a mother watching her sick child and
refusing all food, and when it died she was inconsolable."[667]
[666] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 189.
[667] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 766.
Curr says that among the Bangerang the father had absolute
authority over his children.[668] In another place he says that
the father had to decide in case of infanticide and in every
more important occasion of the child's life.[669] But we read:
"Parents were much attached to their children and rarely punished
or corrected them." Not only did they not control them (although
occasionally a child was beaten in a fit of anger),[670] but "they
were habitually indulged in every way; and as a consequence, in
case of the boys at least, grew up as self-willed, thorough little
tyrants as can well be imagined."[671]
[668] _Recollections_, p. 278.
[669] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 76.
[670] A similar statement is given by Spencer and Gillen,
_Nat. Tr._, p. 51.
[671] _Recollections_, p. 252.
In his general book on Australia the same author gives us some more
information on family life. The father makes small weapons as toys
for his sons. The children are seldom chastised and they are very
independent. The real training of the boys begins when they leave
their parents' camp and undergo the series of initiations.[672]
These statements point also unmistakably to feelings of attachment
and love, which are, as we tried to prove above, the very essence
of family ties. The father seems to care as much as the mother for
his children's education, and he is very kind and lenient to them.
[672] _A.R._, i. p. 71.
As a crude and pathetic example of maternal love there is the case
reported by Angas, of a mother carrying for ten years the corpse of
her dead child.[673] Similar cases are reported by Howitt about the
Kurnai.[674]
[673] _Loc. cit._, p. 75.
[674] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 244.
We find many statements referring to this subject in the
compilation of Br. Smyth. I mention them only shortly, as the
author was never directly acquainted with the aboriginal life, and
we value him only when he quotes some little-known authorities,
or gives actual facts gathered for him by his correspondents. He
speaks of the heavy task of a woman having to carry her babe,
besides all the other work and trouble of a journey.[675] The
father occasionally nurses the baby too and is very fond of
it.[676] The child is suckled for three years; it is carried
in an opossum rug during infancy and attended to solely by its
mother.[677] A description of the way in which an opossum rug is
dried is given.[678] In another passage the same author speaks
again of the general kindness, affection and indulgence of parents
to children, as of a well-known fact. He adds besides that the
parents were very judicious in the treatment of their children.[679]
[675] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 47.
[676] _Ibid._
[677] Mr. John Green (superintendent of a station, see vol.
i. p. vi.), quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 78.
[678] _Ibid._, p. 48. Another description of the mode
of child-carrying is given by Basedow, _Jour. and Proc.
R.S.S.A._ (1907), xxxi.
[679] Br. Smyth, i. p. 51.
"As a general rule, both fathers and mothers are very kind to
their children and very rarely indeed strike them; and I have been
often amused at seeing a rebellious urchin, of perhaps eight or
nine years of age, take up his mimic spears, run a few yards away
and then hurl them with all his force at his mother." "They are
very fond of their children, and will at any time venture their
lives for them."[680] And the author tells of an occurrence in
corroboration.[681] Here, again, we hear of kindness, leniency and
real affection. The instance of a native losing his life in trying
to save his child is very convincing.
[680] J. Moore Davis in Br. Smyth, ii. p. 311. He speaks in
this article indiscriminately of South Australians.
[681] Referring to natives of Victoria.
The children that escape infanticide enjoy great affection from
their parents.[682]
[682] Br. Smyth, ii. p. 290. Note on Australians, by A. Le
Souëf. It refers, probably, to the Victorian blacks.
Of the Lower Darling River tribes it is stated that the children
are not only very leniently treated by their parents, but that
they are not spoilt at all. "One word from the parent generally
is sufficient to check a child when doing wrong, and the greatest
respect is shown to parents by their children."[683] The loss of
a child would be lamented by the whole camp; the mother and near
relatives would especially mourn.[684] A description of the mode
of carrying children by their mother is also given by the same
author.[685] In this statement we may remark that the children are
said not to be spoilt; this does not agree quite with some of our
other statements. But this information agrees with all others in
respect of the affection and lenient treatment the children enjoy.
[683] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 126.
[684] _Ibid._
[685] _Ibid._
According to Mitchell children are carried by the mother in skin
bags on the shoulder. She carries also toys for her children.[686]
As we have said above, the close connection in life between child
and mother must have been of importance in making the tie between
them especially close. The existence of toys, mentioned already in
J. M. Davis' statement, characterizes the tender care bestowed on
the young folk by their parents.
[686] Vol. i. pp. 332, 333.
"The child is brought up with great care.... Should it cry, it is
passed from one person to another and caressed and soothed, and
the father will frequently nurse it for several hours together.
When the child commences to walk, the father gives it a name."[687]
They are long suckled--sometimes up to five or six years of age.
A boy "when weaned, accompanies his father upon short excursions,
upon which occasion the father takes every opportunity to instruct
his son. For instance, if they arrive at a place concerning which
they have any tradition, it is told to the child if old enough to
understand it. Or he shows him how to procure this or that animal,
or other article of food, in the easiest way."[688] We see here
that the tie between father and child is a very close one. The
father nurses the child when it is small, and educates it when it
is bigger. Affection, care and kind treatment are stated here as
everywhere else. And again we read: "If the father dies before a
child is born, the child is put to death by the mother."[689] This
marks again how important is the father's part in bringing up a
child.
[687] Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer, _loc.
cit._, pp. 186, 187.
[688] Encounter Bay tribes (Narrinyeri), Meyer, _loc.
cit._, p. 187.
[689] _Ibid._, p. 186.
Wyatt says of the Adelaide tribe that "they display strong
affection towards each other," which is shown especially in a
"great fondness for children."[690]
[690] _Loc. cit._, p. 162.
We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Both sexes are very fond of
their children."[691]
[691] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 181.
Howitt, speaking of infanticide among the Murring tribe, adds:
"Yet they are very fond of their offspring, and very indulgent to
those they keep, rarely striking them, and a mother would give all
the food she had to her children, going hungry herself."[692] In
several statements on infanticide it is said that no difference
was made between boys and girls.[693] Here again we have a strong
assertion of parental love, and of the kind treatment the children
enjoy.
[692] _Nat. Tr._, p. 748; informant: H. Williams.
[693] _Ibid._, pp. 748-750.
Among the Murrumbidgee tribes "it is well known that as their
children become older they [the parents] evince much attachment
towards them."[694] A well-known tragic instance of parental love
is reported about the New South Wales natives by the same author.
"They display an extraordinary degree of affection for their dead
offspring, evidenced by an act that almost exceeds credibility, had
it not so often been witnessed among the tribes in the interior of
the colony. I allude to the fact of deceased children, from the
earliest age to even six or seven years, being placed in a bag
made of kangaroo skin, and slung upon the back of the mother....
They carry them thus for ten or twelve months, sleeping upon the
mass of mortal remains, which serves them for a pillow, apparently
unmindful of the horrid fœtor which emanates from such a putrefying
substance."[695]
[694] Bennett, i. p. 123.
[695] _Ibid._, pp. 125, 126.
G. S. Lang in his account of the Australian blacks speaks of great
leniency of treatment, and quotes several examples.[696]
[696] p. 33. The author knew personally some tribes of New
South Wales and Queensland.
An exceptional statement is given by a member of the United States
expedition. "As far as our observation went, the women appear to
take little care of their children."[697] But we gather from the
whole account that the authors had no good opportunities of making
observations on the natives, if they had any at all. Probably the
natives they saw were in a state of deterioration, hanging round
towns, etc.
[697] Chas. Wilkes (smaller ed.), i. p. 225.
We read in the old account of J. Turnbull about the natives of New
South Wales, that all children who escape infanticide are "nursed
with an anxious affection, very creditable to these savages. The
infant no sooner begins to use his limbs than he is instructed in
throwing the spear; a bulrush or other reed being put into his hand
for this purpose."[698]
[698] p. 100.
In his memoirs, Hodgson says that aboriginal children are very
kindly and tenderly treated by their parents.[699]
[699] p. 244 (N. S. Wales).
The following statements, referring to New South Wales blacks, give
a good testimonial to their parental feelings. "An old _mammy_, who
was much about the farm of another of my friends, was a perfect
picture of maternal sorrow," after the death of her son. "If you
spoke of her son, she was dissolved in tears, and answered in
whispers." "The women appear to be always kind to their children,
carrying the young ones on their backs."[700]
[700] Henderson, p. 121.
"They are remarkably fond of their children," says R. Dawson. In
another place the author speaks of a great liberality towards
children, displayed in distributing food. He speaks also of the
adoption of orphans. "When the parents die, the children are
adopted by the unmarried men and women and taken the greatest care
of"; and "children of both sexes who had lost their parents were
uniformly adopted by those who had no families, and sometimes by
those who had."[701]
[701] pp. 239, 268. Port Stephens blacks.
As a matter of illustration I may adduce what Dr. J. Fraser says
on that subject in his compilation on the New South Wales tribes.
The aborigines love their children and treat them very kindly.
The father makes for the boy a toy spear to practise throwing
it and the girl gets a small stick to learn how to dig with it.
The parents teach them to do all these things, and they "take as
much delight in this business as we do in teaching our children
their alphabet. The son is soon able to go out with his father on
hunting expeditions," imbibes all sorts of woodcraft and learns to
know his tauri (hunting district).[702] We may add that the book
of Dr. Fraser, although only a compilation, seems to be a very
reliable one, and he probably had much personal information from
settlers, missionaries, etc.
[702] pp. 4, 5, 60.
We have already seen from the first statement of Howitt that
parental love obtained among the Dieri. Gason affirms that parental
love for children and the love of these for their parents is one
of their greatest virtues.[703] We read also that "the children
are never beaten, and should any woman violate this law she is in
turn beaten by her husband."[704] This statement would astonish
us at first sight, as we usually expect severity from the father.
But when we remember that the mother had probably all the drudgery
and work with the children we can understand that she might easily
lose her temper, and then the father took the children's part. It
is characteristic that the father's authority was directed rather
to protect the children from a probably merited punishment than to
punish and correct them.
[703] _Loc. cit._, p. 258.
[704] _Ibid._
Amongst the Urabunna, where, as we are informed, "individual
marriage does not exist either in name or in practice,"[705] all
children of "men who are at the same level in the generation and
belong to the same class and totem are _regarded_ as the common
children of these men." Still there exists "a closer tie between
a man and the children of the woman who habitually live in camp
with him."[706] This statement is the only one which tries to
deny individual fatherhood and states the existence of group
fatherhood. But as we do not know what sense should be given to
the words "closer tie" and to the phrase "are regarded as the
common children" we must drop this statement as quite meaningless.
We know already that the relations of a father to his child have
several very characteristic features; the father fondles his child;
is especially attached to it; he often carries it on the march
(as these same authors state in another place, see below); he has
certain economic duties towards his family; he lives in the same
wurley with his children. Not a single word is said about any
of these things, and only quite general assertions are made. We
may repeat here, with Mr. Thomas, that if the authors knew more
concrete facts about this question they ought to have communicated
them. If they told us everything they knew about the subject, then
their inferences are false. This statement loses its force for the
reason especially that we know how close the personal tie between
the Dieri parents and their children was, and that it was quite
individual. And the Dieri had the same Pirrauru institution which
induces Messrs. Spencer and Gillen to inform us that there was no
individual fatherhood or marriage, amongst the Urabunna. There is,
therefore, much reason to mistrust this statement.[707]
[705] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 63; repeated _Nor.
Tr._, p. 73.
[706] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 64.
[707] Compare what has been said about the Pirrauru and
Piraungaru above, pp. 108 _sqq._; especially p. 117,
under 7.
Children are treated with extreme leniency among the Central
Australian tribes. "If the children are unruly the mothers try
to quiet them with fair words, or may scold them a little, or
even slap them gently, but never take any extreme means." Mothers
often quarrel and even fight with each other defending their own
offspring. "When a child sickens, the mother takes it in her lap,
and does not leave the spot, the father sitting by."[708] All this
shows a deep parental affection towards the children. And that it
is limited to individual parents is confirmed by the following
phrase: "Orphans fare the worst, and usually the nearest relative
looks after them, but does not assume a parent's position. Such
children receive blows and have to provide for themselves as best
they can."[709] Although I avoid the problem of relationship terms,
as lying outside the narrow limits of the present study, that
deals exclusively with facts of family life, I quote the following
statement of the same author as especially instructive. "_Kata_
signifies father of the class; _Kata iltja_ sexual father." The
affix _iltja_ indicates the individual relationship and the affix
_lirra_ class reference. "Ordinarily they leave out the words
_iltja_ and _lirra_ and do not use them, because they all know,
among themselves, who is personally related, and who is not. They
are only used casually when conversing with strangers, to whom they
wish to explain their family relationship."[710]
[708] L. Schultze, _loc. cit._, p. 238 (Finke River
natives).
[709] _Ibid._, p. 240.
[710] _Ibid._, p. 237.
We read of the Arunta: "To their children they are, we may say
uniformly, with very rare exceptions, kind and considerate,
carrying them, the men as well as the women taking part in this,
when they get tired on the march, and always seeing that they get
a good share of any food."[711] Here it is stated explicitly that
the cares are shared by father and mother. In another place the
authors, speaking of the burial ceremonies, say that the display
of grief and sorrow is not so much due to real feeling, as to
tribal custom and fear of offending the dead one's spirit. And
they add, "At the same time, he (the native) is certainly capable
of genuine grief and of real affection for his children."[712] The
foregoing statement appears to be very emphatic. Parental love is
apparently quoted as a genuine feeling conspicuous _par excellence_
and therefore to be opposed to any other more or less fictitious
display. The intimate connection between the mother and her child
appears also from some details in the initiation ceremonies.[713]
[711] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 50, 51.
[712] _Nat. Tr._, p. 511.
[713] _Ibid._, pp. 227, 250.
In the Kabi and Wakka tribes, "the wife was the regular nurse
of the infants, but the husband occasionally took a turn."[714]
"Children were over-indulged."[715]
[714] Mathew, _loc. cit._, p. 153.
[715] _Ibid._, p. 153.
"The mother is always fond of her child, and I have often admired
her patience with it. She constantly carries it with her, at first
in a basket, but later on ... on her shoulder. Thus she carries
it with her till it is several years old. If the child cries she
may perhaps get angry, but she will never allow herself to strike
it. The children are never chastised either by the father or the
mother." But they are nevertheless as a rule "obliging and kind."
"The black children are not ... as bad as one might suppose,
considering their education, in which their wills are never
resisted."[716] "The woman is often obliged to carry her little
child on her shoulders during the whole day, only setting it down
when she has to dig in the ground or climb trees."[717] The mother,
in one instance, was much excited when a white man struck her
naughty child. The same author says that the tie between mother and
child is closer than that between father and child. The children
"are fonder of their mother than of their father." (This seems
quite "natural" to us as we observe it as a rule in our society.)
Sometimes the father cares much for his child too; "he frequently
carries it, takes it in his lap, searches ... its hair, plays with
it, and makes little boomerangs, which he teaches it to throw. He
... prefers boys to girls." "Boys are not permitted to go hunting
with their fathers before they are nine years old."[718]
[716] Lumholtz, on the Herbert River Natives, _loc. cit._,
pp. 192, 193.
[717] _Ibid._, p. 160.
[718] _Ibid._, p. 193.
Amongst the Georgina blacks the child's education is carried on
chiefly by the mother. She teaches the boys respect for the tribal
elders.[719]
[719] Purcell in _R.G.S._, Victorian Branch, xi. pp. 19, 20.
The way of carrying a child among the Queensland blacks is
described by E. Palmer.[720]
[720] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.
Among the North Central Queensland aborigines the mother carries
her child in a koolamon or on a sheet of bark, slung to her side;
later on her shoulders.[721] She is accustomed to lullaby it to
sleep by a sort of droning humming sound.[722] She suckles it until
it reaches the age of three to five years.[723] "A father could do
what he pleased with his children, but neither parent would ever
strike a boy; if beaten the latter was supposed to lose courage."
The mother taught the girls, and could beat them if necessary.[724]
The father taught the boys climbing trees and making arms and
implements.[725]
[721] Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 183, § 330. See also figs.
436-438.
[722] _Ibid._
[723] _Ibid._
[724] Roth, _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 51.
[725] _Ibid._, p. 60.
In North-West Australia (Pilbarra district) children are reared
affectionately and never chastised. They often listen to stories on
native traditions.[726]
[726] Withnell, pp. 8, 9.
Ph. Chauncy, speaking of the West Australian blacks, says that love
between children and parents was very strong, and that it was one
of the principal virtues of the aborigines. He gives an example of
a native who after five years, seeing again his son, a grown-up
lad, displayed a good deal of affection and tenderness.[727]
[727] Br. Smyth, ii. p. 275.
The mode in which women carry their children in West Australia is
described by Moore.[728]
[728] _Loc. cit._, p. 32.
Oldfield says: "Sometimes the love of their offspring (male) is
excessive." As an example he describes an old man "who had a son,
a lad of about nine years of age, of whom he was excessively fond,
always tenderly embracing him and recommending him to the care of
others when he went on any expedition." When he returned from the
chase "he invariably first of all fondly kissed the boy before
proceeding to cook," and all the best parts of the meal "were
bestowed on the child." The child was consequently quite spoilt and
tyrannized over his father, who was quite obedient to him.[729]
[729] _Loc. cit._, pp. 224, 225.
"Elles aiment d'ailleurs éperdument leurs fils et aussi celles de
leurs filles qui ont échappé à la mort. S'il arrive que quelqu'un
de leurs enfants s'éveille en sursaut ou se fasse du mal, ses
gémissements sont couverts par ceux de la mère, qui ne se donne
aucun repos jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait trouvé le moyen de guérison,
quelque fatigue qu'il doive lui en couter. Elles nourrissent avec
soin leurs petits enfants et les veulent toujours propres et bien
tenus, autant que leur permet leur position. Elles les allaitent
pendant plus de quatre ans; aussi n'est-il pas rare de voir de
petits garçons jouer et faire des armes avec leurs petits _ghicis_,
et puis courir se restaurer au sein de leur mère, qui souvent
allaite ainsi deux enfants à la fois. J'ai vu des enfants de six ans
prendre encore le sein, et les mères non seulement s'y prêter, mais
les caresser et se priver des meilleurs morceaux pour les leur
donner."[730] I quote this statement _in extenso_, as it includes a
good deal of what we know in general of this subject. We see that a
mother might suckle two children at a time, but if it were too
difficult for her, the child is killed. Salvado speaks also of
adoption by another woman as an alternative (comp. above, Dawson's
and Shultze's statements); but adoption seems rather to be an
exceptional escape from infanticide.[731] In another place, the same
author speaks of a "véritable tendresse maternelle" showing itself
towards a child recently dead. Often did he observe that a mother
who had just lost a child would rise in the night and go for miles
through the woods, calling her child by its name, speaking to it,
and giving many tokens of her tender feelings.[732] This instance
gives us a good insight into a class of feelings that the general,
popular mind would hardly ascribe to savages.[733] Salvado says
that they make a great difference between a boy and girl, in the
joy which they display at a child's birth. Not only the mothers
(as we saw above), but also the fathers show great fondness for
their children. Salvado blames the "déférence des pères pour les
enfants." Whatever a child might do, it is never chastised. If a
small boy wishes to obtain something from his parents, he cries,
bites and beats them, until he succeeds in his purpose. The only
punishment ever inflicted on their children is "une fâcherie plus
ou moins remarquée par eux, et cela encore après leur avoir accordé
tout ce qu'ils demandent." The father prepares for his son small
arms and teaches him how to use them. He displays the greatest
tenderness towards him and is extremely fond of him.[734] And
the author gives as the reason why the aborigines would not send
their children to white men for education, the parental attachment
to their offspring.[735] The father disposes of his daughters in
marriage.[736]
[730] Salvado about the natives of Swan District, West
Australia, pp. 275, 276.
[731] _Ibid._, p. 275.
[732] _Ibid._, p. 250.
[733] _Ibid._, p. 274.
[734] _Ibid._, p. 276.
[735] _Ibid._, pp. 276, 277.
[736] _Ibid._, p. 278.
Among the natives of King George Sound the mothers display a great
love for their children, often crying after the death of one of
them.[737]
[737] Browne, _loc. cit._, p. 450.
About the same tribes it is recorded: "Of their children they
appear to be fond, and rarely chastise them; but their treatment of
the women is not always gentle."[738] Here the difference between
the usual good treatment that children uniformly enjoy from their
parents, and the unsettled character of marital treatment is
clearly expressed.
[738] Scott Nind, _loc. cit._, p. 37.
Our best information on many points comes rather from anecdotes and
reports of real occurrences than from bare statements. Some stories
illustrate very well the present question. So, for instance, the
following, which proves beyond any doubt that paternal affection
among the Australian aborigines might amount to a passion.[739]
Old Davie was a native of great personal strength and skill,
strong will, and great courage. He was not especially clever, but
was apparently kind to children and to his wives. His inoffensive
exterior, however, hid a truly demoniac character; he was quite
egotistical, "he had never had any strong liking for anything
else," but had only one peculiar passion: "his special craving was
for murder." He had ever so many lives on his conscience. When he
grew old, he became the father of a rather nice boy. He got deeply
and passionately attached to his son, called the Jumbuk-man. "To
watch the gradual expansion of Jumbuk-man's faculties; to see him
balance himself with his feet astride and throw his spear at his
sister's back; to observe him tomahawk the sleeping dogs, maltreat
any birds or insects he could lay hands on, bite his mother; to
hear him lisp foul words, and give himself up to the charming ways
of savage infancy, became henceforth the chief delight of his
father." Here we see a neat, condensed picture of what might be
called educational training under the father's eyes. After a few
years of life the boy died; the death of the boy was a terrible
blow "to Old Davie. He had been his special delight ... and (he)
bore his loss in a very unstoical way. He sat on the ground,
streams of tears welling from his eyes." The end of the story (Old
Davie's murder of a young woman in revenge for "sorcery" done by
her tribe) does not touch our subject.
[739] Told by Curr, _Recollections_, ch. xxviii. "Old
Davie."
As an interesting and good illustration of parental authority may
be adduced the story of how a Bangerang girl was made to join her
promised husband. She was, apparently, quite unwilling to do it;
consequently her father tried to persuade her. After his patience
had been exhausted he tried to compel her; having at last resource
to his club. This and the unanimous and rather strong persuasions
of both parents made her follow the prescribed course.[740] This
story shows that the father had not a great amount of authority
over his daughter. He had to persuade her for several hours and she
brought him by her stubbornness to a fit of anger, which finally
settled the matter.
[740] Curr, _Recollections_, pp. 141-145.
Another story clearly exemplifying paternal affection, is told by
Grey.[741] For some small trespass Capt. Grey got hold of a young
boy, the son of an influential native. The father tried to liberate
him. "The natives are always ardently attached to their children,
and this the boy's father now evinced in the strongest manner. He
tried by persuasion, begging and even threats to induce the white
man to give him back his child. He fairly wept upon his child's
neck." When this had no result, and the boy was imprisoned, he made
all possible efforts to plead for him. The paternal love is clearly
conspicuous in the whole tale.
[741] _Loc. cit._, ii. pp. 350-361 (refers to natives of
King George's Sound).
Our forty-one statements agree fairly well on many points, but
especially on the principal question, namely on the existence of very
close personal and individual bonds of union between parents and
children.[742] As so much stress has been laid on the emotional element
in these bonds, it may be shown now how far the evidence confirms the
views expressed above.[743] Speaking in concrete terms, the evidence
affirms beyond any doubt the existence of strong feelings of affection
and attachment between parents and children. Thirty-five of our
forty-one statements explicitly affirm the existence of such feelings.
In many places this is expressed in a very clear and emphatic manner.
We read that the children are the "pride and love" of their parents;
that affection for their children is a "marked feature" of the
aboriginal character (Howitt). Deep affection is quoted as their chief
virtue (Gason); and as the most sincere and strongest feeling (Spencer
and Gillen); and so forth. Instances might easily be multiplied. The
only negative instance is the completely unreliable statement of
Wilkes. This exceptional agreement of all authors and the uniform
emphasis that they lay upon their statements is in itself a very strong
proof not only that this assertion is true, but that these facts
strongly impressed themselves upon the observers.[744] On this point
our best authorities entirely agree with the remaining observers. Such
an agreement on the point of a general judgment, which is necessarily
an induction from a considerable number of observations, can only mean
that the latter were not liable to misinterpretation; that they plainly
expressed their deeper psychological meaning. These observations seem
at first sight very difficult to be made correctly, for they are of a
rather subtle character, referring to impalpable psychological facts.
And yet all authors interpreted them correctly, of which fact such an
agreement is the best proof. The expression of the feelings in question
amongst savages must obviously differ very little from our ways of
showing feelings. The complete agreement of the statements points,
therefore, to the unmistakable clearness and strength in which the
native feelings show themselves, in all the details of family life as
well as in some more important facts.[745]
[742] An exception may be seen in the statement of Spencer
and Gillen on the Urabunna, as far as it seems to point
to a group relationship, but there are reasons for not
attaching too much importance to this statement. We dealt
also above (p. 117) with the question whether there is
group relationship between parents and children in the
tribes where the Pirrauru custom prevails, and it was found
that the assumption of its existence must be absolutely
discarded, and that everywhere there is individual
relationship between parents and children.
[743] pp. 191 _sqq._
[744] Compare above, pp. 193, 194.
[745] Compare the passages above, pp. 195, 196.
But even if unwilling to trust to the emphasis of our informants'
general affirmations and to the agreement between them, we find many
concrete details and examples, mentioned by the authors, which convince
us that the conclusions they have drawn from observation were correct.
Howitt says that to secure the good-will of the parents the most direct
way is to admire their children; a fact which is characteristic of
parental infatuation in our own society. When the children are ill
the parents watch over and look after them most carefully (Schultze,
Salvado, Meyer, Howitt); they make toys for their children (Mitchell,
Curr, Fraser); and they look very carefully after their food (Spencer
and Gillen, Dawson). On the death of a child the parents display great
sorrow (Browne, Henderson, Curr in the story of old Davie).[746] And
the horrid custom of carrying a dead babe on their wanderings is also
a token of deep affection (Angas, Bennett, Howitt). After long absence
the parents display great joy and tenderness (Chauncy). And although
adoption is reported in some tribes (R. Dawson, Schultze, Salvado),
nevertheless there is not always the same degree of love and affection
towards adopted children as towards the offspring. And the former are
often illtreated (Schultze). Such examples could easily be multiplied.
And they show in how many quite unmistakable facts the main features
of the parental feelings for children found their expression. These
feelings as a rule consisted of love, pride, affection and attachment.
[746] Compare also the examples referred to in foregoing
footnote.
All this seems to hold good for the father, as well as for the
mother. In the majority of statements both the parents are mentioned
indiscriminately. Some of them say expressly that they refer to the
father also (Meyer, Wilhelmi, Moore Davis, Br. Smyth, Fraser, Gason,
Mathew, Spencer and Gillen, Mrs. Parker, Salvado). Nevertheless we must
assume that owing to the closer tie in daily life the relationship
between mother and child was a yet more intimate one (Lumholtz,
Salvado). There seems to have been but little difference made between
male and female children. We read in a few places (Schürmann,
Spencer and Gillen) that boys were more welcome than girls, and that
infanticide was more frequently carried out amongst the latter. But
this is contradicted elsewhere,[747] where we read that in several
tribes no difference in infanticide was made between boys and girls.
[747] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 748-750.
Parallel with great affection towards the children ran considerable
leniency of treatment. In about eighteen of our statements (_i. e._ in
all of those in which there is anything said about treatment besides
affection) we read that the natives treat their children with kindness,
absolute leniency and indulgence, never chastise them, and give them
their own way in everything. It is well to notice that these two
things--real love on the one hand and leniency of treatment on the
other--must be treated as two independent phenomena. Affection may
be perfectly well combined with severity and rigour; and a want of
punishment need not be necessarily based upon love; it may result just
as well from carelessness. But this latter does not seem to be the
case; we know that the parents are not careless about their children;
that on the contrary they take the greatest trouble about them and look
carefully after all the necessities of their life. Here the leniency
of treatment seems to be exclusively due to excessive fondness for
their children and the resulting weakness shown towards them. In other
societies the reason of the same phenomenon is often (especially in
the case of male children) the wish not to frighten the boy and not to
make him a coward, in which belief magical elements may also play a
rôle. (Compare Steinmetz, article in _Z.f.S._ i.) A suggestion of such
a reason is contained in only one of our statements (Roth in _Trans.
R.S.Q._) In general it may be said that the way in which the aborigines
treat their children is a symptom of their great parental love.[748]
Only in two places (Spencer and Gillen, Lumholtz) is it said that in
fits of anger and impatience the natives chastise their children, and
even this seems to be quite exceptional. Very interesting is Gason's
statement, according to which it seems that the father was even more
lenient than the mother; and this seems quite natural, for the mother
had much more opportunity to get angry with the child.
[748] Compare also the general reason given by Steinmetz
for the prevalence of this indulgence among savage peoples.
_Zeitschr. für Sozialwissenschaft_, Band i. pp. 254-285.
It is characteristic that even those authors who write in strong terms
of the bad treatment which the husband shows towards his wife (compare
the statements above) say nothing of the kind as to the treatment of
the children by their fathers. On the contrary, we read in several
places of the tyranny of the young boy, under which often his mother
and sisters and sometimes even his father had to suffer (Curr in
several places, especially in the story of Old Davie; J. Moore Davies,
Oldfield, Salvado). But two other writers (Lumholtz and Bonney) inform
us that in spite of the entire lack of severity the children are not
naughty at all, as might have been expected.
It may be safely concluded that the evidence gives a quite true picture
of the parental feelings. The latter may be considered as elements
which essentially characterize the relation of parents to children.
And it may be said that in Australia the parents are most devoted
and loving to their children. The importance of this conclusion in
regard to our ideas of parental kinship in Australia has been argued
sufficiently above.[749]
[749] See pp. 191 _sqq._
The facts stated in this conclusion seem to have an important bearing
upon the relation between husband and wife. This point is completely
ignored by the first-hand observers, who never troubled to inquire
deeper into the mutual dependence of such most important sociological
facts, viz. of the relationship between parents and children on the
one hand and between husband and wife on the other. There are no
statements on this point, and consequently one is obliged to draw the
inference for oneself. But the bearing of the parental relationship
upon the conjugal relations is so obvious and the mutual dependence of
marriage and family so clear, that the following inference seems not at
all hypothetical and arbitrary. If both parents are strongly attached
to their children, if their feelings are so outspoken, these must
constitute a strong binding tie between them. It is hardly possible to
think that a man could be merely a brutal master and tyrant to his
wife if they both had the same feelings for the same object. But it is
still less possible to admit that a man and a woman would on the first
occasion, or even without any reason, part and form new unions if they
were both attached so strongly to the same person--an attachment which,
as in so many examples, sometimes amounted to a real passion.
Turning to the other question, to be answered from our evidence--the
question of paternal authority or _potestas_--let us first fix the
meaning of the word. To the word authority (_potestas_) a legal sense
can be given. Then it expresses the sum of the rights that legally are
allotted to the father over his children. So in Rome _potestas_ meant
the absolute power of life, death and liberty that the father legally
possessed over the persons of his children.[750] Every legal relation
presupposes a possibility of interference or enforcement on the part of
some social authority, and it assumes a set of fixed norms sanctioned
in some way by society. Now we do not possess any knowledge of any such
possibility in the case of the parental relationship, or of any norms
that are laid down in any form by the Australian aboriginal society for
the said relationship. The terms _authority_ or _potestas_, therefore,
cannot be used in their strict sense or indeed in any sense at all if
we imply a _legal meaning_ to them. We are more justified in applying
them to the Australian natives, if we use them as an expression of
the mere fact that the father could do anything he liked with his
children, that he had an absolute power over them. But even here we
should be careful in ascribing the exclusive power to the father. In
the only cases where the question of a decision as to the child's lot
arises, _i. e._ in the cases of infanticide and giving the girl away
in marriage, there are contradictory instances ascribing the power of
decision to some one else. So, for instance, in the Mukjarawaint tribe
the father was not allowed to decide whether his child was to be killed
or not at birth; it was the grandparents' affair. Curr affirms, on the
other hand, that infanticide depended exclusively upon the father. In
some tribes it was not the father's privilege to give his daughter in
marriage. Nevertheless, as was shown above in Chapter II, as a rule it
was the father who disposed of his daughter.
[750] Compare also the discussions above, pp. 185 _sqq._
Although our information on these points is scanty, these few hints
seem to prove that there were some infringements of the father's
liberty from outside. How far they were _legal_ is difficult to
ascertain. At any rate we see that the father's authority was rather
limited by legal factors than enhanced. But even if this be an
exceptional instance, and if as a rule nobody could interfere with
the father in whatever he was pleased to do with his children--a
supposition which seems fairly to agree with the general authority of
the husband and the isolation of families--it must still be remembered
that the father as a matter of fact never made use of his unrestricted
authority. In the first place, as will be plainly shown below, the
father's contact with and exclusive influence over his children ceased
at the moment they reached puberty. Our question is therefore limited
to the period before reaching puberty (in the boys perhaps even sooner,
from about seven to ten years; see below), and _eo ipso_ loses a great
deal of its contents. A small child living with its parents alone
in the wilderness is naturally entirely in their hands and at their
mercy. But it would be a fallacy to lay any stress on that point. As
our statements show, the child is protected against any ill-treatment,
or even against any severity from either of its parents, by their own
feelings much better than it could be by any legal measures. And the
fact remains that the father's _potestas_ or authority (or whatever any
kind of coercive power may be called) is by no means a characteristic
feature of his relation to his children, for according to aboriginal
custom and psychology, any element of that kind is absolutely absent
from their family life.
In other words we may say that our information on the regulation of
paternal authority in the few cases where it can come into play is
very scanty. Probably there are no rules, or only a few,[751] and the
father is more or less free to dispose of his child. But I mentioned
some contradictory instances, and I would not lay any stress on that
assertion. What appears to be quite clear is that paternal authority
does not play any important part in family life; for the parental
relation is a _régime_ of love, and not of coercion. And considering
that we know very little about the father's authority and only feel
sure that it is insignificant, it cannot be reasonably chosen as a
determining factor of the paternal relation.
[751] As mentioned above it is impossible to say how far
such rules are legal, _i. e._ laid down and _enforced_ by
society.
From the lack of any chastisement we may infer that the education given
by the parents to their children was a very insignificant one, for it
is impossible to conceive of any serious education without coercive
treatment, especially at that low stage of culture. But as the children
are continually with their mother and very often with their father,
the parental influence must be of great importance in the questions of
the arts of life and of all the knowledge necessary in tribal affairs.
We read in several places of the control and educative influence
exercised by the mother on her children (Kurnai, Euahlayi, Georgina
Blacks, Herbert River tribes, North-West Australian tribes according to
Withnell, Salvado). The father makes toys for his children and teaches
the boys how to throw the spear, use the boomerang, and so on (Curr on
Australians in general; Encounter Bay; Turnbull; Salvado; compare also
Dr. Fraser's statement).
Here it must be remembered that education depends still more on another
set of facts, namely on the facts of initiation and the secret society
formed by all initiated men. The boy's education begins with the moment
when he leaves his parents, joins the young men's camp, and begins
to undergo a series of initiations. At any rate he begins then to be
educated in quite a new order of ideas, initiated into the tribal
mysteries, etc. And apparently he has then to submit to a severe
_régime_, besides going through the ordeal of initiation itself. It
seems, therefore, that the education received by the children in their
parents' camp, where they are probably more under the influence of
their mother and perhaps of other women who happen to be in the same
encampment, that this education is definitive only for the females,
who can learn from their mothers all they will want in their future
life. For the boys this first education is of secondary importance. All
they have learned of the tribal traditions and beliefs--their whole
knowledge of the world--is destroyed at the initiation and replaced by
a new one. We see, therefore, that the relations between parents and
children are limited to a relatively short period; for the girls marry
at about ten years of age, and the boys at the same age leave their
parental camp and begin a new life. These facts are so important, as
characterizing the aboriginal family life, that we must dwell upon them
more in detail.
III
The relation of children to their parents undergoes an essential
change at the time when the former arrive at puberty. At this time
they are removed from their parents' immediate presence and control.
The girls marry very early, that is they are very early removed from
their parents' camp to that of their husband. Boys have to undergo
the initiation ceremonies at about the age when the girls marry, and
according to all we know never return any more to their parents' camp.
The fact of the early marriage of Australian aboriginal females is well
known. The age at which it takes place is stated to be from eight to
fourteen years of age; but generally the age of about ten to twelve is
alleged.[752]
[752] Curr states it to vary from eight to fourteen, at
various places: _Recollections_, pp. 50, 129, _A.R._, i.
p. 107; Meyer in Woods, p. 190, states it to be from ten
to twelve; Schürmann in Woods, p. 222, at arriving at
puberty; Fraser, p. 2, at a very young age; Eyre, ii.
p. 319, at about twelve years of age; Br. Smyth, i. p. 77,
very early; Spencer and Gillen at from fourteen to fifteen
years of age (_Nat. Tr._, p. 92 and _Nor. Tr._, p. 134);
Withnell, p. 8, at about twelve years of age; Parkhouse,
_A.A.A.S._, vi. p. 641, at arriving at puberty; Grey, ii.
pp. 229, 231, very early.
Very important is also the point which Curr emphasizes, viz. that
no girl above about sixteen or widow under about forty-five is left
unmarried.[753] So that, according to this statement, practically all
women who are marriageable would be married. But this is perhaps in
contradiction to a couple of statements we shall meet below, which
affirm the existence of a camp of unmarried females. So that this point
seems to present some ambiguity. At any rate it seems quite certain
that unmarried females are not left long in this state.
[753] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 129.
We know very little as to how far the relations between a girl and her
parents cease when she leaves them. Marriage seems to be as a general
rule patrilocal; the wife leaves her parents' camp and removes to her
husband's. The only exception to this rule will be quoted below (see
p. 266). With that, a great part of the parents' influence and contact
seem to be necessarily interrupted; for we saw in the discussion on
the mode of living that the families camp either separately or in very
small groups. And therefore a wife living in her husband's camp would
probably not live in the same local group with her parents. And in some
cases, where as in the Bangerang the local divisions seem to have been
more numerous, or as in the Kurnai the population seems to have been
more dense (the local groups living nearer each other), local exogamy
prevailed and the girl naturally went away.[754]
[754] Such local exogamy prevailed also in some of the
North Central tribes, viz. in the Warramunga nation, owing
to the local segregation of the two moieties. There the
girl must always marry far away from her natal place.
Compare _Nor. Tr._, pp. 28-30.
Moreover, the mother-in-law taboo obtained well-nigh in all tribes, so
that the husband was cut off from contact with his parents-in-law;
therefore his wife was to some extent also handicapped in her relations
with them. That when the married couple were in the same local group
with the wife's parents there were some binding elements and forms of
close intercourse between both parties appears in the description given
below of the economics of the household. But in all probability the
authority of the parents over the girl and the real intimacy of their
relations ceased at the moment she was given over to her husband.[755]
[755] Grey, ii. pp. 229, 231, and Parkhouse, _A.A.A.S._,
vi. p. 641.
There is another point connected with marriage and age. We saw that
girls marry very early, at the age of about twelve years. The men on
the other side do not marry so early. We do not possess very copious
information on this point. It is certain that boys were not allowed to
marry before they passed the initiation ceremonies. Now these began at
puberty, and were extended probably over several years. So it appears,
at least, from all the more exact and detailed descriptions we possess
of these ceremonies.[756] And it seems that the males had to pass
through a whole series of ceremonies before they were allowed to marry.
We read in Salvado (p. 277) that it was a crime, severely punished,
often by death, for a man to marry below the age of thirty. And he
adds that they had a marvellous skill in ascertaining age by means of
a series of ceremonies through which every male had to pass. The same
is stated by Curr (_A.R._, i. p. 107), viz. that the men seldom marry
under thirty. According to some statements from the South-Eastern area
boys appear to be allowed to marry younger.
[756] Compare the description of initiation ceremonies in
the works of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Roth, and Mathew.
From these few data it appears that males married much later and that
consequently there must have been some disparity of age. But this
disparity was much greater, owing to the circumstance that the young
girls were as a rule allotted to old men, and the boys whenever they
were allowed to marry got old _lubras_ as wives. We have a whole
series of statements affirming this and reporting the difference of age
to be usually about thirty years, if the female was younger; and at
any rate stating that there was seldom a couple in which both partners
were young. These statements refer to tribes scattered all over the
continent, so that disparity of age in marriage seems to be quite a
universal feature in Australia.
We may point to the circumstance that this disparity of age stands
in connection with the very prevalent form of betrothal, viz. the
promising of a girl in infancy usually to a mature man. Other modes of
obtaining wives, as exchange of a daughter for a wife, and levirate,
stand also in connection with the disparity of age.
_Statements._--We read in Curr: "The Australian male almost
invariably obtains his wife or wives either as a survivor of a
married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in
life for his daughters." An old widow often falls to the lot
of some young bachelor.[757] On the other hand young girls are
allotted to old men. "One often sees a child of eight the wife of
a man of fifty." And we read further: "The marriage rules of the
blacks result in very ill-assorted unions as regards age; for it is
usual to see old men with mere girls as wives and men in the prime
of life married to old widows. As a rule women are not obtained by
the men unless they are at least thirty years of age. Women have
very frequently two husbands during their lifetime, the first older
and the second younger than themselves."[758] "I never heard of
a female over sixteen years of age, who, prior to the breakdown
of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites, had not a
husband."[759]
[757] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 107. This is said about the
Australians in general.
[758] _Ibid._, p. 110.
[759] _Ibid._
Speaking again on marriage among the Bangerang, Curr says: "As a
rule, girls would be about twelve or fourteen years of age, and
their husbands-elect some five-and-thirty years older, and already
the lords of one or two spouses." "In this way it happened that one
seldom saw a couple in which both the parties were young."[760]
And further on we read, "Few men under thirty have lubras." But in
the age between fifty and sixty men usually possess two or three
wives. The difference between the spouses is usually twenty years;
sometimes much more.[761]
[760] _Recollections_, p. 129.
[761] _Recollections_, p. 171.
We find the disparity of age in marriage mentioned by Howitt in
several places. So we learn that old men were often betrothed to
young girls among the Wolgal.[762] We read that in Australia old
men secure the young females for themselves.[763] And that young
men obtain for wives some old repudiated wife of one of the old
men.[764] Among the Geawe Gal "girls were affianced to men much
older than themselves."[765] Speaking of the Dieri and other South
Central tribes he says that old wives of old men are handed over to
young boys.[766]
[762] _Nat. Tr._, p. 197.
[763] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 354.
[764] _Trans. R.S.V._ (1888), p. 126.
[765] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 280.
[766] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 55.
Howitt informs us also that no man might marry before duly
initiated; and then the old men of the tribe had to give their
consent.[767] Obviously, therefore, the age at which men could get
married was much later than that in which females were given away.
[767] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.
Eyre found in the tribes with which he was in contact that women of
between thirty and forty years of age were often cast off and given
to young boys.[768] Young girls were often allotted to old men.[769]
[768] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 322.
[769] _Ibid._, p. 319.
Disparity of age is stated also by Angas. Old men get often the
youngest and comeliest women; whilst the old and haggard females
were left for the young men.[770]
[770] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 82 (Murray River tribes).
Among the Encounter Bay tribes the girls "are given in marriage at
a very early age (ten or twelve years)." And as it is very often
the father who exchanges his daughter for a wife, it is evident
that a great disparity of age must prevail.[771]
[771] Meyer in Woods, p. 190.
Mrs. Parker says that among the Euahlayi baby girls were often
betrothed to "some old chap" who might have even already as many
as two or three wives.[772] Whereas quite a young man was often
allotted to an old woman. Age is not a disqualification for a woman
to marry.[773]
[772] _Loc. cit._, p. 55.
[773] _Ibid._, p. 56.
In the Central tribes, owing to the Tualcha Mura institution,[774]
"men very frequently have wives much younger than themselves,
as the husband and the mother of a wife obtained in this way
are usually of approximately the same age."[775] And it may be
remembered that this is the "most usual method of obtaining a
wife."[776]
[774] See above, p. 41.
[775] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 558.
[776] _Nat. Tr._, p. 558.
We are informed that among the tribes near Victoria River
Downs[777] a man may marry at about thirty years of age, and the
older he grows the younger girls he gets. Girls are married on
reaching puberty; and usually to old men; whereas young men often
receive old women.
[777] Northern Territory, South Australia, _J.A.I._, xxiv.
p. 181. In the answers to the _Questions_ of Prof. Frazer.
In the Kabi and Wakka tribes "the elder men had sometimes a
plurality of wives, while the young men had for a long time after
reaching manhood to remain, perforce, single. I never knew a man
to have more than two wives at the one time, and generally one
sufficed. There was no minimum of age for the marriage of girls,
and so it occasionally happened that a child of twelve became the
wife of a man of sixty. I knew a case in point."[778]
[778] Mathew, p. 162. Compare also Lumholtz, _loc. cit._,
p. 192.
"Il est défendu a un Australien ... de se marier avant au moins
vingt-huit à trente ans, et la mort est le châtiment de tout
infracteur de la loi."[779]
[779] Salvado, p. 277; natives of South West Australia.
In the tribes of King George Sound the old men seem partly to
monopolize the young females.[780]
[780] Scott Nind, _loc. cit._, pp. 38, 39.
As we have mentioned above, boys leave their parents' camp to undergo
the initiation ceremonies. These latter seem to obtain in all tribes,
with a few insignificant exceptions such as the Bidwelli mentioned
by Howitt. This is a quite well-known fact. But what is their mode
of living during this, in some tribes, rather prolonged period and
afterwards, before they marry? They do not live in their parents' camp;
and they have not yet their individual settlement. They appear in the
great majority of cases to club together, have their own encampment,
roam and hunt on their own account, and in general to live a life apart.
_Statements._--Howitt, speaking of the camping rules among the
Kurnai, says that a "'brogan' (a man initiated at the same time,
a comrade, or tribal brother, see _Nat. Tr._, p. 737), although
calling the man's wife 'wife' and she calling him 'husband,' would
have to camp with the young men, if any were there, or else by
himself."[781] And again: "The young men (brewit) and the married
men who have not their wives with them, always encamp together at
some distance from the camps of the married men."[782] "The young
man, or brewit, after his initiation, may be said to have commenced
a life independent, to some extent, of his parents."[783] "He lived
with the other young men, and with those who were initiated with
him, and accordingly his brothers."[784]
[781] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 210.
[782] _J.A.I._, xiv. p. 318.
[783] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 199, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 737.
[784] _Ibid._, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 737.
We read of the Wolgal tribe: "A married man would never stay in
the young men's camp when travelling, unless he were without his
wife, when he would be considered as being single. The married
people and the single young men camp entirely apart."[785] Howitt
mentions further the young men's camp in connection with animal
food division amongst the Ngarigo (Maneroo blacks).[786] That the
bachelors' camp was a rule is confirmed by Howitt's statement that
amongst the Mukjarawaint there was no young men's camp.[787] The
unmarried men seem to have lived with their grandparents.[788]
[785] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 776.
[786] _Ibid._, pp. 759, 760.
[787] _Ibid._, p. 764.
[788] _Ibid._ Compare Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 183.
Curr, speaking of the laying out of a native camp in the Bangerang
tribe, says: "the fire of the bachelors ..." is "rather further
off and somewhat isolated from the rest."[789] The same author
says: "Over the girls his (the father's) authority ceased when
they became wives, and after his twelfth year or so the boy was
very little subject to the father."[790] "When eight or ten years
of age he was sent to sleep in the bachelors' camp, when there
was one at hand, with the young men and boys of various ages, his
parents still supplying him with food. In his new home, though no
violence was used, its inmates being all his relatives, the child
gradually became to some extent the fag" of all older and stronger.
In short this was the real school he had to pass through, the most
important moment of which formed the initiation, when he became
_kogomoolga_.[791] "The bachelors, in their camp, cooked each for
himself"[792] (at least the older ones; as for the quite young,
the family provided, according to what we were told above). "The
bachelors had one (hut) in common."[793] Curr also emphasizes the
importance of the training enjoyed by the youths in the bachelors'
camp for the general tribal order.[794]
[789] _Recollections_, p. 133.
[790] _Ibid._, p. 248.
[791] _Ibid._, pp. 250, 253.
[792] _Ibid._, p. 256.
[793] _Ibid._, p. 259.
[794] _Recollections_, p. 252.
J. Dawson says that one partition of a big wuurn "is appropriated
to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and
widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers. While travelling or
occupying temporary habitations, each of these parties must erect
separate wuurns."[795] Here the young boys and young unmarried
girls lived with their family, but in separate compartments of
the hut. We are not informed if, when travelling, they formed a
separate group in the encampment.
[795] _Loc. cit._, p. 10; this refers to the West Victorian
tribes.
"Young, unmarried men frequently muster in parties of six or eight,
and make a hut for themselves."[796] In cases when a larger number
of natives are assembled it is required by custom that "all boys
and uninitiated young men sleep at some distance from the huts of
adults."[797]
[796] Eyre, ii. p. 302 (Murray River tribes).
[797] _Ibid._, p. 304.
"Until his fourteenth or fifteenth year he (the boy) is mostly
engaged in catching fish and birds, because already, for some
years, he has been obliged to seek for food on his own account.
Thus he early becomes, in a great measure, independent; and there
is nobody who can control him, the authority of his parents
depending only upon the superstitions which they have instilled
into him from infancy."[798]
[798] Encounter Bay tribes, Meyer, _loc. cit._, p. 187.
A vague but suggestive piece of information as regards our point
is given on the Turra tribe, by the Rev. J. Kühn: Two or three
months after initiation the lad is allowed to marry. But some of
the married men undergo a further operation and become "Willeru";
"after this they are not permitted to go to their wives for two
years."[799] Do they live in a separate camp during these two
years? It is probable, but the statement is not clear enough to be
useful for us.
[799] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 286.
We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "If there be any young
unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[800] This
statement throws some light on the preceding one: there we had no
mention of any separate camp. But as both these tribes lived quite
close and must have had similar institutions, we may safely assume
that the seclusion from wives which is reported in the foregoing
passage was combined with an independent mode of living, _i. e._
with a bachelors' camp.
[800] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 222.
Teichelmann and Schürmann report that there was a separate hut in
which women dwelt during their period.[801]
[801] In Waitz Gerland, p. 778. That refers probably to
South Australian aborigines in general.
We read in the description of the United States expedition to New
South Wales that the youths have to avoid women from initiation
till marriage and that they have their separate encampment.[802]
[802] Chas. Wilkes, smaller ed., i. p. 225; larger ed., ii.
p. 205.
In the Euahlayi tribe boys go after their seventh year to the
Weedeghal, bachelors' camp.[803]
[803] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 61.
Among the Central tribes (Krichauff Ranges) there is a separate
men's camp and a camp for women, where these latter are confined
during certain periods of their life.[804]
[804] Krichauff, _loc. cit._, p. 78.
We read that among the natives of Finke River (Central Australia)
"separate places are assigned for the unmarried men and for the
single females respectively."[805] The same author reports that
the natives are fond of visits. "The meeting-place is usually the
Tmara-nkanja for the men, _i. e._ the bachelors' camp."[806]
[805] Schultze, _loc. cit._, p. 230.
[806] _Ibid._, p. 234.
In the Arunta tribe the boys "go out with the women as they
searched for vegetable food and the smaller animals," up to the
first initiation ceremony. Afterwards "they begin to accompany the
men in their search for larger" game. At this first initiation they
change also their mode of living; "in the future they must not play
with the women and girls, nor must they camp with them as they have
hitherto done, but henceforth they must go to the camp of the men,
which is known as the Ungunja."[807] Among the Arunta there is a
"special part of the main camp where the men assemble and near to
which the women may not go."[808] It must exist only when a greater
number of natives are assembled,[809] for normally the people roam
scattered over the country. But during these latter periods the
unmarried men lead probably an existence of their own, as they
cannot live with families (compare above mode of living). This
information about the bachelors' camp in the Arunta is not quite
clear, as we see. But all we read points to its existence.
[807] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 215, 216.
[808] See index, p. 656; the Ungunja is mentioned several
times in the text, p. 557 and _passim_.
[809] See Chap. V.
We find the bachelors' camp (Lagerplatz der jungen Männer;
tmarankintja) mentioned by the Rev. E. Strehlow, in connection with
the totemic ceremonies amongst the Arunta.[810]
[810] Part iii. p. 7 and _passim_.
We read about the tribes near Port Darwin: "Children live with
their parents until puberty, when girls become members of their
husband's households, residing sometimes with him, and at other
times at the parental camp."[811] I may add here, that this is the
only example where matrilocal marriage is mentioned in Australia.
Everywhere else we find it stated that the girl removes to her
husband's camp.[812] We read farther that the boys are taken, after
their initiation, "in charge by those whose duty it is to train"
them. "They lived in a large wurley, which would accommodate all
the boys. As a fact ... no boys between seventeen and nineteen are
seen at Port Darwin."[813] Here we are told that there was one big
hut in which all the boys lived; but this seems rather to be an
exception.
[811] T. A. Parkhouse, _loc. cit._, p. 641.
[812] Compare N. W. Thomas, _loc. cit._, p. 16.
[813] _Ibid._, p. 643.
Roth says that children of about seven years of age leave their
parents' camp and go to stay with their grandparents.[814] We
are not informed whether there exists a bachelors' camp in the
North-West Central Queensland tribes; but this statement does
not deny it, for boys are apparently not at once initiated after
leaving their parental camp. Another statement of the same author
about the natives of Koombana Bay (Queensland), affirms it
explicitly: "The younger single males at a certain stage (puberty
and onwards) always had a fire to themselves."[815] And again: "The
grown-up lads sleep together, apart from the others."[816]
[814] _Eth. Stud._, p. 183.
[815] _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 48.
[816] _Ibid._, p. 51.
Grey says that strangers visiting a tribe, if unmarried or without
their wives, "sleep at the fire of the young men."[817]
[817] Grey, ii. p. 252.
Bishop Salvado, according to whose information the South-West
Australian natives live in small tribes of six to nine persons,
says that when a family disposes itself to sleep "les garçons
qui out passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls autour du feu
commun."[818]
[818] p. 280.
It is stated in two statements above (Dawson and Schultze), that
there were camps of unmarried females as well as of single men.
We may add here two other statements about such camps.[819] In
the Maryborough tribes there were camps of unmarried girls, in
connection with which there was some sexual licence. Similarly in
the North-West Central Queensland tribes,[820] studied by Roth,
single girls lived in groups, under the control of an old man. Such
phenomena would account for the licence of unmarried females, which
we find sometimes reported. But they do not seem to have a very
large extension in the Australian aboriginal society.
[819] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 232, 233.
[820] _N. Q. Eth. Bull._ 8, p. 6.
We see in the first place from this evidence[821] that boys were
actually removed from their parents' care and that they acquired a
complete independence of their parents on reaching puberty. This is
especially mentioned in several of our statements (Kurnai, Bangerang,
Lower Murray River tribes, Encounter Bay tribes, Port Darwin tribes).
It appears also to result _ipso facto_ from the circumstance that the
boys lived in quite a different part of the encampment, and so could
not be under the control of their parents. It appears from Curr's and
Parkhouse's statements that they even lived in a separate locality.
And confronting our evidence concerning the bachelors' camp with what
we know about the aboriginal mode of living, it appears also highly
probable that if the boys' camp numbered from six to eight inmates
(compare Eyre's statement) they must have roamed about in a separate
group. We read that in two cases the boys joined their grandparents
(Howitt about the Mukjarawaint tribe and Roth). Only the statement of
Dawson suggests that boys remained with their parents, and even that,
as we saw, does not follow very clearly from this statement.
[821] We have collected here twenty-two statements in which
there are many more tribes included.
We are informed in several places about the mode of living of the
lads in their separate camp. They seem to have partly provided their
own food and cooked it (Curr). They slept in one big hut (Parkhouse)
or round a common fire (Salvado and others). In general they seem to
have formed a distinct, separate social unit. This time, spent in the
bachelors' camp, was the real time of training (see Curr's statement.
Compare Hutton Webster, _loc. cit._, chap. iv. pp. 49-51). They came
under the influence of a new authority--the authority of the tribal
elders. And, especially during the actual time of initiation, all
the wisdom and morality they had to learn was imparted to the young
people by the old men of the tribe. Probably there also they formed new
acquaintances and relationships besides the family ones in which they
were brought up. The institution of bachelors' camp is general among
all the Australian tribes. Our evidence is not detailed enough to allow
us to trace geographical differences in any particular feature. We may
mention here, by the way, that the bachelors' camp of Australia was a
form of the widespread institution of the men's-house.[822]
[822] In this connection the bachelors' camp in Australia
is mentioned by Hutton Webster (amongst the Kurnai,
Euahlayi, Arunta and Port Darwin tribes). The author speaks
of it as a symptom of the general principle of separation
of sexes. _Primitive Secret Societies_, pp. 1, 3.
In sum, all these factors give great weight to the facts here
discussed; viz. to those of the early marriage of girls and the
initiation of boys. We see that these facts take away from the
Australian family its patriarchal character. The father's authority is
exercised over his children merely during their early childhood, _i. e._
during a period when there is in a general way very little room
for the display of any serious authority. Still more, as there was
no serious and real training during this time, all education, as far
as it was given at all by the father, assumed more the form of play,
as we saw above (p. 256); and, as we saw, during that period great
leniency towards the offspring was the chief feature of the father's
behaviour.[823] When a serious and often harsh training took place, it
was not the father's individual authority that enforced it, but the
tribal elders'. So we see that our former result is hereby confirmed,
viz. that there is no foundation for designing the father's relation to
his child as based upon authority or any idea of proprietorship. That
applies to a girl as well as to a boy. But in the case of the former we
might attribute some meaning to the word property, although it would be
rather straining the sense of the word.
[823] On these connections in general compare the
interesting article of Steinmetz, _Zeitschrift f.
Sozialw._, II, pp. 613, 614.
IV
It was seen that on reaching a certain age the children leave their
parents' camp and are removed from their control; still the personal,
individual bond of kinship is not broken. And although it does not find
its expression in facts of daily life, for the children and the parents
live apart, yet there are some facts which unmistakably reveal the
existence of a strong lifelong affection and attachment between parents
and children.
These facts are: real sorrow displayed at the death or funeral of a
near relative, and especially that displayed by parents at the death
of their children; joy and tenderness shown to children whenever met
for the first time after a long absence. Here also must be placed the
numerous occurrences in which love was displayed for white men who were
recognized as dead relatives. In these cases their supposed parents
always displayed the greatest amount of tenderness towards them, and
often underwent considerable sacrifices for the sake of helping or even
seeing their "children." The close connection between grandchildren and
grandparents shows also that there was a near individual tie between
the parents of the children and their parents. Let us adduce some
statements.
_Statements._--Curr remarks shortly but clearly: "Parental
affection always endured," after the children left their parents
and became practically independent of them.[824]
[824] _Recollections_, p. 248.
A story showing strong filial attachment is told by R. Dawson.
Relating an anecdote, he concludes: "The manner in which Youee
told the story was exceedingly interesting; his lamentations, that
'white pellow' should treat his father so, and the mild complaining
tone in which they were made, thoroughly portrayed his filial
attachment to his father, of whom he said several times, turning
to him with a tone and manner that could not be mistaken, '_Murry_
good wool man! _Murry_ good wool man, massa.'"[825]
[825] R. Dawson, _loc. cit._, p. 312. Pt. Stephens tribes.
A characteristic story, proving paternal affection, is told by
Bonney. An old man was once cut with a tomahawk by his son, a big,
strong man who had fits of madness. "The old man returned to the
camp and with tears in his eyes told me what had happened, and
begged me to assist him to bring back his mad son before he had
perished in the bush."[826]
[826] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 135. Riv. Darling tribe.
We have also a few statements about the relations between
grandparents and grandchildren. We are informed that among the
Mukjarawaint the grandparents had the exclusive right to decide
whether the child should be killed directly after birth or allowed
to live. In the former case the grandparents had the privilege
of eating the child.[827] We read of the important rôle the
grandmother played in the North Queensland tribes at the naming
of the child,[828] and amongst the Euahlayi at the Betrothal
Ceremony.[829] Amongst the Kurnai also "the name is given by the
paternal grandfather or grandmother, or in default by the mother's
parents."[830]
[827] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 243, 749.
[828] Roth, _Bull._ V. p. 8.
[829] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 51. Comp. above, p. 40.
[830] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 190, 191.
A series of interesting instances is told by Fraser. He says,
"Their natural affections are keen; in proof of this I need only
refer to their grief over a dead relative, even though it be a very
young child; they utter loud lamentations and cut and burn the
flesh of their bodies in grief. This expression of grief is not all
artificial or professional like the hired 'ululatus' of the Romans
or the 'keening' of the Irish. That it is genuine on the part of
the near relatives of the deceased I can prove by examples. Jackey,
the 'king' of the Gresford blacks, died and was buried; his mother
could not be induced to leave the spot; she sat there night and
day, refusing food, until one morning she was found dead on his
grave. She was buried beside her son."[831]--"A woman of the Dungog
tribule had a child which was hunch-backed and otherwise deformed;
she carried it on her back for eighteen or nineteen years; it
seemed always no bigger than a child of six or seven years. Her
husband also carried about, for two or three years, a son whose
feet from the ankles had been destroyed by frostbite."[832]--"At
Durham Downs (Queensland), 'king' Brady had a little boy, two years
old, who became helpless from disease; the mother carried him
about with her for many years."[833]--"Then again, the transport
of delight with which Buckley was received by a woman of a local
tribe who believed that this white man was her deceased son come to
life again, is a proof of the strength of natural affection among
them."[834]
[831] J. Fraser, _loc. cit._, p. 44.
[832] _Ibid._
[833] J. Fraser, _loc. cit._, p. 44.
[834] _Ibid._
To this last might be added several other instances where white
people were received with the greatest love and affection by their
"black parents," who believed them to be their dead children. As we
mentioned these examples above (p. 222) in another connection we
merely refer the reader to that place.
Salvado says: "Reprenant la suite de mon récit, je dirai que les
fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils
sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleures pièces de gibier,
ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses.
Enfin ils leurs témoignent leur amour au delà de la tombe, en tuant
un ou deux sauvages quand leur père vient à mourir."[835]
[835] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 277.
In the description of mourning and burial it appears in several
places that the "immediate relations," probably in the first
place their own parents and children, have special duties and
obligations. "In the Tongaranka tribe, when a death occurs, the
immediate relations smear themselves with _Kopai_ (gypsum)."[836]
[836] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 451.
"When one of the ... Wiim-baio tribe died ... the relations used
to lie with their heads on the body, and even stretched at length
on the corpse."[837] In the same tribe after a man's death "his
immediate relations cut off their hair and applied to their heads a
paste."[838]
[837] _Ibid._
[838] _Ibid._, p. 452.
In the Chepara tribe "the relations of a dead person for several
months after wore emu feathers, dyed red." "The mother of the
deceased had her nose and all her body painted with stripes of
white pipeclay, and wore red feathers over the whole of her head.
A sister had also her head covered with red feathers, but was
not painted white. After a few weeks the painting was changed to
red, and then was worn by father, mother and sisters for a long
time."[839]
[839] _Ibid._, p. 469.
At Port Stephens "an old couple had an only daughter of whom they
were very fond. She died, and her parents built their hut over
her grave close to the shore of the harbour, and lived there many
months, crying for her every evening at sunset."[840]
[840] _Ibid._, p. 465.
In the description of mourning ceremonies given by Spencer and
Gillen it appears plainly that the rôle of the individual mother
was quite singular and the most important. "The actual mother of
the deceased was painted deeply all over with pipeclay."[841]
"On the way to the grave the actual mother often threw herself
heavily on the ground and attempted to cut her head with a digging
stick."[842]
[841] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 508.
[842] _Ibid._, p. 509.
Also the blood brother plays, apparently, a part different from
that of the tribal ones. "After going a short distance they were
met by a man who was a blood brother of the dead woman, and was
accompanied by a number of his tribal brothers."[843]
[843] _Ibid._, p. 508.
All this evidence, although relatively scanty, shows clearly that
the individual relations between parents and children continued to
be strong and intimate. This fact also throws light on the character
of these relations during early childhood. In this period the bonds
were formed, and they must have been formed in a very strong and
thorough manner indeed if they lasted so long. This conclusion is
of such a general and fundamental character, and the evidence is so
scanty, that it would be futile to attempt tracing any geographical
distinctions between the different tribes. Like the other general
conclusions arrived at in this chapter, it has features common to all
the aboriginal tribes of Australia.
We have extremely scanty information concerning the relation
between brothers and sisters; and the few hints we possess are very
contradictory. Thus Gason says that a brother and sister "would
sacrifice their lives for one another if called upon."[844] And Fraser
informs us that when a man is sick it is his brother's duty to tend
him and carry him about. And the author gives an example in support
of this statement.[845] And again we read in Oldfield that a girl,
if her mother is dead, "is bound to supply them (her brothers) with
food for a certain period; indeed, brothers in general retain the
privilege of maltreating their sisters long after these latter became
the property of another."[846] On the other hand, Grey states that
no "common bond of union" exists between brothers and sisters of the
same father.[847] And according to Spencer and Gillen a man may never
speak from a near to his younger sister, although he may speak freely
to his older one.[848] Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula brothers
and sisters were not allowed to converse.[849] In some West Australian
tribes the boy was never allowed to speak to his sisters after the
initiation ceremony. He had to say farewell to his sisters before he
went to the initiation. The "own" brothers and sisters keep apart from
each other. And even boys or girls of the same class cannot speak or
play together.[850] The first three statements appear to indicate a
close individual relationship between brother and sister; the four
following seem to deny it again. Recalling to mind what we learned
about the relation in question in other connections, we hardly get much
help therefrom. The exchange of sisters would point to some ties; but,
it is too uncertain a hint. The facts that children are suckled for a
long time, and that owing to that and to the practice of infanticide
connected with it, the children succeed each other at long intervals,
reduce the possibility of close ties between the children of the same
parents; especially as they so soon leave the parental camp, and as
probably afterwards the intercourse between the sisters and brothers
is interrupted (compare statements of Curr and Spencer and Gillen). On
the whole we know very little about the relation in question; and we
may only conjecture, although with a high degree of probability, that
the tie is not a very strong one and does not play an important part in
family life; if it were otherwise we probably would know more about it.
[844] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170.
[845] _Loc. cit._, p. 44.
[846] Oldfield, p. 249.
[847] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 230.
[848] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 89.
[849] Sutton, _loc. cit._, p. 19.
[850] Mrs. D. M. Bates, _loc. cit._, p. 5. The same is
reported by A. L. P. Cameron of the natives of Cooper's
Creek. _Science of Man._ July 1904.