ECONOMICS
Now we proceed to pass in survey the economic facts connected with
family life in Australia. As we are dealing with the individual family,
the first question that naturally presents itself is: How far in
Australia is the individual family an economic unit? In other words, in
what way is the individuality of the single family determined by the
economic facts?
To answer this general question we are led to examine various sets of
facts. In the first place, we know that in primitive societies there
is already a rudimentary division of labour, or rather a division of
economic functions, within the household. It is usually called the
sexual division of labour; obviously it makes the household an economic
unit; for it is just the division of labour which establishes the
unity of a social group from the economic point of view. We must ask,
therefore: Which, respectively, are the chief functions of the husband
and of the wife? Who provides the food and performs the labours of the
camp?
The economic unity of the family may also be constituted by other
facts. It is necessary in this connection to say a few words again
of individual land ownership, discussed above in connection with the
mode of living; several statements must be adduced referring to the
well-known features of communism and general liberality among the
Australian blacks. These features throw considerable light upon native
economics with reference to the constitution of the family. Let us
begin by examining the evidence on the sexual division of labour.
_Statements._--The question of the economic side of family life is
quite correctly set forth and answered by Howitt[851]: Amongst the
Kurnai, as "the pairing family is strictly established," we might
expect "that the domestic life, the arrangements of the family
circle, and the division of labour should conform, more or less
perfectly, to that condition.... The man has to provide for his
family with the assistance of his wife. His share is to hunt for
their support and to fight for their protection." The woman has to
build the hut, to fish, to gather fruit seeds and all vegetable
food, and to weave rush bags or nets. "The supply of vegetable food
procured by the woman is all devoted to her husband, her children
and herself."[852] The man's contribution goes only in part to
supply the wants of his own family, the rest being divided between
other relatives (see below). Fishing belonged to both sexes.[853]
[851] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 206, 207.
[852] _Ibid._, p. 263.
[853] _Nat. Tr._, p. 761.
Dawson reports the existence of permanent and temporary dwellings
in his tribes. "The men share the labour of making the permanent
dwelling, but the women are compelled to erect the smaller
one."[854] The women carry in bags on their back all domestic
utensils, as sticks, tinder for producing fire, gum for cement,
shells, tools, charms and food. The custom of carrying burning
fire-sticks is also reported by Dawson.[855] And in another place
we read: "After marriage the women are compelled to do all the hard
work of erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying
burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making
baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food, and
attending to the children. The only work the men do in time of
peace is to hunt for opossums and large animals of various kinds,
and to make rugs and weapons."[856]
[854] It is probable that these are innovations since the
advent of white men. See Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 206.
[855] J. Dawson, p. 11.
[856] _Ibid._, pp. 36, 37.
A still clearer picture of the division of labour between the sexes
is drawn by Curr in his Memoirs. On the march the men carried the
arms and their personal effects; the women had to carry all the
other implements as well as the small children. The supply of
vegetable food belonged to them.[857] When several families camped
together the women went in parties to procure roots, small animals
and other food, carrying babies on their backs and followed by
other children. The men, in parties of three or four, went out
hunting. After returning to camp, each party cooked its food. The
men, however, gave to their wives only the remainder of their food,
sharing it first with the children; it seems, therefore, that
the food supply provided by the female was much more regular and
reliable, and therefore of greater importance to the family, than
the man's share.[858] And again we read: "At the family fires the
father generally cooked the animals which he brought home, and the
woman the roots which were her contribution."[859]
[857] _Recollections_, p. 251.
[858] _Recollections_, p. 256.
[859] _Ibid._
Speaking of all the Australian tribes in general, Curr says:
"Among the Australian blacks the common occupations of the men are
the manufacture of arms and implements for hunting, fishing and
occasionally war. The women generally procure and cook vegetables
and fish, collect wood for fire, manufacture nets and bags. On the
march the woman carries child, household effects, fire-stick, and
digs for roots and vegetables."[860] "Wives have to undergo all the
drudgery of the camp and the march, have the poorest food and the
hardest work."[861] This statement gives quite clearly the division
of labour, the greater share falling on the wife.
[860] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 99.
[861] _Ibid._, p. 110.
Amongst the Mount Gambier tribes (West Victoria) the females have
to construct the lodge, to collect firewood, and to make the
fire.[862] They always carry the fire-stick when travelling.[863]
They fetch water and collect all vegetable food, roots, and
mushrooms, with their digging-stick.[864] The men's task is
hunting; they do it generally in company.[865] Men make arms and
prepare skins; women, objects of use and adornment.[866]
[862] Stanbridge, _loc. cit._, p. 290.
[863] _Ibid._, p. 291.
[864] _Ibid._
[865] _Ibid._, p. 293.
[866] _Ibid._, p. 295.
We read in Angas that carrying all the things, digging of roots,
and making the huts is woman's work.[867]
[867] _Loc. cit._, pp. 82, 84, 87.
Eyre says that the women had to dress the huts.[868]
[868] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 302.
We read in Br. Smyth that women had to carry all the "worldly
goods" of their husbands, even part of their arms.[869]
[869] _Loc. cit._, p. 85. This is a quotation on the
authority of an observer (Jardine).
The men hunt and women collect food during their march according
to Protector Thomas. There exists a customary communism among
them.[870]
[870] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 767.
Mitchell says that because of their great skill in manufacturing
all the things of daily use as "nets, cloaks, mussel-fishing,
rooting, etc.; and their patient submission to labour, always
carrying bags containing the whole property of the family while
they follow their masters, the great value of a gin to one of these
lazy fellows may be easily imagined."[871] They are, therefore, the
chief objects of all their fights.
[871] Quoted by Br. Smyth, i. p. 85.
Meyer states about the Encounter Bay tribes that the man regarded
his wife as a slave and let her do all the hard work, employing
her in all ways to his advantage.[872] He even prostituted her for
objects of use.[873] But he states also the typical division of
labour: "the men employ themselves ... either in fishing or hunting
emus, opossums, kangaroos, etc., while the women and children
search for roots and plants." It is also the women's task to
arrange the encampments.[874]
[872] _Loc. cit._, p. 191.
[873] This may be the influence of culture, as Europeans
are mentioned in connection therewith.
[874] pp. 191, 192.
In the Port Lincoln tribes men provided animal and women vegetable
food.[875]
[875] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 221.
We read in another author, about the same tribes, that women have
to collect vegetable food, while the men are hunting.[876] There
is also some kind of division of consumption; men eat male, women
female animals, and children the small ones.[877]
[876] Chas. Wilhelmi, pp. 174, 175, 177.
[877] _Ibid._, p. 176.
Among the Wiradjuri (New South Wales): "The wife always looks after
the camping arrangements."[878]
[878] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 776.
Speaking of the Port Jackson tribes, Tench says that they derive
their principal food supply from fishing. Both men and women take
part in this; the men spearing the fish and the women catching them
from land and sea. Both husband and wife bring their shares to the
common household.[879]
[879] _Loc. cit._, pp. 193-196.
Both men and women take part in procuring the fish supply among the
natives of Botany Bay.[880]
[880] Phillip, p. 31.
According to Henderson, among some of the New South Wales tribes
the women have to carry children and all burdens; they procure also
roots and shellfish.[881]
[881] _Loc. cit._, p. 122.
Gribble says: "The women always look after camp arrangements."[882]
[882] _Loc. cit._, p. 117.
Fishing was the chief support of the aborigines of Port Jackson
described by D. Collins. In procuring this food, men, women and
children were employed.[883]
[883] Collins, i. p. 556.
In the compilation of Dr. Fraser, on the New South Wales tribes, we
have a detailed account of the sexual division of labour. The woman
has to put up the wurley; to light and keep the fire, to carry
the fire-stick, to cook the food. On the march she carries the bag
containing the whole property of the family, the children and the
yam-stick. Her duty is to provide fish and vegetable food.[884] The
man has only to hunt.[885]
[884] _Loc. cit._, p. 2.
[885] _Loc. cit._, p. 60.
All the drudgery of the camp and all the hard work was the lot
of the women. They made nets and bags and they carried, on the
marches, all the domestic implements as well as the children.[886]
[886] Port Stephens tribes. R. Dawson, p. 67.
In the Arunta tribe the women have "to do a considerable part, but
by no means all, of the work of the camp."[887] From a detailed
description we see that the women have to procure vegetable food
and small animals, marsupials, etc., which they do with their
digging-sticks. The man's task is hunting.[888]
[887] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 50.
[888] _Ibid._, p. 19.
In the Port Essington tribes, the digging of roots and collecting
of shellfish was the woman's task.[889]
[889] Macgillivray, i. p. 148.
"I have observed that upon the northern coasts of Australia the
amount of the population upon a certain tract of country is great
or small in proportion to the quantity of _vegetable_ food it
produces. However abundant animal food may be, a toilsome search
for edible roots gives almost constant occupation to a portion
of every tribe. Women and children labour for hours together,
with no other implement than a pointed stick, in following up the
creeping stem of the wild yam through the earth until the root
is arrived at, often at a depth of six or eight feet below the
surface. A certain proportion of vegetable food appears, indeed,
to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and they willingly
forego the use of the animal food, if this more grateful diet can
be obtained in sufficient abundance."[890]
[890] Earl, p. 251.
We are informed that among the Bunya-Bunya people (Turrubul and
kindred tribes, South East Queensland) the woman had all the heavy
work to do.[891]
[891] Petrie, p. 61.
Among the aborigines of Moreton Bay, women have to erect the huts
and provide vegetable food for the whole party, as the men only
have to supply fish and game.[892]
[892] B. Field, p. 75.
We owe a good description of the division of labour on the march
to Mathew: "When shifting from one campingground to another they
usually moved slowly through the bush, the families separating
and gathering their food on the way--opossums, bandicoots, honey,
grubs, birds, and so forth. At other times they marched along
singly, the lords of creation stepping out with elastic tread and
graceful bearing, carrying their light weapons with perhaps some
game, the weaker vessel loaded with the chattels and possibly a
baby on the back in a loop of a rug or sitting stride-leg on a
shoulder. Some would carry live fire-sticks to save the trouble of
producing fire by friction. Arrived at the familiar, well-chosen
rendezvous, it was the duty of the women to cut the bark of the
humpies (dwellings) and prepare the fires."[893] Further on we
read: "The women were skilled in the manufacture of nets and of
dillie-bags made of grass or twine."[894] "The man's chief home
duties consisted in cooking and eating. He would also spend much
time in fashioning his weapons."[895]
[893] _Loc. cit._, p. 83.
[894] _Ibid._, p. 82.
[895] _Ibid._, p. 86.
Lumholtz speaks of the woman as the slave of her husband. "He
does only what pleases himself, and leaves all work to his wives;
therefore the more wives he has the richer he is."[896] We see here
again the economic value of a wife directly stated. In another
place: "It is the women who daily provide food," often making long
excursions for this purpose, and collecting fruits, digging roots
and chopping larvæ out of the tree-stems. "She must do all the
hard work," carry the baby, make the fire, cook, provide water and
fuel, dress the hut. She carries all the baggage on the march, as
well as the children. The man carries only his arms. "The husband's
contribution to the household is chiefly honey, but occasionally he
provides eggs, game, lizards, and the like. He very often, however,
keeps the animal food for himself, while the woman has to depend
principally upon vegetables for herself and her child. Upon the
whole he feels no responsibility as the father of a family."[897]
It is interesting to find that the men make not only weapons but
also, exclusively, baskets.[898]
[896] _Loc. cit._, p. 100.
[897] _Loc. cit._, p. 160, 161.
[898] _Ibid._, p. 193.
Among the North-West Queensland tribes: "It is the husband's
business, in the main, to supply the animal food for the family,
and although a particular dietary may be forbidden him he has no
compunction in hunting or killing it for his kith and kin."[899]
It is necessary to add that according to Roth's information each
member of a given family has some special food forbidden to him;
because each class has its special food taboos, and in a family the
father, the mother and the children, each belong to a different
class.[900] Roth sees in this institution the chief aim of the
class system.[901] Vegetable food and fish seem to be supplied by
women chiefly.[902] The same general principle of sexual division
of labour is reported in another place by the same author. We read
there that the father's duty was to supply his family with animal
food, whereas the mother had to provide the vegetable food. On the
wanderings the wife follows her husband at a considerable distance,
carrying all the implements and often the children.[903]
[899] _Eth. Stud._, p. 184.
[900] _Ibid._, p. 57.
[901] _Ibid._, p. 69.
[902] _Eth. Stud._, ch. v. _passim_, especially pp. 91, 94,
95.
[903] _N.Q. Eth. Bull._ 8, p. 9, § 2.
Among the natives of Cape York the woman has to procure practically
all food for herself and her husband.[904]
[904] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 9.
Moore describes the women in West Australia as being almost the
slaves of their husbands. They have to attend upon the men and to
carry all their property. They construct the hut, kindle the fire,
and have to provide all the vegetable food.[905] The digging of the
yams is a very laborious task.[906] In return they often do not get
even their share of game.[907]
[905] _Loc. cit._, p. 80.
[906] _Ibid._, p. 74.
[907] _Ibid._, p. 80.
John Forrest writes in his account: "The women are nearly slaves,
having to do most of the hard work, such as making huts, carrying
wood, and also carrying all the baggage, which includes many
weapons, grease, 'wilgie,' and a host of articles, wooden dishes,
etc., besides often a child. The man does not generally carry much
except his spears, etc."[908]
[908] _Loc. cit._, p. 319.
Among some of the West Australian blacks, a female, before she is
married, has under certain circumstances to provide "individuals of
a certain degree of relationship to herself with a certain amount
of vegetable food."[909] After her marriage her husband is entitled
"to the chief part of her services. While she has to supply him
with unlimited quantities of yams and other roots, he does very
little towards providing for her wants, merely giving her the offal
of game." The woman is thus the chief caterer of the family. She
is "a slave in the strictest sense of the word, being a beast of
burden, a provider of food."[910]
[909] Murchison District, Oldfield, p. 249.
[910] _Ibid._, p. 250.
In South-West Australia the woman carries all the domestic
implements on her back. "Pendant que la femme chemine avec toute
cette charge, l'homme marche devant sa famille, portant seulement
ses armes de la main gauche." He looks for animals,[911] the chase
is his task.[912] The woman has to light the fire, carry the
fire-stick,[913] fetch the water[914]; she has also to construct
the hut.[915]
[911] Swan District, Salvado, p. 295.
[912] _Ibid._, see ch. viii. _passim_.
[913] p. 317.
[914] _Ibid._, p. 315.
[915] _Ibid._, p. 321.
We are informed by Browne that all the hard work, the carrying of
heavy burdens, camp arrangements, etc., is done by the women among
the natives of King George's Sound.[916]
[916] _Loc. cit._, p. 450.
The economic division of labour, based upon the co-operation of
both sexes, is stated by Scott Nind. The women and men go out in
search of food, or hunting, in separate parties. The women chiefly
collect roots and small animals; men go out hunting. Each sex
reserves a part of its share for the family. "The women are very
useful for them (their husbands), not only in procuring food, but
also in preparing their cloaks, building their huts and other
menial offices."[917]
[917] _Loc. cit._, pp. 36, 37. Refers to the tribes of King
George's Sound.
We see that our thirty-five statements agree pretty well as to the
general features of the division of labour. Certain of the economic
functions, like hunting, making of weapons and, undoubtedly, the
important function of protecting the family, are allotted to the men.
Other work--the providing of roots, bulbs and other vegetable food,
camp work and carrying heavy burdens, manufacturing nets and usually
fishing--all this is the duty of the woman. Our statements more or
less agree upon this division of labour. The more detailed ones
(Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Mathew, B. Field,
Oldfield, Moore) depict to us the occupations of the man and of his
wife in nearly the same words. Only in the statements of Collins, Tench
and Phillips is fishing mentioned as a common occupation of men and
women. But these statements (probably not independent of each other)
are not so explicit and reliable as to lead us to make exceptions
of the Port Jackson tribes. We may, therefore, affirm the existence
of a very marked sexual division of labour, which seems to present
everywhere the same features and to be nearly identical over the whole
continent. _Prima facie_ this division of labour consists only in each
sex having its different occupations prescribed by custom. But more
careful analysis shows that there are other features which more deeply
differentiate the economic activities of the sexes.
It is easy to see that the amount of work allotted to women is
_considerably greater_ and that their labour is much _harder_ than
the men's work. This is directly affirmed by a series of statements
(Curr, Dawson, Stanbridge, Tom Petrie, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest,
Salvado, Scott Nind, Moore). This is also undoubtedly a reason why
so many authors designate the wife's position as that of a slave
and drudge. But it also results directly from a comparison of the
occupations allotted to women with those allotted to men. A woman had
to carry all the heavy things, all the objects of domestic use, her
own as well as her husband's; for the man carried only his weapons
(Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Angas, Br. Smyth, Thomas, Phillips, Fraser,
Lumholtz, Salvado). The woman had to construct huts and look after
camping arrangements (Howitt on the Kurnai, Dawson, Stanbridge, Meyer,
Schürmann, Angas, Howitt on the Wiradjuri, Gribble, Henderson, Fraser,
Field, Mathew, Lumholtz, Forrest, Salvado, Browne). All this was rather
hard work, especially when compared with the man's share of work, which
was mainly hunting and fashioning weapons. It must not be forgotten
that women were often encumbered in their work by suckling, carrying
their children, and by the various cares demanded by the latter. The
digging for roots is also exceedingly hard work (Moore, Earl).
_More regular_ and _systematic_ kind of labour is also called for by
the nature of the woman's tasks. These are intimately connected with
the wandering mode of life of the aborigines. Obviously in a people
which was forced by natural conditions to lead a roaming life, such
tasks must necessarily have required regular labour. The other chief
female occupation--collecting roots and small animals--required also
a regular kind of labour. All these occupations--being, as just said,
harder and more systematic than men's work, clearly appear also to be
much more wearing and tiresome; compared with the men's occupations
they appear much less in the light of sport and amusement. The man
makes his weapons and hunts, and this is a natural and pleasant sport
for him. There are no elements of excitement or variety in the women's
work; it is just this element of system and of regularity which makes
work repulsive and hard to man, and especially to primitive man.
Work of this kind is usually done only under a strong compulsion;
and woman's work in Australia appears also to be compulsory. This is
directly stated in several places (Dawson, Curr, Mitchell, Forrest,
Moore, Oldfield). This compulsory character is undoubtedly another
reason why the women's position is described in other statements as
that of a slave and drudge.
A very important point is that the woman's share in labour was of much
more _vital importance_ to the maintenance of the household than man's
work. This is quite obvious, seeing that the general occupations of
camp life were of essential necessity for a roving people. But even the
food supply, contributed by the women, was far more important than the
man's share. We read that the chief resource of the natives, especially
in bad seasons, is vegetable food (Oldfield). And the interesting
statement of Earl confirms this in a still stronger manner. So that it
appears fairly probable that, on the whole, food collected by women
was the staple food of the natives. But not only does the kind of food
supplied by the man appear on the whole to be less important than that
contributed by the woman, but it seems as if the man's contribution,
which in the main was reduced to his hunting products, was devoted much
less exclusively to his family's benefit. In order to understand this,
let us adduce some statements relating to communism of food, and giving
besides some interesting details about aboriginal economics.
_Statements._--Among the Kurnai[918] the hunter who killed a big
piece of game gave some of it to the men who assisted him in
killing, cooking or carving. The chief parts were divided among
his wives' parents and his own parents. These in return supplied
their son and son-in-law respectively with meat the next day.
Similar rules, varying according to the game and tribe, obtained
also among the Murring tribes of New South Wales.[919] Important
for us is the general feature of communism; the preponderancy given
to the parents of a man and his wife. If the man be unmarried he
provides chiefly his parents and his brother and sister.[920] The
grandparents cared especially for their grandchildren.[921]
[918] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, App. D, p. 261. Compare
_Idem_, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 756-759.
[919] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 264-267, and _Nat. Tr._,
pp. 759-760 (refers to the Ngarigo tribe of the Murring
nation).
[920] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 259.
[921] _Ibid._, pp. 262, 263.
In the Wurrunjeri tribe a kangaroo was distributed among those
present in camp and the hunter's family. The man had (even in case
of a limited food supply) to provide for his own and his wife's
parents. They cared in turn for him.[922] Communism obtained among
the Kulin tribes.[923]
[922] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 765.
[923] _Ibid._, p. 767.
A communism, similar to that of the Kurnai, prevailed among the
Narran-ga.[924] The same is related about the tribes of the
Karamundi[925]; the Wolgal tribe,[926] amongst whom the woman was
provided for with food by her parents; the Wiradjuri; Wotjobaluk;
Mukjarawaint.[927] Among the Gournditch-Mara game was divided
amongst all present in camp.[928]
[924] Of South Australia, Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 762.
[925] _Ibid._
[926] _Ibid._, p. 764.
[927] _Ibid._
[928] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 277 and _Nat. Tr._, p. 765.
J. Dawson states that food brought by a hunter to the camp was
distributed so that he and even his brother gets the worst part
of it. "The best pieces of birds and quadrupeds and the finest
eels" were given away. An anecdote is told in support of this
statement which appears trustworthy.[929] It may be pointed out
that this apparently refers only to food brought by men; and that
this statement only says that the shares of the individual and his
brother were neglected; but it does not make clear how the shares
of the other relations (family, wife, parents) were regulated, if
they were favoured or the reverse.
[929] Dawson, p. 22.
In the Chepara tribe, the men, women and children went out every
morning to hunt and search for food. It was a man's duty to provide
food. This food was divided equally amongst all those present by
the old men. A man had special duties towards his wife's parents
if they were sick and unable to hunt.[930] Here we see a communism
which gives no preference to any relation, and apparently treats
equally all the members of the local group.
[930] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 768.
Curious customs obtained among the Narrinyeri, when an emu was
killed. It was first divided by an old man with some ceremonies,
apart from the camp, and then carried to the camp and eaten by men,
women and children alike.[931] This shows, by the way, that big
game like emu, or kangaroo, must be rather an exceptional feast;
and as all the communistic customs in this connection refer to
bigger game, they do not affect, perhaps, so much the everyday food
supply, which is due chiefly to females.
[931] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 763.
Among the Port Lincoln tribes "the custom of dividing their food
amongst each other is so common that he who fails to observe this
rule is branded as a sort of miser."[932]
[932] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 192.
Among the Yerkla-Mining tribe, all present in camp shared equally
the animal killed. The slayer had to distribute it. Women and
children had also their equal share.[933]
[933] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 762.
In his book about the New South Wales aborigines, the
Rev. J. B. Gribble writes: "Food is distributed on the principle
of community of goods."[934]
[934] _Loc. cit._, p. 117.
Amongst the Port Stephens blacks each family provided for its own
subsistence, "except in a general kangaroo hunt, where the game
is impounded and taken in large quantities, when it is fairly
distributed."[935]
[935] R. Dawson, p. 327.
Game was divided according to customary rules among the
Euahlayi.[936] We are informed also of some other interesting
details in this tribe: stones, used to grind seed, are kept in
family possession.[937] There seems also to be a kind of harvest,
and the storing up of some kinds of food is known.[938]
[936] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 117.
[937] _Ibid._
[938] _Ibid._, p. 118.
A series of interesting regulations as to how game is distributed
among several New South Wales tribes is given by
Mr. R. H. Mathews.[939]
[939] _J.R.S.N.S.W._ (1904), p. 258.
We read in Spencer and Gillen[940] that a man shares his food with
his father-in-law and other relatives. It is there explicitly
stated that he shares it not only with his actual but also with
his tribal relations; in another place, however, the same subject
is treated as if the father-in-law in question were the actual
one, not a group of them. So we read[941] that if the man or boy
neglected his father-in-law the latter would take revenge at the
initiation ceremony; and that the giving of food may be considered
as a form of payment for his wife.[942]
[940] _Nat. Tr._, p. 469.
[941] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 610, 611.
[942] Compare above, ch. ii.
Among the Bunya people (Turrubul tribe, near Brisbane), the trees
belonged to the people of the place. Visitors might be invited to
the feast; but they "purchased bags of the seeds when they returned
home."[943]
[943] Petrie, Howitt's _Nat. Tr._, p. 768.
Exact rules of division of game are followed among some Queensland
blacks (North-West Central), "the best part going to the father's
camp, the next to the father's brother."[944] The man himself goes
often very short, being with his gin quite neglected.
[944] Palmer, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 285.
Among some of the West Australian tribes (Murchison District,
Watchandee tribe) a very high degree of communism in food is
reached among the men. If a man was unlucky at the chase he was
sure to receive food in the evening at camp from all the other
hunters. Was a man pre-eminently successful, he divided his booty
with all his friends.[945] We find also another testimonial to the
high liberality of the natives and their sense of communism, in
a passage of the same writer,[946] where we are informed that a
native supplied a party of white settlers with game for many days,
being told that they were short of food.
[945] Oldfield, p. 271.
[946] _Ibid._, p. 226.
Let us apply these statements in the first place to the question of the
division of labour. We see that in all this evidence, the question is
merely one of communism in game. With the exception, perhaps, of the
summary statements of Mrs. Parker, J. B. Gribble and Wilhelmi, all the
others speak clearly of communism in game only. And, on the other hand,
we can conclude, as so many statements report the customary division of
any large hunting products, that game was practically always divided
more or less equally among those present in camp, the relatives of the
hunter receiving the major part, but he himself and his wife being
probably neglected.[947] The valuable statement of R. Dawson expresses
this directly: in other respects each family provided for its own
subsistence, but if big game were killed it became the property of the
whole group. We see that in all probability the results of the man's
labour--the big game--did not go to the exclusive use of his family.
This is stated emphatically by some authors, who say that the woman did
not get even her share of the results of the man's work (Moore, Curr,
Lumholtz, Oldfield). But some say, on the other hand, that both husband
and wife shared equally in providing food. From several statements
of the authors (Roth, Spencer and Gillen, Howitt) it must probably
be assumed that the husband also gave in his share to the common
household. But on summing up all the data here brought forward, it may
be considered positively certain that the woman's part is of vital
importance for the maintenance of the family, while the husband's share
is quite secondary.
[947] This communism and liberality stand in close
connection with the fact that the natives did not lay in
provisions. They have to partake with their neighbours of
any large booty, since otherwise it would perish.
To sum up, it may be said that the sexual division of labour consists
not only in different occupations being laid upon the man and the woman
by custom. This division of labour is much deeper rooted, viz. in
the fact that man's and woman's work is of quite different kind. The
woman's work is on the whole much heavier than that done by the man;
her work is much more regular; it is compulsory, and it forms the chief
support of the household. These features of the division of labour are
of great sociological importance.
1. It appears that the sexual division of labour is based only partly
on differences in the natural capacities of the sexes. Heavier work
ought naturally to be performed by men; here the contrary obtains.
Only so far as the hunting is allotted to men and collecting to women,
do natural gifts appear to be taken into account. But even here the
woman's work appears to be much more exacting, inasmuch as it requires
a steady strain, patience and regularity. Such work is the most
repulsive; it differs most essentially from sport, and it is carried on
only under strong compulsion. Compulsion is therefore, as we saw, the
chief basis of this division of labour, and it may be said that in the
Australian aboriginal society the economic fact of division of labour
is rooted in a sociological status--viz. the compulsion of the weaker
sex by the "brutal" half of society. This fact gains a deeper and more
general aspect if brought into connection with the "terrorism produced
upon women"[948] by the members of the tribal secret society, _i. e._
by all the initiated men.
[948] Hutton Webster, _loc. cit._, pp. 99, 100 (ch. vi.).
2. From its compulsory character it follows that the distribution of
economic functions does not correspond to true co-operation, but that
the relation of a husband to his wife is, in its economic aspect, that
of a master to his slave.[949] And this throws also some light on the
value of a wife to a man. (Compare the statements of Mitchell, Br.
Smyth, Lumholtz.)
[949] Compare Niboer, _loc. cit._, p. 23.
3. The woman's work appears as the chief basis of the economy of the
Australian household. Her work goes exclusively towards the benefit
of the individual family, and this latter economically is entirely
dependent upon woman's work. It is her work which, taking to itself the
most considerable share in the sexual division of labour, plays the
main part in giving to the individual family its economic unity.
There is still to be noted the statement of Roth, who reports the
existence of class taboos which establish what we would call a division
of consumption between the father, mother and children; each of these
three parties belonging to a different class. That this statement is
a result of careful and frequent and not merely casual observation,
further, that this division of consumption plays an important part
in the native family life, may be accepted as very probable. For the
author, who is undoubtedly among our best, most exact and conscientious
ethnographers, builds upon the rule in question a theory of the origin
of classes. The whole class system has been devised by a process of
natural selection, to regulate the proper distribution of the total
quantity of food available.[950] And although we cannot enter here
into the discussion whether this view be right or not, it may serve
us as a guarantee that Roth had ascertained the great importance of
the class taboo he describes and its prevalence over a wide area. For
otherwise he would not have based such an important theory about one of
the most crucial problems of ethnology on a single fact. Besides Roth's
statement there is further the information of Wilhelmi about division
of consumption within the family.
[950] In a paper read before the Royal Society of
Queensland, December 11, 1897, _Proc._, p. 10. Quoted by
Frazer, _Tot. and Exog._, i. p. 137. Also in _Eth. Stud._,
p. 69.
At all events, although the evidence upon the division of
consumption is rather scanty, the evidence about the division of
labour is plentiful, and this latter may be regarded as one of the
well-established features of Australian sociology.[951] The features
of communism show us also that individual property in land has little
economic meaning. If there is game, the privilege of hunting it is not
an important one, since all members of the friendly group will partake
of the results. To what was said regarding the unity of the family as
an exclusive land owner (above, pp. 150 _sqq._), there is, therefore,
nothing to be added.
[951] Prof. Durkheim has pointed out (_D. Tr. S._, pp. 19
_sqq._) that the division of social functions has a most
important share in creating the unity of a given group,
and amongst other things in creating the solidarity of
marriage: "C'est la division du travail sexuel qui est la
source de la solidarité conjugal" (_loc. cit._, p. 19).
This view is fully appreciated in the present study where
the sexual division of functions is represented as being
of foremost importance in defining individual family and
marriage in Australia. But Prof. Durkheim says that in
low or primitive societies division of sexual labour and
conjugal solidarity are both quite rudimentary: "plus
nous remontons dans le passé, plus elle se réduit à peu
de chose" (_loc. cit._, p. 20). The same applies to the
persistence of marriage--"la solidarité conjugale y est
même très faible" (_loc. cit._, p. 22). If Prof. Durkheim
applies both his assertions to hypothetical prehistoric
societies, then this is not the place to discuss his
views. But if he has had before his mind actually existing
primitive societies, then the evidence here collected, on
both these points, might possibly compel him to discuss
his views more in detail, as far as the Australian society
is concerned. Prof. Durkheim lays the stress of his
argument on the small sexual differentiation in respect to
physiology and anatomy of primitive and prehistoric men
and women. But sexual division of labour may have as well
_social_ as _physiological_ sources, as shown above.
The custom of a communistic division of game points also to the
acknowledgment of family ties beyond the narrow circle of the
individual family.[952] For the duty of a man in distributing the game,
according to the majority of our statements (about eight in thirteen),
is governed in the first place by the degree of relationship in which
he stands to different people. And it is the individual, not the
group relationship that is to be taken into account here. In Howitt's
statements (which are the best) we see that the parents-in-law stand
always in the first place. This agrees with what we read in Spencer
and Gillen; and from both these statements we may conclude that these
duties are a sort of continuation or equivalent of the bride-price, of
which we find traces in Australia.
[952] It will be remembered that individual family means
throughout this book: husband, wife and their young
children living with them.
Let us say a few words about inheritance. As inheritance implies
the existence of private property, we may look for it only where
there is private property in Australia. In the first place there is
"private landed property." We saw that "property" must be understood
in the cases of individuals much more in a mystic, magical sense than
otherwise.[953] Moreover, in the few cases where there is any mention
of individual property in land, we found very little information about
the principles according to which it is inherited. According to Roth,
whose statement on individual proprietorship is the clearest one,
we know that this individual right to land is not hereditary, but
determined for magical and mystical reasons. In the other cases we are
not informed at all how the individual or family comes into possession,
or are informed in such an inexact way[954] that we cannot attach much
value to the information. From our best sources (Spencer and Gillen and
Roth) we know that the ties binding an individual to a given locality
are of mystical, magico-religious character, and were determined not by
heredity, but by a special principle connected with their beliefs, and
we may suppose that this was the rule, especially as individual land
ownership seems to be on the whole more of a magico-religious than of a
purely economic order. As to the inheritance of other property, there
is little to say about it, unimportant as it was itself.[955] According
to some writers, it passes from father to son (_e. g._ Fraser).
Elsewhere we read that it is inherited by certain groups of men from
their common relations.[956] On the whole, inheritance does not seem to
form any important binding element between parents and children, either
in the male or in the female line.[957]
[953] Compare above, pp. 150, 153.
[954] Compare Eyre's and Grey's statements, where heredity
appears to be in the male line. Also Salvado, p. 265.
[955] Compare Wheeler, _loc. cit._, p. 36.
[956] Spencer and Gillen, _Nor. Tr._, pp. 615-617.
[957] Compare also the statements collected by Wheeler on
this point, _loc. cit._, pp. 36 _sqq._