THE CLASS SYSTEM
Under this name appear to be blended, (1) the prohibition to marry
within a division, which, in its simplest form, is said to cut the
tribe into two ‘classes’ or ‘phratries,’ or ‘groups;’[1] (2) the
prohibition to marry within the totem name; (3) the prohibition to
marry within the generation, and within certain recognised degrees
(‘classes,’ ‘sections’) of real or inferred kinship--‘too near flesh,’
too close consanguinity, which, in their present condition, many
Australian tribes undoubtedly regard as a bar to matrimony. But it does
not follow that they _originally_ held this opinion.
We shall first examine what authorities who differ from me, call the
great ‘bisection’ of the tribe, into, say, Matthurie and Kirarawa,
members of which must intermarry, the totem prohibition also remaining
in force. It will here be suggested, in accordance with what has
already been said, but contrary to general opinion, that the totemic
prohibition is earlier than the prohibition of marriage between persons
of the same segment of the ‘bisection.’ The opinions of most students
appear, at present, to be divided thus. We hear that:
1. The exogamous division into two moieties, or ‘phratries,’ is
_earlier_ than the division of each into numerous totem kins. The totem
kins are regarded as later ‘subdivisions’ of, or additions to, the two
‘original’ moieties.
2. Totem groups are earlier than the ‘bisection’ (though somehow,
according to the same authors, the two moieties of the bisection bore
totem names), but, before the ‘bisection,’ these _totem groups were
not exogamous_. They only became exogamous when six of them, say, were
arranged in one of the two moieties (phratries), now forbidden to
marry, and another six in the other.
I venture to prefer, as already indicated, the system (3) that totem
groups not only existed, but were already exogamous, before the great
‘bisection’ producing the ‘phratries’ came into existence, though I
argue that ‘bisection’ is a misleading term, and that the apparent
division was really the result of an amalgamation of two separate and
independent local totem groups.
This theory (presently to be more fully set forth) is original on my
part, at least as far as my supraliminal consciousness is concerned. I
mean that I conceived myself to have hit on the idea in July 1902. But
something very like my notion (I later discovered) had been printed by
Dr. Durkheim, and something not unlike it was propounded by Herr Cunow
(1894). Mr. Daniel McLennan had also suggested it: and I find that the
Rev. John Mathew had stated a form of it in his _Eagle-Hawk and Crow_
(1899), (pp. 1922, 93-112). Mr. Mathew’s hypothesis, however, involves
a theory of contending and alien races in Australia. This theory does
not seem well based, but, however that may be, I recognise that Mr.
Mathew’s hypothesis of the origin of exogamy (p. 98), and of the origin
of the ‘phratries’ or ‘primary classes,’ in many respects anticipates
my own. He opposes Mr. Howitt’s conclusions, and I may be allowed to
say that I would prefer Mr. Howitt, owing to his unrivalled knowledge,
as an ally. On the other hand, the undesigned coincidence of Dr.
Durkheim’s, Mr. Daniel McLennan’s, Mr. Mathew’s, and Herr Cunow’s ideas
with my own, raises a presumption that mine may not be untenable.
THE CLASS SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA
Though the existence of what are called exogamous ‘phratries’ (two
to each tribe) was made known, as regards the North American tribes,
by Mr. Lewis Morgan (to whose work we return) in the middle of the
nineteenth century, almost our earliest hint of its existence in
Australia came from the Rev. W. Ridley, a learned missionary, in
1853-55. In Mr. McLennan’s _Studies in Ancient History_[2] will be
found an account of Mr. Ridley’s facts, as they gradually swelled
in volume, altered in character, and were added to, and critically
constructed, by the Rev. Mr. Fison, and Mr. A. W. Howitt. These
gentlemen were regarded by Mr. McLennan as the allies of Mr. Morgan,
in a controversy then being waged with some acerbity. He, therefore,
criticised the evidence from Australia rather keenly. It is probable
that Mr. Morgan and Mr. McLennan both had some right on their
parts--seeing each a different side of the shield--though a few points
in the discussion are still undecided. But it seems certain that the
continued researches of Messrs. Fison and Howitt, reinforced by the
studies of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen in Central Australia, have
invalidated some of Mr. McLennan’s opinions as to matters of fact.
Much trouble and confusion will be saved if we remember that, as has
been said, under the ‘classificatory system,’ three sets of rules
applying to marriage exist. The totem rule exists, rules as to marriage
in relation to generations and so-called degrees of kindred (real or
‘tribal’) exist (‘classes’), and, thirdly, there are the rules relative
to ‘phratries,’ the phratries, being, I think, in origin themselves
totemic. We shall mainly consider here the so-called ‘bisection’
of a tribe into two exogamous and intermarrying ‘phratries,’ while
remembering Herr Cunow’s opinion that a ‘class’ is one thing, a
‘phratry’ quite another.[3]
THE VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE DIVISIONS IN AUSTRALIA
Perhaps the most recent, lucid, and well-informed writer on the various
divisions which regulate the marriages of the Australian tribes is Mr.
R. H. Mathews.[4] In some regions, the system of two intermarrying
phratries exists, without further subdivision (except in regard to
totem kins). Sometimes each phratry is divided into two ‘sections’
(or ‘classes’), making four for the tribe. Again, each phratry may
have four ‘subsections’ or ‘classes,’ making eight for the tribe. Each
phratry, like each ‘class,’ ‘has an independent name by which its
members are easily recognised.’
Obviously we need, of all tilings, to know the actual meanings of these
names, but we do not usually know them. As we shall see, where a tribe
has two ‘phratries’ and no subordinate ‘classes,’ the names of these
‘phratries,’ when they can be translated, are usually names of animals.
In a few cases, as will later appear, when there are ‘classes’ under
and in the ‘phratries’ their names seem to indicate distinctions of
‘old’ and ‘young.’ But Mr. Mathews nowhere, as far as I have studied
him, gives the meanings of the ‘class’ names, some of which are of
recent adoption. Mr. Mathews usually gives only ‘Phratry A’ and
‘Phratry B.’ We now cite his tables of the simple ‘phratry’ system, of
the ‘phratry’ plus two classes system, and of the ‘phratry’ plus four
classes system; making four, or eight, such divisions for the tribe.
‘In describing the social structure of a native Australian community,
the first matter calling for attention is the classification of the
people into two primary divisions, called phratries, or groups--the men
of each phratry intermarrying with the women of the opposite one, in
accordance with prescribed laws.’
Mr. Mathews then mentions that some tribes have (1) this simple
division only (of course, as a rule, plus totem kins). (2) Elsewhere
each phratry is composed of two ‘sections’ (called by us ‘classes’).
(3) Elsewhere, again, each phratry has four sections (we need not
discuss here the tribes where none of these things exist).
Mr. Mathews now gives tables representing the working of the system in
each of the three cases.[5]
1
Father Mother Son Daughter
Phratry A Kirraroo Matturrin Matturri Matturrin
Phratry B Matturri Kirrarooan Kirraroo Kirrarooan
2
Father Mother Son Daughter
{ Murri Buta Ippai Ippatha
Phratry A { Kubbi Ippatha Kumbo Butha
Phratry B { Kumbo Matha Kubbi Kubbithai
{ Ippai Kubbitha Murri Matha
3
Father Mother Son Daughter
{ Choolum Ningulum Palyarin Palyareenya
Phratry A { Cheenum Nooralum Bungarin Bungareenya
{ Jamerum Palyareenya Chooralum Nooralum
{ Yacomary Bungareeny Chingulum Ningulum
Father Mother Son Daughter
{ Chingalum Noolum Yacomary Yacomareenya
Phratry B { Chooralum Neenum Jamerum Neomarum
{ Bungarin Yacomareenya Cheenum Neenum
{ Palyarin Neomarum Choolum Noolum
It will be seen that, under the simple phratry system, children of the
female Matturrin are always Matturri and Matturrin, children of the
female Kirrarooan are always Kirraroo and Kirrarooan. On the phratry
_plus_ two classes system, female Butha is mother of Ippatha and
Ippatha of Butha for ever. On the phratry _plus_ four classes system,
female Ningulum has a Palyareena daughter, who has a Nooralum daughter,
who has a Bungareenya daughter, whose daughter reverts to the original
Ningulum class, and so on, _ad infinitum_. The women remain constant to
their ‘phratry,’ and marry always the men of the opposite phratry.
It is to be observed that, by customary law, brothers and sisters
_actual_ (and not ‘tribal’) may never intermarry.[6] In short,
consanguinity is now fully understood by the natives, and too close
unions are forbidden on the ground of consanguinity. It also seems
that, though the blacks are all on the same level of material culture,
yet reflection on marriage rules, and modification of these rules
by additional restrictions and alterations, have been carried much
further by some tribes than by others. I by no means deny, but rather
affirm, that consanguinity is now understood, and that rules have
in some tribes been consciously made, and altered, to avoid certain
marriages as of ‘too near flesh.’ But I do not think that, at the
beginning, the objection to consanguineous marriages, _as such_, can
have been entertained, and I am not of opinion that, for the purpose of
preventing such marriages, in the beginning, a horde was bisected into
two phratries, and each phratry split up into totem groups. Rather, I
conceive, certain primitive conditions of life led to the evolution
of certain rules, independent of any theory about the noxiousness or
immorality of marriages of near kin; and then reflection on those
primal rules helped to beget moral ideas, and improvements on the rules
themselves. In the original restrictions, morality, in our sense, was
only implicitly or potentially present, though now it has risen into
explicit consciousness. The tribes came to think certain marriages
morally wrong, or physically noxious, _because_ they were forbidden;
such unions were not, in the first instance, forbidden because they
were deemed physically injurious, or morally wrong. These ideas have,
by this time, been evolved; but it does not follow that they were
present at the beginning.
I took the liberty of laying a brief sketch of my own theory before Mr.
Howitt, who, after considering it, was unable to accept it. He was kind
enough to send me a summary account of many varieties of institutions,
which, as we have seen, prevail--from tribes with totems and the simple
phratry and female descent, up to tribes which have lost their classes
and totems, count descent in the male line, and permit marriage only
between persons dwelling in certain localities, or not of ‘too near
flesh.’ All sorts of varieties of custom, in fact, prevail. Again, the
most backward tribes, in Mr. Howitt’s opinion, have group-marriage;[7]
the more advanced have individual marriage, with rare reversions on
special occasions. Each advance, from mere phratry to phratry _plus_
eight ‘classes,’ reduced the number of persons who might intermarry,
and extended the range of exogamy (except where, as among the Arunta,
the totem prohibition has ceased to exist). The marked tendency of the
developing rules is to prevent marriage between persons ‘too near in
flesh,’ or ‘of the same flesh.’ Mr. Howitt argues that, if the later
stages of prohibition are the result of deliberate intention to prevent
too near marriage, we may infer that the original ‘bisection’ of the
‘undivided commune’ was also consciously designed to prevent unions of
persons of too near flesh.
To this I would reply, that the circumstances were different. The
savages of recent centuries have been trained in the totem and phratry
systems, and have now, like Mr. Howitt, excogitated the theory that
these were originally designed for the purpose of preventing marriages
of ‘too near flesh,’ wherefore all such marriages (even if permitted by
the totem law) must be morally or materially evil. This is the theory
expressed in the myths of the Dieri, Woeworung, and others; and it is
the theory of many scientific writers. In brief, it is the hypothesis
of men already trained to think near marriages morally wrong, or
physically injurious. But how could this idea occur to members of ‘an
undivided commune,’ who had never known anything better?
That is the difficulty; and we get rid of it by disbelieving in a
primeval undivided commune; and by supposing a long past of forbidden
unions, the prohibition then resting on no moral ideas, but on the
interest of the strongest, the jealousy of the adult sire. These
prohibitions later evolved into conscious morality; and were at last
susceptible of improvement by deliberate design. I shall now examine
more in detail the ideas which do not win my assent.
MR. FISON ON THE GREAT BISECTION
In 1880, in _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_,[8] Mr. Fison, a learned missionary
and anthropologist, gave his account of the organisation of certain
Australian tribes. He speaks of (1) The division of a tribe, or
community, into two exogamous intermarrying classes.[9] (2) ‘The
subdivision’ (mark the phrase) ‘of these classes into four.’ (3)
‘Their subdivision into _gentes_, distinguished by totems, which are
generally, though not invariably, the names of animals.’
Now totems we know, and we have cited Mr. Mathews for the other
divisions. Take (1) ‘the two exogamous intermarrying classes.’ Examples
are
Male, Kumite; female, Kumitegor (one ‘class,’ which I call ‘phratry’).
Male, Kroki; female, Krokigor (the other ‘class,’ ‘phratry’).
Again.
Male, _Yungaru_ (_opossum_); female, _Yungaruan_.
Male, _Wutaru_ (_kangaroo_); female, _Wutaruan_.
What _are_ these two ‘_primary_’ exogamous divisions? And why call them
‘primary’?
‘_PRIMARY_ CLASSES?’
My object, as has been said, is now, contrary to general opinion,
to repeat that the great dichotomous ‘division’ of a tribe into two
exogamous, intermarrying, ‘classes’ or ‘phratries,’ is not ‘primary’
at all, but is secondary to groups at once totemic and exogamous, and
is not, in origin, a bisection, but a combination. If I am right, the
consequences will be of some curiosity. First, it will appear that the
‘primary divisions’ are themselves totemic in origin, thus implying the
pre-existence of Totemism. Next it will be made to appear probable that
the pre-existing totems were already exogamous before the phratries
arose, and that exogamy does not date, as the best authorities hold,
from the making of the great dichotomous divisions or ‘phratries.’ For
no such dichotomous division, I suggest, was ever made.
THE ‘PRIMARY DIVISIONS’ ARE THEMSELVES TOTEMIC AND EXOGAMOUS
We see that, of the two ‘phratries’ Yungaru and Wutaru, Yungaru is
‘opossum’ (according to Mr. Chatfield) or ‘alligator’ (according to Mr.
Bridgman); while Wutaru is ‘kangaroo.’ These two primary ‘phratries,’
therefore, have totemic names, and (in my opinion) were originally two
local totem groups, each containing members of various totems derived
from alien mothers. The same thing may be true when the meanings of the
‘primary class names’ (‘phratries’) can no longer be discovered. If
so, the ‘primary divisions’ are, in origin, mere totem distinctions,
involving, I think, the pre-existence of the rule of exogamy, which
is also involved in the rules of the ‘primary divisions.’ Mr. Fison
writes (what is obvious) ‘in some places the primary divisions are
distinguished by totem names at the present day.’[10]
‘Probably they were so distinguished everywhere, in ancient times,’ he
adds, and this is certainly the case in North America, as we shall see
later. Mr. Fison’s opinion is my own so far, and, if it is right, if
the ‘primary class divisions’ (‘phratries’), within which marriage is
now forbidden, were originally two totem divisions, then Totemism is
earlier than the ‘primary divisions.’ On this point Messrs. Fison and
Howitt say that the divisions on which marriage regulations are based
‘are denoted by class names or by totems--frequently by both class
names and totems.’ In a note they add, ‘Class names, so called by us
solely for the sake of convenience, and because they cannot always be
positively asserted to be totems, though the strong probability is that
they are always totems.’[11]
By ‘class names’ the authors, I think, here mean the names of the
‘primary exogamous divisions’ or ‘phratries.’ These are often, if not
always, known by totem names. But the ‘classes,’ as distinguished from
the ‘phratries,’ are not known by totemic names, as far as I am aware.
Herr Cunow, we shall see, asserts that in some cases they denote mere
seniority, ‘big’ and ‘little,’ ‘young’ and ‘old.’ Unless they can be
proved to be totemic, we must, I repeat, carefully avoid confusing
the ‘classes,’ four or eight, with the ‘phratries,’ in which they are
included. The confusion is general and very misleading.
Totemism, according to Mr. McLennan, preceded exogamy, and made exogamy
possible. Thus totem distinctions, with exogamy, may be older than the
‘two primary class exogamous divisions,’ in which, according to most
authorities, exogamy began. Mr. Tylor is cautious: ‘the dual form of
exogamy’ (the ‘phratries,’ or ‘two primary divisions’) ‘may be the
original form,’ or at least that view is tenable.[12] The origin of
exogamy is, however, unknown, in Mr. Tylor’s opinion, which commits him
to nothing.
Mr. Howitt, if I do not misinterpret him, also regards the two
divisions, ‘phratries,’ as primary, but at the same time agrees with
me, and Mr. Fison, that the two ‘phratry’ divisions were themselves in
origin totemic.
THE TOTEM DIFFICULTY
At this point I lose Messrs. Fison and Howitt. I do not know what
they mean, and, unless I misconstrue them, they unconsciously hold
different opinions at different moments. They start with an ‘undivided
commune.’ Mr. Fison, however, is not certain on this point. To prevent
near marriages (previously universal), the commune is split into two
exogamous intermarrying phratries. The names of these phratries are
totemic, and each phratry has its totem. Such is their theory. How and
why?
Did totemic divisions already exist in ‘the undivided commune’? If
so, the commune was not undivided! Or were totem names given, nobody
knows why, to the two phratries at the time when the ‘bisection’ of
the commune was made? Did the legislator send half the horde to the
right, crying, ‘You are sheep,’ and half to the left, saying, ‘You
are goats,’--or rather, say, Emus and Kangaroos? This is not easily
thinkable. But, if this was done, whence came the other totem kins,
often numerous, within each phratry?
Mr. Fison says that the totem kins (or ‘gentes’) ‘arose out of two
primary divisions, by an orderly process of evolution, such as might
be expected from the forces at work,’ and ‘we have seen how’ the
phratries subdivided ‘into other subdivisions, distinguished by
totems.’[13] But, alas, I have seen nothing of the sort! Mr. Fison
has merely asserted the fact. ‘The totems affect the intersexual
regulations ... by narrowing the range of matrimonial selection.’[14]
Here would be a reason for the evolution of these totem kins. But this
added restriction is exactly what (given phratries) the totems do not
effect. There are so many totems in each phratry, but as the same
totem (except among the Arunta and similarly disorganised tribes) never
occurs in both phratries, the range of sexual selection is thus not
more restricted by the totem than by the phratry. The members of each
phratry may not intermarry, and all persons of their totem are in their
phratry and so are not marriageable to them. They would all be exactly
as exogamous as they are, if there were no totem rules, nothing but
phratry rules. Thus the totems cannot be later deliberate segmentations
of the phratry, for additional exogamous purposes, because they serve
no such purpose, except where, among the Kamilaroi, a man may marry in
his phratry, if he marries out of his totem. But that is a peculiarity.
Mr. Mathews writes, ‘Under the group’ (phratry) ‘laws it is impossible
for a Dilbi or Kupathin’ (phratry names of the Kamilaroi) ‘to marry a
woman bearing the same totem name as himself, for the reason that such
a totem does not exist in the division’ (phratry) ‘from which he is
bound to select his wife. But when persons of the same group’ (phratry)
‘were permitted to marry each other, it became necessary to promulgate
a law prohibiting marriage between persons of the same totem.’[15] But
there were totems before that novelty of marriage within the phratry,
and why were they there? Moreover, under phratry laws it was already
the rule that no man could marry a woman of his own totem. Obviously
we are not told how the totem kins arose out of the phratries, ‘by an
orderly process of evolution such as might be expected from the forces
at work.’ One sees no reason at all for the rise of totem kins within
the phratry, itself, by Mr. Fison’s theory, originally totemic.
Totem kins are called ‘subdivisions’ by Mr. Howitt, but why were the
phratries subdivided into totem kins, and why were there totem groups
in ‘the undivided commune’ before the bisection, the phratries (the
result of the bisection) being themselves, in Mr. Howitt’s hypothesis,
totem groups? I quote a statement of the case by Mr. Howitt (1889):
‘The fundamental principle of aboriginal society in Australia is the
division of the community into two exogamous intermarrying moieties.
Out of this division into two groups, and out of the relations thus
created between the contemporary members of them and their descendants,
the terms of relationship must have grown. As the two primary divisions
(classes)’ (‘phratries’) ‘have become again divided in the process of
social development, _and as the groups of numerous totems have been
added_,’ &c.[16]
Here the totem kins are not orderly evolved out of the phratries, nor
subdivided out of them, but are ‘added.’ Where were they picked up,
whence did they arise, why were they ‘added’?
May we not conclude that no clear account, or theory, of the origin and
purpose of totems and totem kins has been laid before us?
Mr. Howitt elsewhere writes, ‘If the supposition is correct that,
in the primary divisions, we may recognise the oldest forms, and
in the subdivisions somewhat newer forms of Totemism’ (newer names
of totems?), ‘it should be found that these earlier divisions show
signs of antiquity as compared to the totems which are, according to
this hypothesis, the nearest to the present time. This, I think, is
the case.’ Thus, in fact, some of the Australian names for the _two_
divisions are no longer to be translated,[17] perhaps owing to their
antiquity, and sometimes the names are lost, as, elsewhere, in Banks
Island. When translatable, the phratry names are totemic.
But this hardly amounts to proof that the ‘primary divisions’ are
really older than totemic divisions, _plus_ exogamy. The existing
_names_ of the ‘primary divisions’ may be older than existing totem
names, in some cases. But that may be because the two ‘primary
divisions’ endure, unchanged, while a local totem group may become
extinct.[18] Its place, perhaps, may be filled up by a totem group of
relatively recent name, or, perhaps, in a great trek into a land of
novel fauna and flora, old totem names might be exchanged for new ones.
‘Munki’ (sheep) is said to have been recently adopted.[19] Mr. Fison
here corroborates my suggestion. ‘If a tribe migrate to a country in
which their totem is not found, they will, in all probability, take as
their totem some other animal which is a native of the place.’[20]
Mr. Howitt, then, believes that ‘the primary class divisions’ were
originally totemic, and also that the ‘class system’ as a rule has been
developed through the subdivision of the earlier and simpler forms by
‘_deliberate arrangement_.’[21]
This appears to mean that savages began by making two divisions,
bearing totem names, and established them as primary _exogamous_
divisions. Later they cut them up into slices, each slice with a
newer totem name. Or the totem divisions are evolved within the
phratry, somehow or other, as in one of Mr. Fison’s views. Or they are
‘added’--for what purpose? Thus every tribesman has now a ‘class name’
(phratry name)--an _old_ totem name (say either Eagle-Hawk or Crow),
and no Crow may marry an Eagle-Hawk. But, later, they split Crows up
into, say, bats, rats, cats, and kangaroos, while they split Eagle-Hawk
up into, say, grubs, emus, mice, and frogs. Now each person, under this
arrangement, has two totem names. He is Eagle-Hawk (old) and (new)
grub, emu, mouse, or frog: or he is Crow (old) and (new) bat, cat, rat,
or kangaroo. If cat, he may not only not marry a Crow, but also he may
not marry a cat. What could be the reason for this new subdivision
of Eagle-Hawk and Crow, and for this multiplication of marriage
prohibitions, which, given the phratries, prohibit nothing?[22] I
shall try to show, and have already suggested, that, from a period
infinitely remote, each member of the Eagle-Hawk and Crow _local_
groups may also have been, or rather _must_ have been, a grub, emu,
mouse, or frog, bat, rat, cat, or kangaroo, by inheritance and birth.
So understood, the ‘primary divisions’ (Eagle-Hawk and Crow) were not
deliberately subdivided (as I conceive them to have been on Mr. Ho wit
Vs system) into the other numerous new totem groups, nor were the totem
kins added to the phratries, nor were they orderly evolved out of the
phratries, but, from the dawn of Totemism with exogamy, they contained
these totem groups within themselves; a fact which early man came to
perceive.
Mr. Howitt adds, ‘If the two first intermarrying groups’ (‘phratries’)
‘had distinguished names, they were probably those of animals, and
their totems, and, if so, the origin of Totemism would be so far back
in the mist of ages, as to be beyond my vision.’ In the chapter on
the ‘Origin of Totemism,’ we try to penetrate ‘the mist of ages,’
and to see beyond the range of vision of Mr. Howitt. But the ‘Origin
of Totemism’ cannot be beyond Mr. Howitt’s range of vision, if he
agrees with Mr. Fison that the totem kins were orderly evolved within
the phratry, or were segmented out of the phratry, or split off, as
colonies, from the phratry (Dr. Durkheim’s theory), or were added to
the phratry, for some reason.
It seems, then, that he does not commit himself to any of these four
theories. He appears to confess to having no theory of the origin of
Totemism, which, in his opinion, gave the names to the phratries,
these being the result of the primary bisection. Probably his best
plan would be to say ‘the horde was bisected into two moieties, for
exogamous purposes, and animal names, for the sake of distinction, were
arbitrarily imposed on the phratry divisions.’ But, then, what about
the many totem kins within the phratry? We receive no solid theory
about them. They were certainly not arbitrarily marked out later,
within the phratry, for exogamous purposes which they do not fulfil. If
they were picked up elsewhere, and added into the phratry, where did
they come from? Crowds of totems were not going about, Mr. Howitt seems
to think, before the bisection, because, if so, we saw hordes were not
‘undivided,’ before the bisection, but were already divided into totem
kins.
Or shall we say that the undivided communes had already organised
distinct co-operative magical totem groups, to do magic for the good of
the food supply, plants and animals, but that these totem groups were
not _exogamous_ before the bisection? After the bisection two of these
magical totem groups, say Eagle-Hawk and Crow, were selected, shall we
guess, to give names to the two moieties or phratries? The other totem
groups fell, or were meted out, some into Crow, some into Eagle-Hawk.
This is a thinkable hypothesis, but it is fatal to the theory of
subdivision, or of segmentation, or of evolution, as causes of totem
kins within the phratries; and it is not suggested by Messrs. Fison and
Howitt.
Thus we must construct for ourselves, later, a theory of the Origin of
Totemism. We are actually constrained to make this effort, because it
will probably be admitted that, having no theory, or hesitating between
three or four theories, of the origin of totems and of totem kins,
Messrs. Fison and Howitt produce an hypothesis of the evolution of
Australian society which cannot be construed by us into an intelligible
form.
Mr. Howitt elsewhere writes, ‘The existence of the two exogamous
intermarrying groups’ (‘phratries’) ‘seems to me almost to require the
previous existence of an undivided commune, from the segmentation of
which they arose.’[23] But they, the phratries, were totemic, and why?
Once again, why was the undivided commune divided? We know not the
motive for, much less the means of effecting, such a great change ‘in
the beginning.’
In 1885, Messrs. Howitt and Fison were aware of, and expressed
their sense of this difficulty (that of dividing people out into
arbitrary groups) in the case of ancient Attica. Speaking of the
γένος, or clan, in Attica, they combat the opinion
of Harpocration, that the people were ‘arbitrarily drafted into the
γένη.[24] Our authors remark, ‘Ancient society--the
more ancient--does not thus regulate itself. _Nascitur non fit_. One
can understand a Kleisthenes redistributing into demes a civilised
community which has grown into a State, but the notion of any such
arbitrary distribution of men into γένη; in the beginning of things
cannot be entertained for a moment.’[25]
This being so, how can our authors maintain that, ‘in the beginning of
things,’ given an ‘undivided commune,’ all its members were ‘drafted’
into one or other of two divisions, and again into totem groups.
A subdivision of the ‘phratries’ into totem groups, by deliberate
arrangement, is clearly as artificial and arbitrary as the scheme
suggested by Harpocration, ‘which cannot be entertained for a moment.’
We are speaking of ‘the beginning of things,’ not of the present state
of things, in which we know that modifications of the rules, e.g. the
division into eight ‘classes,’ are being deliberately adopted.[26]
In ‘the beginning of things,’ as Messrs. Howitt and Fison, in 1885,
maintained, society _nascitur non fit_. Our effort is to show the
process of the birth of society before conscious and deliberate
modifications were made to prevent marriages, of ‘too near flesh.’ Our
criticism of Messrs. Fison and Howitt’s theories may perhaps indicate
that they are insufficient, or but dubiously intelligible. Something
clear and consistent is required.
[Footnote 1: Apparently, among the Kamilaroi, members of the same
phratry may intermarry, avoiding unions in their own totems. Mathews
(_Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi. 161, 162). Mr. Mathews calls a
‘phratry’ a ‘group.’]
[Footnote 2: Second series, pp. 289-310.]
[Footnote 3: I shall, for my own part, use ‘phratry’ for the two
‘primary exogamous divisions’ of a tribe, and ‘class’ for the divisions
within the ‘phratry’ which do not appear to be of totemic origin. Mr.
Fison applies ‘class’ to both the primary divisions and those contained
in each of them, observing that ‘the Greek “phratria” would be the most
correct term.’ He is aware, of course, that this employment of phratria
is arbitrary, but it is convenient. While he applies ‘class’ both to
‘the primary divisions of a community, and their first subdivisions,’
to the latter I restrict ‘classes,’ using phratry for the former
(_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 24).]
[Footnote 4: _Jour. and Proc. of the Roy. Soc. N.S.W._, xxviii, xxxii,
xxxiv.]
[Footnote 5: _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxiv. 120-122.]
[Footnote 6: _Prov. Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._, xxxiv. 127. Mr. Fison
makes an exception for some Kamilaroi.]
[Footnote 7: This view is discussed later.]
[Footnote 8: P. 27 _et seq_.]
[Footnote 9: There is a tradition of an aboriginal Adam, who had two
wives, Kilpara and Mukwara, these being the names of two phratries. On
this showing brothers married paternal half-sisters (_Kamilaroi and
Kurnai_, p. 33).]
[Footnote 10: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 40.]
[Footnote 11: _J. A. I._ xiv. 142.]
[Footnote 12: _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xviii. 264.]
[Footnote 13: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 107.]
[Footnote 14: _Op. cit._ p. 41.]
[Footnote 15: _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi. 162.]
[Footnote 16: _On the Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p. 129;
_Transactions of Royal Society of Victoria_, 1889.]
[Footnote 17: The natives retain sacred songs to Daramulun, but cannot
(or will not?) translate them. _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxiv. 280.]
[Footnote 18: Spencer and Gillen, p. 152.]
[Footnote 19: Howitt, _J. A. I._ xviii. 37-39.]
[Footnote 20: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 235, note.]
[Footnote 21: _Op. cit._ pp. 59, 62, 63, 66.]
[Footnote 22: New marriage prohibitions may have been, and, I believe,
were added, but the divisions thus made were not, I think, totemistic.]
[Footnote 23: _Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p. 136.]
[Footnote 24: Harpocration _s.v._ γεννῆται.]
[Footnote 25: _J. A. I._ xiv. 160.]
[Footnote 26: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 72, 420.]