Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia Part 17

Inst._ XX, 62. General circ.u.mcision was a remedy in Fiji when the chief was ill.

[188] And among the Dieri, according to Gason, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 87.

[189] p. 219.

[190] pp. 205, 193. _J.A.I._ XII, 36.

[191] p. 245.

[192] p. 269.

[193] He also omits to mention the _Muni_ ceremony, described in _Journ.

Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62. If general licence is of magical efficacy in cases of sickness, it can hardly be argued that general licence at marriage has not, as Mr Crawley argues, a magical significance.

[194] p. 245.

[195] _C.T._ 556.

[196] _C.T._ 104.

[197] Commonly but erroneously termed "rudimentary organs." It is a natural and justifiable a.s.sumption for a zoologist that all vestigial organs have previously been more largely developed. It is also an a.s.sumption that a given custom is vestigial, but it is not a justifiable one.

APPENDIX.

ANOMALOUS MARRIAGES.

Decay of cla.s.s rules in South-East. Descent in Central Tribes. "Bloods"

and "Castes."

A certain number of Australian tribes have ceased to adhere strictly to the regulations of their cla.s.s systems. Thus, in the Kamilaroi tribe a correspondent of Dr Howitt's found intra-cla.s.s marriage, the totem only being different; in determining the cla.s.s and totem of the children the ordinary rule held good[198]. The Wiradjeri on the Lachlan permit Ipai to marry Muri as well as k.u.mbo, the two cla.s.ses both belonging to Kupathin; in each case certain totems only, viz. emu, opossum, snake and bandicoot, have the privilege[199]. The same anomaly is found in the Wonghibon tribe[200].

Among the Warramunga and other northern tribes Spencer and Gillen find that the division of the cla.s.ses, explained in the last chapter, does not prevent marriages from taking place which this division ought to prevent, if the Arunta rule were followed[201]. A curious feature of these marriages is that the children of the anomalous union pa.s.s into the cla.s.s which would have been theirs if their mother had wedded her normal spouse. It is not easy to say whether this should be regarded as a survival of matrilineal descent; it is, however, clear that only the existence of phratriac names enables us to say definitely that the descent in this tribe is in the male line.

According to the information printed by Mr R.H. Mathews this irregularity is by no means the sum total of anomalies. His information is far from being commonly accepted as accurate; but, as will be shown later, there are correspondences between his statements and those of other observers, which make it probable that his statements have some basis in fact. At any rate they deserve notice, if only that they may be contradicted by competent witnesses, if they are incorrect.

In the Inchalachee tribe, according to Mr Mathews, descent of the cla.s.ses is reckoned through females. In the place of the arrangement shown in Table I a, he gives the order 3, 4, 8, 7; 6, 5, 1, 2[202]. Any man of the first moiety may marry any woman of the second, though certain marriages are normal and one of the remainder more usual than the others. The effect of these rules is to make it possible for a man to marry any woman of his own generation, even if she be of his own cla.s.s. This is precisely the same as the case reported from the Kamilaroi by Dr Howitt, if we may take it that in the latter case the normal marriages are found side by side with the anomalous ones.

In the Inchalachee marriages the children, as in the Warramunga cases of Spencer and Gillen, take the cla.s.s which they would have had if the woman had taken her normal spouse. On this Mr Mathews relies for the statement that descent is reckoned in the female line in this tribe.

But, as we have seen, such a view is erroneous as regards the Warramunga, among whom anomalous marriages also occur; it is therefore by no means clear that the Inchalachee are matrilineal. We have even more reason to doubt his view as to the Binbinga, for whom we have the evidence of Spencer and Gillen.

Mr Mathews also reports among the Wiradjeri marriages resembling in many respects those mentioned above from the Wailwun tribe[203]. The table does not seem to be complete; it is therefore useless to enquire on what principle these marriages are arranged. There seems, however, no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the information.

More revolutionary is the statement that these cross-cla.s.s marriages are based on an actual kinship organisation, to which Mr Mathews gives the name of "blood" (Table III, p. 50)[204].

Running across the phratries and cla.s.ses are divisions known as Gwaigullean and Gwaimudthen, Muggulu and b.u.mbirra, etc., which have the meaning of "sluggish" and "swift" blood respectively. The bloods again are sometimes subdivided. In the Ngeumba tribe Gwaimudthen is divided into nhurai (b.u.t.t) and w.a.n.gue (middle), while Gwaigulir is equivalent to winggo (top). These names refer to different portions of the shadow of a tree and refer to the positions taken up in camping by the persons belonging to the different "bloods" and "castes." In this, it may be noted, these organisations follow the parallel of the phratries and cla.s.ses.

With the correspondences in names shown in Table III. before our eyes, it is difficult to suppose that the statements of Mr Mathews have no basis in fact. In the absence of further information, however, it is clearly impossible to discuss the origin of these divisions. It seems most probable that they are the systematisation of the anomalous marriages already cited. But much more information is needed before anything like certainty can be attained in the matter. Both actual genealogies and tables of terms of relationship must be in our hands before we can come to a decision.

FOOTNOTES:

[198] Howitt, p. 204.

[199] _ib._ p. 211.

[200] _ib._ p. 214, cf. _J.A.I._

[201] _Nor. Tr._ pp. 107, 114.

[202] _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 71.

[203] _J.R.S.N.S.W._ x.x.xI, 173.

[204] _ib._ x.x.xVIII, 207-17, x.x.xIX, 117, _Proc. R.G.S. Qu._ XX, 53, etc.