Social Origins and Primal Law

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;'[61 - 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.'] (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[62 - Second series, pp. 289-310.] 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.[63 - 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).]

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.[64 - Jour. and Proc. of the Roy. Soc. N.S.W., xxviii, xxxii, xxxiv.] 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.[65 - Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W. xxxiv. 120-122.]

1

2

3

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.[66 - Prov. Jour. Roy. Soc. N.S.W., xxxiv. 127. Mr. Fison makes an exception for some Kamilaroi.] 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;[67 - This view is discussed later.] 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,[68 - P. 27 et seq.] 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.[69 - 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).] (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.'[70 - Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 40.]

'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.'[71 - J. A. I. xiv. 142.]

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.[72 - Journal of the Anthropological Institute, xviii. 264.] 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.'[73 - Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 107.] 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.'[74 - Op. cit. p. 41.] 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.'[75 - Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W. xxxi. 162.] 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.[76 - On the Organisation of Australian Tribes, p. 129; Transactions of Royal Society of Victoria, 1889.]

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,[77 - The natives retain sacred songs to Daramulun, but cannot (or will not?) translate them. Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W. xxxiv. 280.] perhaps owing to their antiquity, and sometimes the names are lost, as, elsewhere, in Banks Island. When translatable, the phratry names are totemic.