The family among the Australian aborigines; a sociological study

Foreword

The importance of the subject treated in this study, as well as the prominent part played by the Australian evidence in the problem of kinship, will, it is believed, amply justify a detailed inquiry into the institution of the family in Australia. It is, however, always desirable for a monograph like the present one, besides being a mere collection and description of facts, to have a suihciently wide theoretical scope. It ought to demonstrate some general principle upon the particular example treated, and to approach the problem from a new standpoint.

I wish here shortly to indicate how far a slight and imperfect attempt in this direction has been made. In describing the facts of family life in Australia I have tried to show that even if the problems of origins and development of an institution be put aside and the inquiry be limited to the actual facts (in this case to the actual working of the aboriginal kinship organization), there are plenty of subjects of great theoretical importance, some of which, as yet not fully considered by sociologists. On the other hand, I have tried to show that in dealing with purely sociological problems it is necessary, in order to do justice to the complexity and fulness of social phenomena, to draw into the field of inquiry a series of facts often hitherto partially or completely neglected. The facts of daily life, the emotional side of family relations, the magico-religious ideas of the aborigines about kinship and sexual relations, customary as well as legal norms — all these factors must be taken impartially into careful consideration in order to give the full picture of an institution as it embraces living man in

T vi FOREWORD

a living society. In other words each social institution must be studied in all its complex social functions as well as in its reflexion in the collective psychology.

As a matter of fact, by a certain tendency to fanciful construction, natural in all early speculations about a new domain of facts, many problems in the study of primitive kinship have been artificially simplified, others unduly complicated and obscured. Thus, for instance, when in the discussion of primitive forms of marriage the whole problem of the position of the children and of the emotional attitude of the parents towards them has been neglected ; or when different legal terms have been applied to undifferentiated societies and legal ideas attributed to primitive man, without asking how far and under what conditions this may be done ; or, again, when the sexual aspect has been treated as the only essential feature of marriage. On the other hand, the concepts of " primitive promiscuity," ** descent through females only," "mother-right " and " father-right " have proved meaningless and abstruse; the two latter, of course, as far only as they have been used in the majority of cases without a satisfactory definition.

It is easy to see why such somewhat artificial conceptions have found their way into the study of primitive marriage and kinship. In the early days of these studies work had been done not by specialists, who would try to apply to a new set of problems new methods, but by men learned in other branches of science, who looked at the facts, not full in the face, but from a peculiar and often remote standpoint. The illustrious founder of these Studies on the Continent, the Swiss savant Bachofen, was a student of history of law and classical culture, and he was chiefly concerned with establishing the primitive mother-right of the prehistoric Greeks and Romans. The chief theoretical interest of the eminent ethnographer Morgan was the unravelling of the riddle of primitive forms of marriage out of the invaluable material contained in his tables of kinship terms.

FOREWORD vii

McLennan assigns a prominent place in his investigations to factors which had hardly ever played a very important part in primitive society, as, for instance, marriage by capture, female infanticide and levirate. It is evident that in all these and similar speculations the chief attention was not drawn to the actual working of the social mechanism, but to survivals, rudiments and fictitious primeval conditions. And the method of sociological thinking has not been developed upon living social forms, but upon shadows and petrified remains. Whenever concrete institutions have been theoretically treated, they were approached with preconceived ideas, as, for instance, in the well-known monograph of Fison and Howitt, and in the book of Herr H. Cunow — both works relating to Australian kinship organization. When reading the theoretical chapters of the latter, one has the impression that the Australian tribes were a museum of sociological fossils from various ancient epochs of which the petrified form has been rigidly preserved, but into whose inner nature it is quite hopeless to inquire. The understanding of actual facts is sacrificed to sterile speculation upon a hypothetical earlier state of things.

Prof. Tylor's well-known article (Journ. Anthrop' Inst, xviii.) was, perhaps, the first protest against this loose and far-fetched treatment of the subject. He based his method of research on the firm ground of a statistical surve}/ of facts, and his method of reasoning on the philosophically sound principle of inquiring into the mutual dependence of phenomena.

The whole problem has been set on a new basis and its treatment recast in the fundamental treatise of Prof. Westermarck on the History of Human Marriage. Several of the most important aspects of the question which had been omitted in the speculations of the previous writers have received in it their full treatment; in taking into account, in its manifold aspects, the biological basis of the problem he has shown how many of the current conceptions about primitive marriage and kinship could not viii FOREWORD

hold good in the hght of a closer criticism. Besides this merely critical contribution, and besides the biological argument, the History of Human Marriage constitutes a valuable addition to the purely sociological treatment of the problem. By resolving the problem of marriage into that of family, by pointing to the importance of the relations between parents and children, of the mode of living, etc., the author has shown that marriage is rooted in a complex of sociological conditions, and that there are many points to be treated before we arrive at definite conclusions and broad generalizations.

Another important aspect of the problem has received its full treatment by Mr. Crawley in his study of primitive marriage (the Mystic Rose ; compare the note in the Addenda at the end of this volume). Working out thoroughly some conceptions suggested already by Prof. Frazer in his Golden Bough, the author has shown the social importance of the ideas about human relations and in particular about sexual relations as held by primitive man.

The tendency towards a reform in the method of sociological treatment of kinship and family has been shown not only from the side of purely theoretical writers. Some of the modern field workers, who happily for our science are at the same time distinguished scholars, have achieved a considerable advance in the method of collecting evidence. This refers in the first place to the Cambridge School of Ethnology, whose members under the lead of Dr. Haddon have obtained such remarkable results from their work in the Torres Straits Islands. Dr. Rivers, who specially worked out the chapter on kinship in the joint publication of this Expedition, has, by the introduction of the genealogical method of inquiry as well as by the systematic study of the functions of kin, given perhaps the most useful instruments of inquiry into the social working of family and kinship organization. Thus both our theoretical conceptions and our methods of getting at the facts are certainly approaching more and

FOREWORD ix

more the first postulate of scientific study : the possibihty of an adequate description of facts and their mutual dependences as they exist now in living primitive societies. Only on a basis of such knowledge are further speculations fruitful.

As regards the general principles of sociological method much has been done in recent times by the French school of sociology, grouped round the editor of the Annee Sociologique. The important question, how methodically to present evidence, has received its full attention in the excellent works of Dr. Steinmetz and his pupil. Dr. Nieboer, which are examples of a clear and conclusive way of utilizing ethnological sources. I am glad to acknowledge my intellectual indebtedness to both these schools.

I have tried to collect sufficiently complet-e evidence, and in this endeavour have used some of the older sources whose trustworthiness might perhaps be disputed. But many of their observations are highly valuable if properly interpreted; and moreover it was necessary to bring their statements into line with the newer evidence for the sake of critical comparison, as much of what they say has been uncritically accepted and given without reference by some secondhand compilers (for instance, Waitz- Gerland, vol. vi. ; Cunow) and hence found its way into the newer sociological literature.

The statements I have taken from the different authors are quoted at length, and I do not think that I have thus uselessly increased the bulk of the volume. By an unprejudiced collection of evidence, which is, moreover, presented in a manner independent of, and accessible without reference to, the theoretical discussion, I hope to have given a useful compilation of observations which may serve for further theoretical purposes other than those of the present writer.

In order to make short and yet clear references possible a list of the works quoted is given at the end. With its help the short indications in the footnotes will be perfectly plain.

X FOREWORD

In this place I wish to express my deep gratitude to Mr. J. Martin White, whose munificence has made the pubhcation of this book possible. As a student of sociology at the University of London I am indebted to ^

Mr. Martin White, who, as it is w^ll known, has founded ]

the chairs of Sociology at this university, and furthers these studies in various ways — not the least by his personal contact with and interest shown in the students and their work.

I had, while working on the present book, the privilege of personal intercourse with Prof. Westermarck, a privilege I value more than I can express. I owe much to Dr. Rivers for the constant aid and counsel generously given me during my studies. Much assistance was given to me by Mr. Wheeler, who freely put at my disposal his extensive knowledge of the subject. I have to thank Dr. Tallqvist for several important remarks upon some pages of my proofs.

But my debt is the greatest to Miss Helena Hadley, without whose kind help I could not have overcome ]

the difficulties of writing in what is for me an acquired ]

tongue. Her advice and criticism, both as regards style j

and thought, were quite invaluable for me, and this is j

only a feeble acknowledgment of my indebtedness and ;

feelings of gratitude.

B. M.

Chapter I Exposition Of The Problem And Method

I. Exposition of the problem and justification of the task (pp. i sqq.).

Some contradictions and obscurities concerning family and kinship in Australia (pp. i-6). — Necessity of a careful and detailed description of all the features of the individual family among the Australian aborigines (pp. 6-9). — The sense in which the conception of law and legal should be applied to the Australian native society indicated (pp. 9-17).

II. Method of dealing with the evidence (pp. 17 sqq.).

At the outset only a general definition of " family " adopted; on the other hand raw ethnographical material given. Necessity of continually checking these two data with each other (p. 17). — In dealing with the ethnographical evidence three points to be taken into consideration (pp. 17 sqq.). — (i) Criticisms of each statement (pp. 185^^.). — Verbal criticism (hermeneutic) (pp. 18- 19). — Criticism of contents (pp. 19 sqq.). — Different elements which might possibly have been the source of errors ; and upon an analysis of which criticism in question may in part be based ; (a) Material which the author had under observation (pp. 20-22). — {b) Circumstances and method of obtaining information (pp. 22, 23). — (c) Personal character and profession of the writer (pp. 23, 24). — {d) Purpose for which the book was written (p. 24). — {e) Form and quality of the writer's generalizations and abstract formulation (pp. 24, 25). — (2) Geographical localization of statements (pp. 26 5^^.). — Condition under which local differences may be safely assumed (pp. 26, 27). — (3) Final inferences from the evidence (pp. 27 sqq.). — Character of this operation; analytical division of the information on a given subject under different headings. Separate discussion of each point. Contradictions emphasized and not concealed (pp. 27- 29). — Conclusion drawn (pp. 29, 30). — Its confrontation with kindred facts (pp. 30, 31). — The chief methodological aim : general and complete clearness of all the operations of inference and argument (pp. 31-33).

Chapter II Modes Of Obtaining Wives

Prof. Westermarck's definition of marriage and family accepted at the outset as starting-point (pp. 34, 35). — Inquiry first directed towards the legal aspect of marriage and ideas on marriage, as expressed and embodied in the aboriginal modes of obtaining

zi xii CONTENTS

wives (pp. 35, 36). — Statements concerning these facts (pp. 36- 47). — Rough survey (pp. 47, 48). — (i) Normal forms of marriage (pp. 48 sqq.). — Chief features and forms of the normal methods: betrothal in infancy (p. 48) ; — exchange of sisters or relatives (pp. 48, 49) ; — obligations of contracting parties (pp. 49, 50) ; — some traces of marriage by purchase (pp. 50-52) ; — public, tribal character of marriage arrangements (p. 52) ; — betrothal and marriage ceremonies (pp. 52-53). — (2) The violent forms of marriage (pp. 53-55)- — Capture (pp. 54, 55). — Elopement (pp. 55, 56). — Theoretical inferences drawn from these facts (pp. 56 sqq.). — The legal aspect of marriage (pp. 56-58). — The elements enforcing ipso facto the validity of marriage (pp. 58, 59). — Collective ideas expressed by the facts analyzed (pp. 60-62). — Marital bonds not lax, but on the whole strong and permanent (pp. 62-66). — Summary (p. 66).

Chapter III Husband And Wife

Exposition of the problem (pp. 67, 68). — Statements (pp. 68-74). — Numerous contradictions extant on this subject. Some apparently trustworthy statements, affirming a very extensive authority on the part of the husband, combined with a certain mutual attachment (pp. 74, 75). — Division of the subject under three headings for the purpose of securing more definite answers (pp. 76, 77). — (i) The authority of the husband over his wife nearly absolute, limited only in cases of wilful murder (pp. 77-79). — (2) Ill-treatment not the rule; from this, combined with the foregoing point, follows (pp. 79-82). — (3) Existence of some affection and attachment between the aboriginal married couples (pp. 82-84). — On the whole the information in this chapter very contradictory (p. 84), — Strength of marital bond, as expressed by mourning and burial ceremonies and customs (pp. 84-88).

Chapter IV Sexual Aspect Of Marriage

General character of the information on this subject indicated, and some controversy contained in this chapter justified (pp. 89- 91). — Problem set forth (pp. 91, 92). — Statements (pp. 92-100). — Local differences between different groups of tribes in sexual matters (pp. 100, loi). — Three points investigated: (i) The husband's definite sexual over-right and control over his wife involving his consent in all cases. Otherwise adultery considered a crime (pp. 101-103). — (2) Chastity in general; its slight recognition (pp. 104, 105). — (3) Regulated licence (pp. 105-107). — Its chief form : the Pirrauru practice (pp. 108, 109). — A detailed discussion of the latter showing its lack of the features of " group marriage " (pp. 109-123). — In general all sexual licence regulated and devoid of the character of promiscuity and disorder (pp. 123, 124). — Digression on sexual jealousy among the Australian aborigines (pp. 124-131).

CONTENTS xiii

Chapter V Mode Of Living

I. The relation of the family unit to the tribal and territorial organization

of the aboriginal society (pp. 132 sqq.). — Terminology (pp. 134, 135). — Statements (pp. 136-149). — Rough survey (pp. 149, 150). — The territorial unit, the local group a body of people possessing in common a tract of country and inhabiting it to the exclusion of anybody else (pp. 150-152). — Three different forms of possession of land in Australia (pp. 152, 153). — Idea of rights in a portion of land probably to a great extent of magico-religious character (p. 153). — The mode of living, the tribal division varying according to local conditions and with opportunities of food-supply. In the majority of tribes (especially those of the arid regions) small groupings of about one to three families usual (pp. 150-157).

II. The internal structure of the local group, with reference to single

families (pp. 1585^^.). — Statements (pp. 158-165). — Disposition of camps, the mode of occupying the huts and other functions of daily life subject to strict rules pointing to the isolation of the single families (pp. 165-167).

Chapter VI Discussion Of Kinship

I. Theoretical analysis of this concept (pp. 168 sqq.).

Importance of adapting sociological concepts to those social conditions to which they are applied, exemplified on the concept of kinship (pp. 168, 169). — Necessity of giving a definition of kinship for scientific use (pp. 1 69-1 71). — The present discussion specially directed to suit the Australian evidence (pp. 171, 172). — Necessary and sufficient conditions for admitting the existence of individual parental kinship in any given society (pp. 172-174). — Further features thereof to be looked for in the variable social conditions and in the data of " collective psychology "; " collective ideas " held about kinship and " collective feelings " referring to it (pp. 174-176). — Preliminary definition of kinship (p. 176). — Analysis of the concept of consanguinity (pp. iy6 sqq.). — Modern European idea of kinship conceived in terms of consanguinity (p. 177). — Physiological and social consanguinity (pp. 178-182). — Exact definition of the latter (p. 182). — Kinship not always based upon ideas of community of blood. Common features of the ideas underlying kinship (pp. 182, 183). — Normative ideas referring to kinship. Descent (pp. 183-185). — Analysis of the legal side of kinship (pp. 185, sqq.). — Legal only one of the aspects of kinship (p. 185). — In primitive societies in particular kinship not a legal relationship (pp. 185, 186). — Discussion of some opinions thereon (Mr. Thomas, Prof. Dargun, Prof. Frazer) (pp. 186-190). — Restricted use of the term legal in the Australian aboriginal society (pp. 190, 191). — Justification of the study of the emotional characteristics of kinship (pp. 191 sqq.). — Importance of feelings in the task of characterizing any personal relationship. " Collective feelings " (pp. 191, 192). — The presence in the Australian ethnographic material of objective xiv CONTENTS

facts which express the collective feelings referring to kinship (pp. 192-194). — Analysis of these facts (pp. 194-197)- — Mutual dependence of collective ideas and collective feelings referring to kinship (pp. 197, 198). — Summary (pp. 198, 199). — Critical survey of some definitions of kinship given by other authors (Morgan. MacLennan, Mr. E. S. Hartland. Dr. Rivers, Fison and Howitt, M. von Gennep, Prof. Durkheim, Prof. Westermarck, Sir Laurence Gomme) (pp. 199-206). — Two additional remarks (pp. 206, 207).

II. Some examples of kinship ideas suggested by the Australian folklore (pp. 207 sqq.).

Introductory remarks (p. 207). — Belief in totemic conception existing among the Central tribes (pp. 208, 209). — Absence of knowledge concerning physiological procreation (pp. 209, 210). — Some important points discussed (pp. 210 sqq.) — (i) The ignorance in question complete (pp. 210, 211). — (2) In particular no idea of individual paternal consd^ngninity (pp. 211, 212). — (3) Analysis of the aboriginal ideas about reincarnation (pp. 212-217). — Conclusion : absence of " consanguinity " (in the social sense) among the Central tribes (pp. 217, 218). — Beliefs in which some kinship ideas are expressed (pp. 218 sqq.). — Among the Northern tribes special close tie between spirit-child and father (Gnanji, Umbaia and other Northern-Central tribes) (pp. 218-220). — Pre-established kinship involved in the belief concerning reincarnation and return of dead people (pp. 220-225). — Customs of the couvade type (pp. 225, 226). — Geographical extension of the nescience of physiological fatherhood (pp. 226, 227). — Two North Queensland beliefs involving a clear idea of spiritual tie between a father and his child (pp. 227-229). — Other examples (pp. 229, 230). — Survey of the beliefs of the South-Eastern tribes possessing the idea of paternal consanguinity (in the social sense) (pp. 230-232). — Summary (pp. 232, 233).

Chapter VII Parents And Children

I. The first maternal cares and suckling of the infant (pp. 234 sqq.). — Statements (pp. 235, 236). — Close ties between mother and her offspring during infancy and early childhood (pp. 236, 237).

II. The relation between parents and children during childhood

(pp. 238 sqq.). — Statements (pp. 238-249). — Affirmation of a close tie of affection and devotion between parents and children (pp. 249, 250). — Illustrations drawn from concrete facts (pp. 250, 251). — Applicable to both the father and mother; to female as well as to male children (p. 251). — Great leniency of treatment (pp. 252, 253). — Bearing of the affection of both parents to their children upon the relation between husband and wife (pp. 253, 254). — No data for assuming the existence in Australia of patria potestas as a legal form (p. 254). — Lack of information as to the actual character of the paternal authority in Australia (pp. 254- 256). — Rudiments of education (pp. 256, 257).

III. Children at puberty removed from their parents' camp, and consequent

weakening of the relationship (pp. 257 sqq.). — Marriage of females at puberty (pp. 257-259). — Great disparity of age between husband and wife (pp. 259, 260). — Statements (pp. 260-262). —

I

CONTENTS XV

Boys at puberty and afterwards (pp. 262 sqq.). — Statements (pp. 262-267). — Boys undergoing initiation; their life in a special camp (" bachelors' camp ") (pp. 267-269). V. The life-long permanence, nevertheless, of the tie between parents and children (pp. 269 sqq.). — Statements (pp. 269-272). — Lack of information as to the relationship between sisters and brothers (pp. 272, 273).

Chapter VIII Economics

The individual family an economic unit (p. 274). — Statements (pp. 275-281). — Sexual division of labour a marked feature of Australian marriage (p. 281). — The woman's share of work harder, more important and indispensable than the man's (pp. 282-283). — The man's share not devoted to the exclusive benefit of his family (p. 283). Statements concerning the aboriginal communism in food (pp. 283-286). — Their bearing upon the economics of the household (pp. 286, 287). — Sociological features of this sexual division of labour (pp. 287, 288). — Division of consumption within the family (pp. 288, 289). — Description of some minor economic features concerning the household (pp. 289-291).

^ ' CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS pp. 292-304

BIBLIOGRAPHY „ 3IO-316

THE FAMILY AMONG THE

AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES

Chapter I Exposition Of The Problem And Method

The problem of the social forms of family life still presents some obscurities. What appears to be most urgently needed is a careful investigation of facts in all the different ethnographical areas. I propose in this study to undertake this task for Australia. I shall avoid making any hypothetical assumptions, or discussing general problems which refer to the origin or evolution of the family. I wish only to describe in correct terms and as thoroughly as possible all that refers to actual family life in Australia. In other words I intend to give in outline the social morphology of the Australian family.

It may be well to show briefly the necessity for this task, which to some may appear superfluous, and to indicate the lines on which it will be attempted. In the first place there are some contradictions with regard to the problem of relationship or kinship in Australia, which can be reduced to the question : Is kinship in Australia exclusively individual ; or is it exclusively group kinship (or tribal kinship, as it often is called) ; and, further, do these two forms exclude each other or do they perhaps exist side by side ? When Howitt says : " The social unit is not the individual, but the group; the former B 1 merely takes the relationships of his group, which are of group to group," ^ this obviously means that there is no individual relationship, consequently no individual family in Australia. It is important to note that the passage just quoted is placed in the chapter on Relationship in Howitt's chief work on Australia, and that consequently it refers to all the tribes described by the author, i. e. to the majority of the known Australian tribes. The same opinion that there is only group relationship and no individual family is supported by another passage, no less important and general, for it is placed at the conclusion of Howitt's article on the organization of the Australian tribes in general : *' It has been shown that the fundamental idea in the conception of an Australian community is its division into two groups. The relationships which obtain between the members of them are also those of group to group." ^ And again : " The unit of aboriginal society is, therefore, not the individual, but the group. It is the group which marries the group and which begets the group." ^ There are also a few passages in Spencer and Gillen which deny the existence of the individual family, at least in some tribes.*

Thus the impression drawn from the passages just quoted ^ is that there is no individual relationship and, what follows as an immediate consequence, no individual marriage, nor individual family in Australia. Such a conclusion would be absolutely false. For the same author (Howitt) writes : " Individual marriage in Austra-

1 Nat. Tribes, p. 157. It is hardly necessary to point out that this phrase is without a precise sense, unless it be evident in what sense the author uses the conception " social unit." One looks in vain for such a definition in H owitt.

* Compare the passage quoted by A. Lang, just below, and the passage quoted by us, pp. 108 sqq., and p. 243. How far Spencer and Gillen have the right to deny the existence of the individual family among the Urabunna will be discussed in detail below,

^ I have quoted the best first-hand authorities ; instances could easily be multiplied as well from their works as also from other sources.

lian tribes has been evident to everyone." ^ Curr speaks in still more positive terms : " No relationship but that of blood is known amongst Australians." ^ The social relations which exist amongst the Australian aborigines are of five sorts; first, those of family; second, those of the tribe ; third, those between associated tribes ; fourth, those of neighbours who belong to different associations ; fifth, all other persons.^ We see that in Curr's statements there is again no room for any kind of group relationship. Obviously Curr's information contradicts in plain terms the foregoing set of statements, and such a contradiction among our best informants is truly puzzling. There seems to be some misunderstanding in the present problem.

This is not only my own opinion. Mr. A. Lang discusses the same question and finds it necessary to prove in a short article that individual relationship exists in Australia. He says : " It is certain that * blood ' or * own ' relations are perfectly recognized. Messrs. Spencer and Gillen inadvertently deny this, saying : ' The savage Australian, it may be said with truth, has no idea of relationships as we understand them.' " This example is not the only one, as has been shown above, and indeed their number could be easily multiplied. Mr. Lang proves by several instances that this opinion of Spencer and Gillen is erroneous, and concludes : " The savage Australian does discriminate between his actual and his tribal relations. It was necessary to make this fact clear and certain, as it has been denied." * The same contradiction has also been pointed out by Dr. Westermarck : ** As to the South Australians, Mr. Fison's statements have caused not a little confusion. On his authority several writers assert that among the Australian savages groups of males are actually found united to groups of females." ^ And

2 Curr, A.R., i. p. iii.

* Procs. B. Academy, vol. iii. 1908, May report, p. 4. ^ Westermarck Ed. The History of Human Marriage, p. 56. B2 in a footnote Dr. Westermarck quotes Lubbock, Morgan, Kohler, Kovalevsky. With such views Dr. Westermarck contrasts Curr's ^ opinion that strict monogamy obtains, and that of the Rev. J. Mathew,^ *' who fails to see that group marriage * has been proven to exist in the past and certainly does not occur in Australia now.' "

Again E. Grosse in his well-known book, speaking of Howitt's work on the Kurnai says that this author "... hat sich so griindlich in seine Hypothese einer Gruppenehe . . . der prahistorischen Australier vertieft, dass er dariiber ganz vergisst, seine Leser darauf aufmerksam zu machen, dass die historischen Australier in Einzelnehe leben." ^ This is quite true, especially the remark that one of the chief sources of error in sociology is speculating on the origins and prehistory of an institution before this institution is thoroughly known in the present state.

And it seems as if in the present case a good many of the difficulties may be solved by understanding some of the statements made as referring to hypothetical earlier stages. As a matter of fact the passage quoted above, where the existence of group relationship is affirmed, is continued thus : " The :dea of the relation of individual to individual, and of individual parentage, without reference to the group, is of later origin, and is the result of a number of social forces acting in the same general direction and producing change." * It is evident therefore that group relationship is supposed by Howitt to be the former state, and individual relationship a kind of innovation. But there is such a lack of clearness, such a confusion of the past and present tenses, that we are here again at a loss. Take for example the following passage : " The latest advance which has been made in the subject of Australian marriage was the conception of marriage in the group, and of group to group, and of the filial relation