Chapter V: Mode of Living (1)

I

The three points hitherto discussed refer more exclusively to the relationship between husband and wife, and do not involve that between parents and children. They bear more on marriage than on the family. But, as so often repeated, the full description of marriage can be made only in connection with, and on the basis of, a knowledge of the family life in its larger sense. We proceed now to this more general discussion, and in order to carry it out on broad foundations it will be well in the first place to consider the family unit[353] in connection with the territorial and tribal organization; that is to consider the mode of living of the family in connection with the higher territorial and tribal units. It has been repeatedly said that each social unit should be discussed in connection with the general structure of society and the general conditions of life in a given area. When theoretically stated this appears a commonplace; in practice it is seldom carried out by ethnologists.

[353] Under the term "family unit" I understand in this
study only the group constituted by husband, wife and their
children.

That the facts of aggregation are of the highest importance in sociology appears also to be quite clear.[354] These facts have been described by Mr. Wheeler for the Australian aboriginal society, and we shall in several places refer to his work. It will serve us as a basis in the following discussion, which nevertheless does not appear superfluous as it is connected more exclusively with the problem of family. In this connection the main question to be asked is: Do the natives usually live scattered, in single families, or in larger groups? All the features of family life--the husband's authority, the sexual marital relation, the economics of the household, the relation of children to parents--would appear in a different light, and our ideas thereon might in many respects be modified according to the answer we obtained to the above question. This point (_i. e._ the mode of living) would also be decisive in the problem of group relationship: if the natives live normally in single families, which assemble only occasionally, then the individuality of the family relationship is placed beyond any doubt. And if there are, besides, any group relations, they must radically and absolutely differ from the individual one; for the latter, and it only, is constituted by the most powerfully binding element--continuous daily contact. If, however, the aborigines live in more or less numerous groups, our question is still open, and we have to inquire: Do the families, which (permanently or temporarily) form one body, live in a state of social communism and promiscuity? Or are they more or less isolated from each other? That will form the second part of our task.[355]

[354] "In the study of population ... the facts of
aggregation or grouping are the first to claim our
attention." (F. H. Giddings, _Princ. of Sociology_,
p. 79). In fact all the social phenomena of higher order
corresponding to differentiation and constitution depend
upon the facts of grouping. In the lowest societies, as
the Australian, the mode of living in very small groups
precludes _a priori_ the possibility of any higher social
formations. We may say that the social horizon of a
community extends as far as the contact of its members. In
higher societies this contact need not necessarily be an
actual one; as a rule in more developed communities members
of a social unit (nation, town, association) only come
exceptionally and in a diminutive degree into immediate
contact. But there are innumerable ways of mental contact.
On the contrary there is no other form of contact but the
personal one among the Australian blacks, and it is the
first condition for the formation of any social bonds
amongst them. In the discussion of all kinship bonds we
should never lose sight of the fact that it is highly
improbable that people who never were in personal contact
could feel more closely related than people who usually
live together.

[355] The importance of the aboriginal mode of living in
the study of family life and kinship bonds has been well
brought out by Dr. Westermarck (_H.H.M._, pp. 42 _sqq._,
especially pp. 43-47). His general inference--that in
low societies the scattered mode of living brings into
prominence individual kinship bonds, and isolates the
family unit--will be corroborated by our conclusions
drawn from the Australian material. The few Australian
examples--quoted and interpreted by Dr. Westermarck--have
been vehemently disputed by Herr Cunow (_loc. cit._, p. 122,
footnote). His criticism, if compared with the data
presented in this chapter, will appear quite unfounded.
Herr Cunow's book does not, by the way, deserve its good
reputation. There are many statements in it, given without
references, which I have been unable to verify in the first
hand evidence.

Let us now gather information about the first point, _i. e._ the size of the groups in which the natives live. Our statements are at first sight contradictory on this point; but this is largely due to the total lack of fixed terminology. It will be well to settle the latter beforehand and determine more exactly what we are to look for in the statements. For that purpose we must forestall the results of our research and broadly outline the state of things; it will give us a guiding thread through the statements. Roughly speaking, in Australia the tribe as a social unit is characterized by name, common speech, custom and territory.[356] It is divided (and sometimes subdivided again) into smaller groups; these consist of individuals closely related, possess a sort of government, and are connected with a portion of the tribal territory which they practically use in common.[357] For the social division of the tribes is connected with and complicated by a parallel territorial partition. And there is always a certain territory allotted to the exclusive possession of a certain group. The tribe (as defined above) cannot be considered as proprietor[358] of the territory, for its different divisions may not encroach upon each other's grounds. We shall call (by way of definition) a _Local Group_, such a division of the tribe as possesses the exclusive right to use a given territory and to dwell within its limits. In the following statements we will give a series of examples of these local units, and the different forms they assume in different tribes. It will be possible, too, to give a more precise meaning to the word "proprietorship"; and to see in what sense land may be possessed or claimed by the Australian blacks. The authors seldom try to give to these terms any clear meaning, or to discern all the existing differences; but these will be evident enough from the facts contained in the statements. The problem of territorial division is only the basis for our main question, viz. the mode of living. The Local Group, which is the joint owner of its territory, is, so to say, only the upper limit of aggregation; _i. e._ the body of persons actually and normally living together cannot be larger than that group, for only its members are (in normal conditions) admitted to its grounds. But this Local Group may also live scattered over its district. There will be several data in our information which would rather confirm us in this supposition.

[356] See Wheeler, _loc. cit._, pp. 15 _sqq._, and the
references given there.

[357] _Ibid._, pp. 45, 46.

[358] To guard against misunderstanding I wish to
emphasize that such words and expressions as "proprietor,"
"ownership," "landed property," "rights to a tract of
country," etc., are not to be taken in the sense which
they possess in application to higher societies, to our
own society in particular. Their correct meaning will be
gathered from the following discussion. For the sake of
clearness and brevity it was sometimes needful, in the
text, to use the above expressions, instead of the more
correct ones like "possession," "claims to a country," etc.
The term "property" has a definite legal meaning, which
makes it impossible to apply it in its full sense to the
low society with which we are concerned.

Now let us review the statements, bearing in mind the exact meaning given to the words Tribe, Local Group and Family. We have agreed to call Local Group a unit owning in common a portion of country, and we are asking how big this unit is in different tribes; if it lives scattered or in a body; finally, what idea can we form of "land ownership" in Australia.

_Statements._--The Kurnai were divided into five exogamous
"clans."[359] These were divided and subdivided several times,
"each subdivision having its own tract of hunting and food
ground, until the unit was a small group of kindred, frequently
an old man, his sons, married or unmarried, with their respective
wives and children." The author gives an instance of a family
claiming a certain island and the swans' eggs laid on it, as its
property,[360] and living under the authority of the oldest male
in the family. "Taking such a family[361] as the tribal unit of
the Kurnai, it was the aggregation of such families that formed
what may be called a division, inhabiting a large area, and the
aggregate of the divisions formed the clan."[362] This, and the
expression family as "tribal unit," shows that probably its members
lived actually together. It is a pity that Howitt does not give
even approximately the numbers. Again, in another place, he writes
of a "natural spread of families over a tract of country," and
of "elders as heads of families."[363] These "families" unite in
cases of mutual need for aid and protection[364] and in cases of
corroborees, initiations, etc.[365]--Here the local group was a
small unit of related persons. It claimed a certain territory and
exclusively used its products, and vested authority in its oldest
male. These local groups usually must have lived isolated from each
other, because of the exclusive right in using the given area.
Howitt mentions also the beginnings of individual claims to some
products (swan's eggs) being even transmitted by inheritance.[366]

[359] According to Howitt's terminology.

[360] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 73, 74.

[361] We would say _local group_, as we reserve the term
_family_ for an undivided group living in the closest
unity, and consisting of a man, his wife and his children.

[362] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 74.

[363] _Idem_, _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 215.

[364] _Ibid._

[365] Compare chapter on initiations in Howitt's _Nat.
Tr._, and _Kam. and Kurn._, _passim_.

[366] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 232 footnote.

The statements of Howitt concerning the Murring tribes are not
quite clear. "Claims to a particular tract of country arose in
certain of these tribes by birth."[367] He does not say if these
claims consisted in actual right to live, roam and hunt over
the said tract of country. It is probable, however, that just
this is the meaning, as he speaks immediately afterwards of an
hereditary principle as to the grounds determining the habitation
where one lives--a father pointing out the bounds of his child's
country--"where his father lived, or himself was born and had
lived."[368] If we can assume that each "family" (= local group)
had its hunting-grounds so designated this would point to a
far-going subdivision of country and consequently of the tribe; we
can hardly infer anything conclusive from this statement alone.
But it appears clearer in the light of the following remark: "The
local group has in all cases been perpetuated in the same place
from father to son by occupation, I may almost say by inheritance,
of the hunting-grounds."[369] It seems, therefore, that generally
in the tribes studied by Howitt, the local group (he calls it the
"family," speaking of the Kurnai) was a very well-defined unit. And
that, in the tribes in question the people who inherit a certain
territory from father to son are just members of the local group.
Its rights to the hunting-grounds were based on some--perhaps magic
or religious--ideas of heredity.

[367] _Nat. Tr._, p. 82.

[368] _Nat. Tr._, p. 83.

[369] Howitt, _Smith. Rep._ 83, p. 816.

An analogous state of things is reported to have obtained among
the Wurunjerri (Victoria): "The right to hunt and to procure food
in any particular tract of the country belonged to the group of
people born there, and could not be infringed by others without
permission."[370] In the territory of the same tribe there was
a stone-quarry, the material of which was very valuable to
the natives. The quarry was the property of a group of people
living on the spot; the head of this group had special rights in
connection with it. "It was Billi-billeri, the head of the family,
whose country included the quarry, who lived on it, and took
care of it for the whole of the Wurunjerri community."[371] This
statement appears to me very important, as it shows how rights of
possession might belong to a local group and centre in the headman
of this group. This statement suffices to reconcile the apparent
contradiction between individual claims to a country and group
claims.

[370] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 311.

[371] _Ibid._

The local groups amongst the Bangerang, who lived at the junction
of the Murray and Goulburn Rivers, seem to have been more numerous,
owing, perhaps, to the easiness of food supply on the banks of
two fishy rivers.[372] The tribe was divided in two exogamous
moieties,[373] and the land "was parcelled out between these two
sub-tribes."[374] Each respectively lived in a body, although
moving sometimes from place to place. Curr speaks of their
head-quarters in places abounding with fish.[375] One of the
sections numbered about 150, the other somewhat less. These two
"sub-tribes" or moieties constituted, therefore, rather numerous
local groups. The "sub-tribes" of the kindred tribes mentioned
by Curr seem also to have been numerous,[376] and to have lived
each in a body,[377] so that they would be, according to our
terminology, numerous local groups. Curr speaks also of individual
property in land, but this seems to have had only a purely
fictitious meaning, having nothing to do with any real right.[378]
Private property in other things (_e. g._ fishing weirs, etc.) was
known.[379]

[372] Curr, _Recollections_, pp. 231, 240.

[373] Local exogamous moieties, not phratries!

[374] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 243.

[375] _Ibid._, p. 231.

[376] _Ibid._, p. 234.

[377] It is never said clearly; but compare the story told
in XIII, of the meeting of two tribes, and _passim_ through
the work, p. 174 and others.

[378] _Ibid._, pp. 243, 244.

[379] _Ibid._, p. 243.

Curr uses the term _tribe_ in place of our _local group_. In his
general work on Australia he gives a definition of tribe which
quite agrees with what we called local group.[380] "By the word
tribe I mean a number of men closely allied by blood, and living
in the strictest alliance, offensive and defensive, who, with
their wives and children, occupy, practically in common, and in
exclusion of others, a tract of country...." Everybody must respect
the customs of his tribe; and as no one may live apart from the
tribal community, "there is no alternative between compliance with
tribal custom and death."[381] "Although the lands of a tribe are
_nominally_ parcelled out amongst its members, it is the fact that
they are used in common, and for several reasons must have always
been used so." First, because for mutual protection the tribesmen
must have often associated. Secondly, because of the economic
conditions the tribe often was compelled to feed on a given
spot.[382]

[380] It is used here in agreement with G. C. Wheeler,
Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, etc.

[381] Curr, _A.R._, i. pp. 61, 62.

[382] _Ibid._, pp. 64, 65.

Angas, describing his travels in the Murray River district, tells
that he met several times with native encampments; from the passage
in question[383] we may infer that they were small groups. He
says[384] that on the seaside (Encounter Bay), on the lakes, and on
the Murray banks, where means of subsistence were fairly easy, the
local groups were numerous. But this information is very loose.

[383] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 74.

[384] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 81.

Amongst the tribes of the Lower Murray River "particular districts
having a radius of from ten to twenty miles, or in other cases
varying according to local circumstances, are considered generally
as being the property and hunting-grounds of the tribes who
frequent them."[385] Eyre speaks of a further division of land
amongst single individuals; it is handed down hereditarily in
the male line. "A man can dispose of or barter his land to
others."[386] At any rate, all members of a "tribe" (= local group)
may roam over the common territory. It seems, nevertheless, to
be rather a formal than actual, exclusive right.[387] The local
groups may not trespass on their respective territories without
permission.[388] The whole local group congregates only "if there
is any particular variety more abundant than another, or procurable
only in certain localities. Should this not be the case, then they
are probably scattered over their district in detached groups, or
separate families."[389] Here we are well informed on our principal
points: the local group is the exclusive joint landowner; the
individual has some claims which are not quite clearly defined,
but surely do not mean exclusive economic _usum fructum_. They
live scattered in small parties over their area. There is another
passage in Eyre's book that confirms this latter point. He says
that each family is independent and governed by the father; but
that, "as a matter of policy, he always informs his fellows where
he is going." So that "although a tribe may be dispersed all over
their own district in single groups ... yet if you meet with any
one family, they can at once tell you where you will find any
other.... In cases of sudden danger or emergency, the scattered
groups are rapidly warned or collected" by messenger or smoke
signals.[390]

[385] Eyre, ii. p. 297.

[386] _Ibid._, pp. 218, 297.

[387] _Ibid._, p. 297.

[388] _Ibid._, ii. p. 297.

[389] _Ibid._, p. 218.

[390] _Ibid._, ii. p. 317.

Mitchell's expedition, when exploring the interior of South-East
Australia, met a party of blacks on the banks of the Murray,
whom they had seen before on the Darling a few hundred miles
distant.[391] This would apparently contradict the assumption
of fixed boundaries. But the general evidence shows that, in
exceptional cases, and with the leave of the neighbouring
tribes--especially if these were friendly--a local group or any
party of natives were allowed to travel even considerable distances
for purposes of warfare, barter or ceremonial gatherings.

[391] Mitchell, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 92.

Amongst the Aborigines of Encounter Bay and Lower Murray River
(the Narrinyeri) the local groups (H. E. A. Meyer calls them
"tribes,"[392] or "large families" of connected people) seem to be
numerous (the country abounds with fish and birds). These local
groups have their head-quarters, from which their name is derived.
But only in cases of great abundance of food does the local group
live and move together. Usually single families roam in parties;
the sick and aged remain in the head-quarters, and suffer often
from want of food. Not only in search of food, but for the sake of
performing corroborees, initiations, etc., and visiting each other,
do these local groups roam about the country.[393]

[392] H. E. A. Meyer, _loc. cit._, p. 198.

[393] H. E. A. Meyer, _loc. cit._, pp. 191, 192.

From a passage in Taplin[394] we may infer that the local group
of the Narrinyeri near Lake Alexandrina numbered about 200
natives.[395] The local groups of this tribe were, besides,
exogamous, totemic, and had a regular form of government. We have
not even a hint as to their mode of living; but if plentiful food
supply was the chief condition of larger aggregations, then these
latter would naturally have developed better in the lake country.

[394] Taplin, _loc. cit._, p. 35.

[395] _Ibid._, p. 36.

Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula there are local divisions;
each with a certain totem and with headmen.[396] This seems
analogous to the conditions among the Narrinyeri and Central
tribes; but the information is not detailed enough to be considered
quite reliable.

[396] T. M. Sutton, _loc. cit._, p. 17.

The Port Lincoln tribes seem to roam about in small parties of
several families.[397] This statement is not sufficiently clear;
probably a number of such parties constituted a local group.

[397] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 221.

We read, again, about the Port Lincoln tribes: "Each family has its
distinct place, where they live together."[398] The uncertainty as
to the sense in which the word _family_ is used here makes this
statement nearly useless. The same author says in another place:
"It has been remarked that the population and general condition
of the natives of Australia greatly depend on the nature of the
locality they occupy; where the country is sterile and unproductive
the natives are found to congregate in small numbers. In fertile
districts they are comparatively numerous."[399] This opinion is in
agreement with the fact that the population round Lake Alexandrina,
where food supply was plentiful, was extremely dense.[400]

[398] Chas. Wilhelmi, p. 178.

[399] _Ibid._, p. 165.

[400] Compare T. Gill, _loc. cit._, p. 223, on the
authority of Dr. Moorhouse.

An author who has made his observations on the blacks of the
Murrumbidgee River (New South Wales) and Moreton Bay (Queensland)
writes: Each "tribe" (= local group) occupies a definite tract of
country; a trespass of its boundaries by a stranger is punished
with death.[401] This common district is subdivided among families
of the local group. "During seasons when all the members of the
tribe are not congregated together, each family hunts on its own
grounds." The author quotes, also, instances where trees were
marked and belonged to individuals.[402] This statement answers
both our questions as to land ownership and modes of living; in
both respects the "family" is the unit: it owns its area and
it lives on and uses it normally in isolation from the others;
proprietorship means here exclusive use. But we must bear in mind
that what is called here family may as well be a small local group
of closely related people, like those among the Kurnai. At any
rate it certainly means that the blacks live in very small groups,
perhaps in individual families, and that this scattered mode of
living rests on a territorial basis. (In general the authority of
G. S. Lang cannot be said to be of the best.)

[401] G. S. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 5.

[402] G. S. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 14.

We read in the travels of Gerstaecker that natives carefully keep
to the boundaries of their own district. So that a traveller, to be
quite safe, should always change his guide when entering upon a new
territory.[403]

[403] Refers probably to the Murrumbidgee tribes. _Op.
cit._, iii. p. 9.

We read about the tribes of New South Wales in general: "Though
they are constantly wandering about, yet they usually confine
themselves to a radius of fifty or sixty miles from the place
they consider their residence. If they venture beyond this, which
they sometimes do with a party of whites, they always betray the
greatest fear of falling in with some Myall or stranger blacks,
who they say would put them to death immediately."[404] We find
here again the local group owning its territory and having
head-quarters; as well as the sacrosanctity of boundaries.

[404] Chas. Wilkes (larger edition), ii. p. 187.

Turnbull remarks about the New South Wales tribes that the best
food supply, and consequently the largest gatherings, were possible
on the sea-shore and on the banks of fishy rivers.[405]

[405] _Loc. cit._, p. 89.

An example of family proprietorship in land is mentioned by
Collins.[406] From it, it appears that this sort of proprietorship
meant rather some mystic claim than any exclusive right of economic
character.

[406] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 599.

We are informed that among the natives of New South Wales there is
a great number of small tribes, each containing from forty to fifty
individuals. "Each tribe has a certain beat, or hunting-ground,
frequently of not more than twenty miles in diameter, from which
they never move, unless on certain occasions when they visit the
territory of a neighbouring tribe for the purpose of a fight, or a
ceremony. Sometimes, the tribe will wander about in parties of five
or ten; at other times all the members will encamp together."[407]
In substituting the word _local group_ for _tribe_, we get here
again a fairly good statement.

[407] Henderson, _loc. cit._, p. 108.

In the statements of Fraser we find again the local group; he
calls it "sub-tribe." It derives its name from a certain locality,
owns a tract of country, which is guarded jealously against any
infringement from any of the neighbouring sub-tribes.[408] This
statement is illustrated by an example, and therefore appears
rather trustworthy.[409]

[408] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.

[409] _Loc. cit._, p. 37.

"Each tribe is divided into independent families, which acknowledge
no chief, and which inhabit in common a district within certain
limits, generally not exceeding above ten or twelve miles on any
side." The tribes number from 100 to 300.[410] "The families
belonging to a tribe meet together upon occasions of festivals
at certain seasons, and also to consult upon all important
occasions."[411] The first phrase is not clear: we are not told
whether what he calls the tribe owns its area in common, or whether
the divisions called "independent families" possess each its own
district. From the context, however, we see that we must assume the
latter. Three hundred people occupy in Australia usually more than
a hundred square miles.

[410] Port Stephens tribe. R. Dawson, pp. 326, 327.

[411] _Ibid._, compare also p. 63.

Hodgkinson, speaking of the tribes between Port Macquarie and
Moreton Bay, says that the tribes (local groups) keep each within
very narrow limits. The district of each of them measures about
150 square miles; usually some ten to twelve miles of a river bank
and the adjoining hinterland. "The whole body of a tribe is never
united on the same spot, unless on some important occasion. They
are more generally divided into small parties of eight or ten men,
with their women and children, for the greater convenience of
hunting, etc., and these detached companies roam over any part of
the country within the prescribed limits of the main tribe to which
they belong."[412] This statement agrees with the general type of
information.

[412] Hodgkinson, _loc. cit._, p. 222.

Of the Coombangree tribe, New South Wales, it is said: "Each tribe
kept its own belt of country and separated into small camps, and
only collected on special occasions."[413] In this statement the
words "local group" should be substituted for "tribe."

[413] _Science of Man_, 1900, p. 116, article by A. C. McDougall.

The Dieri, divided into five local hordes, are still subdivided
into smaller "local groups, each having a definite tract of hunting
and food ground."[414] These local groups cannot be very numerous.
The whole tribe numbers about 250. There are at least ten local
groups, since they include about twenty persons each. But we do not
know whether such a local group lived in a body or scattered over
its territory.[415]

[414] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 46.

[415] Gason, _loc. cit._, p. 258.

We owe one of our best statements as to the nature of the
local group to Spencer and Gillen. Its totemic character, its
organization with the _alatunja_ at its head, the different
functions of magico-religious character and many other social
functions and characteristics define it perfectly well.[416] The
territorial division seems to be much the same in all the tribes
studied by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. "In all the tribes there is
a division into local groups, which occupy certain well-defined
areas within the tribal territory."[417] The possession of land is
vested in them. "There is no such thing as one man being regarded
as the owner of any tract of country. In every case the unit of
division is the local totemic group."[418] This statement is quite
clear. The local group owns a certain area, and all the individuals
have the right to hunt and roam over it. They do not do it in
one body, they live scattered in much smaller parties of one or
two families. "The members of this (local group) wander, perhaps
in small parties of one or two families, often, for example, two
or more brothers with their wives and children, over the land
which they own, camping at favourite spots, where the presence
of water-holes, with their accompaniment of vegetable and animal
food, enables them to supply their wants."[419] Here the picture is
perfectly clear: the territorial unit is the local group; within
its grounds all members have the right to hunt and roam; no other
people may trespass over the boundaries. Such trespasses do not in
reality frequently happen.[420] The area is not only economically
the property of the local group, there are much stronger ties
between the land, once the hunting and ceremonial ground of the
Alcheringa ancestors, and their actual descendants.[421] But the
local group does not form one body; division into single families
seems to be, under ordinary circumstances, the normal status. We
get here a good insight into the inner structure of a local group,
the chief feature of which is the isolation of families. The local
group acts as a body chiefly on ceremonial occasions. To sum up:
the local group is the joint land-owner; proprietorship means
exclusive rights to hunt and roam over the country; but in the
native's mind it has much deeper roots, and the connection between
the local group and its hunting-grounds is based upon all their
traditions and creeds. Their mode of living is scattered; they hang
usually round favourite spots (see below).

[416] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 9, 16 and _passim_ throughout both
works, especially in connection with the description of
totemism and totemic cult.

[417] _Nor. Tr._, p. 27.

[418] _Ibid._

[419] _Nat. Tr._, p. 16.

[420] _Nor. Tr._, p. 31.

[421] The ties between a totemic local group and its
hunting-grounds are based on the whole cycle of totemic
ideas on reincarnation, supernatural conception; on the
Oknanikilla and Ertnatulunga. The reader must be referred
to the works of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen and Strehlow and
to what is said about these points below in connection with
the native ideas on conception (Chap. VI.).

Speaking of the totemic myths of the Northern tribes Mr. Mathews
says: "In those olden days, as at present, the totemic ancestors
consisted of families or groups of families, who had their
recognized grounds in some part of the tribal territory."[422]

[422] _J. and Pr. R.S.N.S.W._, xl. p. 108.

Among the natives of Queensland[423] the territory is parcelled
out completely amongst the different local groups; the boundaries
are well known and mutually respected. This district is again
subdivided amongst the members of the local group; the proprietor
"has the exclusive right to direct when it should be hunted over,
and the grass burned and the wild animals destroyed." If other men
aggregate and use the products of his land he is regarded as the
master of ceremonies. This statement gives us at least a clear and
consistent definition of private proprietorship, which seems to be
of a formal, ceremonial character. But it is not complete. We do
not know if normally each family enjoys its district alone, with
the head of the family always master of ceremonies, or whether the
whole local group, or parts of it, hunt and roam usually in bodies.
This statement is, therefore, not very useful.

[423] Moreton Bay. J.D. Lang, p. 335, 336.

We read about the Kabi and Wakka tribes of Queensland: "A few
families claiming the same territory usually camped and travelled
together, sometimes in smaller, sometimes in larger numbers. I
characterize such family groups as communities."[424] And again:
"Such communities were constituted by a few families occupying the
same small area in common."[425] This is a clear definition of what
we called local group, and agrees perfectly well with the general
picture already outlined.

[424] J. Mathew, i. p. 128.

[425] J. Mathew, i. p. 129.

E. Palmer says that the game and other products of a certain
country belonged to the tribe (= local group) there residing; the
boundaries were respected and trespassers punished by death.[426]

[426] E. Palmer, _J.A.I._, xiii. pp. 278, 279.

In North-West Central Queensland the "tribe" (our local group) has
its head-quarters.[427] This group has also an over-right over its
territory, "over which the community as a whole has the right to
hunt and roam."[428] There is still a further subdivision; each
family possesses hunting-grounds of its own, and no other has the
right to any product thereof without the family's permission.
In the case of tribesmen, transgression is a trifle; in that of
strangers, a very serious offence.[429] The statements of Roth
do not, however, say anything about their mode of living. The
mention of "head-quarters" points to a subdivision of land amongst
families and to a scattered mode of living. In all probability we
may assume here the following form: the local group as joint owner
of its land; and single families having special rights to certain
parts of it, and camping as a rule separately or in small groups,
and aggregating in cases of emergency at the head-quarters. This
is the only statement which attributes to families and individuals
respectively a virtually exclusive right over a certain ground. We
read in another place of the mode or rather the principle according
to which individual proprietorship is determined in the North
Queensland tribes: "The child's own country, its 'home' where it
will in the future have the right to hunt and roam, is determined
not by the place of actual birth, but by the locality where his
_choi_ had been held apart." _Choi_ is the spirit part of the
child's father, embodied in the father's afterbirth. The place
of this _choi_ is carefully determined after the child's birth,
according to a customary ceremonial.[430] The extent of a local
group is determined in the following statement: "there were from
twelve to twenty heads of families constituting the group, each
with its particular division, who together made the tribe."[431]
Here again the land seems to be allotted to the local group,
though, according to the foregoing passages, there was a further
subdivision according to families.

[427] Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 133, § 226.

[428] _Idem_, Bull. viii. p. 8.

[429] _Ibid._ and _Proc. R.S.Q._, pp. 50, 51.

[430] Bull. v. pp. 18, 23.

[431] _Idem_, _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 69.

As an instance showing that there were sometimes territorial
changes and shifting of tribes may be quoted the statement of
G. W. Earl, who says that a big tribe came from the interior and
established itself at the base of Coburg Peninsula.[432] How far
this statement is reliable it is difficult to say. Anyhow it is in
opposition to the numerous and reliable statements which affirm
that tribal boundaries were strictly kept and never changed.

[432] _Loc. cit._, pp. 241, 242.

The natives of Melville Island seem to have lived in more numerous
groups. Major Campbell says that their "tribes" number from thirty
to fifty persons each. On visiting an encampment he found about
thirty wigwams, which would point to about fifty persons at least.
"They lead a wandering life, though I think each tribe confines
itself to a limited district."[433]

[433] _Loc. cit._, pp. 156, 157.

A clear statement concerning the scattered mode of life is given of
the North-Western aborigines by J. G. Withnell, who lived amongst
them for twenty years. "The natives generally live in families at
various intervals of a few miles down the course of each river
and its creeks."[434] "In fact they are small families constantly
moving camp a few miles in any direction they please."[435] In
another place we read: "The natives are divided into many tribes,
having their boundaries defined." These tribes are obviously our
local group. The members thereof live scattered in small parties,
called by Withnell "families." Very interesting is Withnell's
information concerning totemic local centres quite analogous[436]
to those described by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen. It is important
in our present discussion because it throws light upon the problem
of the connection between an individual or a family and a certain
tract of country. From Withnell's information[437] it results that
among the North-Western tribes there were also totemic centres,
allotted each to a "family" (local group or part thereof?) at which
ceremonies for the multiplication of the totem were performed. The
claim to such centres is hereditary.

[434] J. G. Withnell, _loc. cit._, p. 8.

[435] _Ibid._

[436] _Idem_, p. 31.

[437] _Loc. cit._, pp. 5, 6.

We read in Grey about the tribes of West Australia. "They appear
to live in tribes (= local groups), subject, perhaps, to some
individual authority; and each tribe has a sort of capital, or
head-quarters, where the women and children remain whilst the men,
divided into small parties, hunt and shoot in different directions.
The largest number we saw together amounted nearly to 200, women
and children included."[438] This directly asserts that the local
group lived in one body; for of course the men were bound to
return always to the head-quarters. Now if we had to assume that
the local group numbered about 200 individuals we could hardly
allow the possibility of obtaining food. Especially as in another
place Grey says: "Landed property does not belong to a tribe, or
to several families, but to a single male; and the limits of his
property are so accurately defined that every native knows those of
his own land, and can point out the various objects which mark his
boundaries." This land is divided by the father amongst his several
sons. But Grey does not define what proprietorship means. These
two statements are quite inconsistent with each other; if every
man of a big local group had to go to hunt on his own grounds (and
we know that the food area for an Australian family is not small)
they would have to spend their life in making journeys between
their hunting-grounds and head-quarters. We must either suppose
that Grey's tribes were quite small local groups which lived each
on its own territory, and that when he speaks of from 100 to 200
persons assembled he refers only to exceptional meetings, or that
the individual ownership of land had no real economic meaning, and
that the natives actually lived in these tribes in more numerous
bodies (perhaps the coastal tribes at least). This statement is,
therefore, not very useful.

[438] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 252.

Bishop Salvado asserts a subdivision of land among single families
(although he calls "family" a small party of related natives, see
p. 257) acquired by right of birth.[439] Neighbouring families,
small local groups, may enjoy their land in common.[440] Such
small parties are quite independent, and governed by the oldest
male.[441] They lead, as we may infer from that, normally a
solitary, isolated existence. This statement of Bishop Salvado is
also in agreement with the generality of our evidence. His "family"
is evidently a small local group. (It reminds us of a similar unit
amongst the Kurnai, also interrelated, owning a portion of land,
governed by the oldest male). He says such small groups have been
often incorrectly called tribes by other authors.

[439] _Loc. cit._, p. 265.

[440] _Loc. cit._, p. 266.

[441] _Loc. cit._, p. 267.

Mrs. Bates says the South-West Australians were divided into
tribes or families; "these tribes appear to have been aggregated
into geographical groups ... each occupied a definite tract
of country."[442] But in another place she says that "each
(family) occupied a definite tract of country" with well-marked
boundaries.[443] This statement is marred by the lack of precision
in using words like tribes, families, etc. The only thing that
can be made out of it is that there was some local unit owning a
definite tract of country. The right of ownership is defined by the
right of hunting. A man is allowed to hunt merely his own district.
But he has access to his wife's district too.[444]

[442] _Loc. cit._, p. 53.

[443] _Loc. cit._, p. 52.

[444] _Loc. cit._, p. 53.

In King George Sound each "tribe" (= local group) owns a certain
district; this is further subdivided among individual families;
each of these portions being hereditary in a certain family, which
is proud of the extensiveness of its grounds. But all the members
of the local group may roam and hunt over the whole territory.
"Under normal conditions and in its own district the tribe (=
local group) is divided into small parties or families; each party
forming a camp of six or eight wurleys."[445] Only on special and
important occasions does the local group aggregate. Strangers are
not admitted to the territory. We see here, again, the actual
proprietor of the land is the local group; families have some
merely formal (or magical) claim to portions of it. The local group
roams in parties, which are nevertheless not so very small. In
from six to eight huts there may live from three to four families
(we must count besides the married couples also the old people and
grown-up children).

[445] Browne, _loc. cit._, pp. 476, 478.

Scott-Nind says about the natives of King George Sound, "An
encampment rarely consists of more than seven or eight huts; for,
except the fishing and burning seasons, at which times large
parties assemble together, their numbers are generally small, and
two or three huts suffice. The number of individuals, however,
seldom exceeds fifty."[446] "These encampments generally consist
of near relatives, and deserve the name of families rather than
of tribes."[447] Natives who live together have the exclusive
right of fishing or hunting upon the neighbouring grounds, which
are, in fact, divided into individual properties; the quantity of
land owned by each individual being very considerable. Yet it is
not exclusively his, but others of his family have certain rights
over it; so that it may be considered as partly belonging to the
tribe. The individual owner must be present on his grounds when
the members of his group fire the country for game.[448] We have
here again the local group as real and exclusive land-owner, the
individual having only mere formal rights over the land. Scott-Nind
describes with details how in connection with and dependence
on plentiful food supply, the natives gather in larger numbers
at appropriate seasons.[449] He says in several places that the
parties in which the natives live and roam about number only a few
individuals.

[446] _Loc. cit._, p. 28.

[447] _Ibid._

[448] _Ibid._; compare also p. 44.

[449] _Loc. cit._, p. 36.

Out of the thirty-nine statements collected, thirty-one describe a certain group or family as owning a definite tract of country in common; this group is, by definition, what we called above the local group. But there are some complications as to its rights of possession over the given area. On the one hand there is some kind of "over-right" of the tribe over the district inhabited by all the local groups of which it is composed.[450] On the other hand there is a further complication arising from the alleged individual claims to landed property. As to the tribal over-right, it presents itself chiefly in the fact that, first, tribesmen (members of related and friendly local groups) are often invited and allowed on the territory of the local group; secondly, in cases of trespass, while strangers are punished severely (often by death), tribesmen are only considered slightly culpable. The tribe may probably sometimes congregate as a whole on a part of its grounds with the consent of the local group concerned. We must imagine the local groups of the same tribe as living in amicable relations and voluntarily exercising hospitality towards each other, especially in cases when food is plentiful on their territory.[451] But as a general rule the whole tribe neither uses its whole district, nor has a local group, forming a division of the tribe, the right to use any but its own territory without asking permission. The tribal over-right seems therefore of little importance.

[450] Compare G. C. Wheeler, _loc. cit._, pp. 62-67. In
the above statements I did not include explicitly all the
contexts referring to this point, as it lies outside our
proper field of investigation. It may be found, more or
less explicitly, in some of them (J. D. Lang, _e. g._).
I mentioned it here only to give a fuller account of all
aspects under which possession of land presents itself in
Australia.

[451] Compare Wheeler, _loc. cit._, where this question is
thoroughly discussed, and also Curr, pp. 244 _sqq._, Roth,
Bull. 8, p. 9; Salvado, p. 265; Grey, ii. p. 272; Browne,
_loc. cit._, p. 445; G. S. Lang, p. 5.

The rights of a local group over its territory are, on the other hand, the most important form of ownership, and the only one which possesses economic features. These rights mean that all members of a local group may roam over its territory and use all the products, hunt and collect food and useful objects. In the case of the Central and North Central tribes we are expressly told that no individual or family claims may interfere with the rights that every member of the local group has to the whole local area. In twenty-one of our thirty-one statements referring to the right of the local group, we are not told of any family or individual proprietorship. In the remaining eight cases single families or male individuals seem to have some vague claims to special tracts of country. In three cases the information is ambiguous on this point. In the case of the Bangerang, Moreton Bay tribes (J. D. Lang), King George's Sound natives (Nind and Browne), this right is either of a merely mystic, intangible character,[452] or it is a formal right which gives to the individual the priority in decisions as to hunting, burning of grass, etc., and makes him "master of ceremony" in cases of an assembly on the given spot. In two instances this individual "land ownership" is stated to assume a more economic aspect (G. S. Lang and W. E. Roth). There are, besides, two statements on family "ownership" which do not mention the local group. According to one of them (Collins) individual claims to land have a mystic, fictional character; according to Grey's statement, individual property in land was the only positive one; but this latter statement is inconsistent and does not define the sense of the word "property,"[453] and is therefore of little weight. So on the whole we have three statements asserting that landed property of an economic character was vested in individuals or in single families respectively. On closer examination, one of them appears to be quite ambiguous (G. S. Lang), and another one inconsistent with its context (Grey). Roth's statement seems to be an exception. He says: "For one family or individual to obtain, without permission, vegetable, fowl or meat upon the land belonging to another family" constitutes a trespass; but then he adds that owing to their great hospitality each family readily invites its neighbours and friends to partake of the products of its land. Roth's statement, although an exception, deserves to be noted, owing to its explicitness and to the reliability of the author. It is only regrettable he does not inform us concerning one point more, whether these families or individuals respectively resided usually on their territories and used them exclusively, or whether they usually aggregated and lived on each other's domains, every one being only the host on his own territory. It is only in the first case that individual proprietorship would have an actual importance; accepting the second hypothesis, we revert to the case where the local group (a number of aggregated families) possesses the actual right of use of the land, the individuals being only formal landlords of their parcels. If we accept, on the other hand, the view that single families were in a purely economic and legal sense owner of their own tract of land, _i. e._ that they enjoyed the _usum fructum_ of the latter for themselves, and that exclusively,[454] then we must also believe that the families lived scattered, and assembled only in exceptional cases. This consequence is important. But we see easily that although it is inevitable, supposing actual land ownership in single families, still the latter state of thing is not a necessary condition of it. Even when land is invested in the group, single families may live scattered (compare below). Claims to land by individuals and families in the Northwestern Central Queensland tribes were also based on ideas of a magico-religious character, being probably a mere magical connection of an individual or family with a portion of the country. (Compare the statement from _North Queensland Ethnography_.)

[452] This mystic character of some individual claims to
a particular tract of country appears also from Roth's
statement, and from a passage of Oldfield (_loc. cit._,
p. 252). "Every male is bound to visit the place of his
nativity three times a year." But this writer could not
ascertain the purpose of it.

[453] Compare Grey, ii. p. 233, and the letter of G. S. Lang
quoted by him therein. It appears that both these writers
were to a certain extent inspired by a humanitarian
tendency, namely to show that the Australian aborigines
were not quite without ideas of property in land, and that
they were wronged by the white settlers, and thus deserved
compensation for the loss of their hunting-grounds. The
letter mentioned was written to some humanitarian society.
We may, therefore, still more distrust these statements.
We have seen that the idea of possession of land, of an
exclusive right to use a certain tract of country, was well
known to our aborigines, but that they conceived of it as
vested in a group, not in individuals.

[454] It is well to remember that there cannot be drawn a
sharp line of distinction between a "family" and a "local
group"; moreover, in the use of these terms our authorities
are mostly careless and indiscriminate. As to the
individual possession of land, it has been pointed out in
connection with Howitt's statement on the Wurunjerri, that
the individual rights of some influential man (headman)
might be the expression of the rights of his local group.

Summing up, there are three different kinds of "proprietorship" in the aboriginal society; or more correctly three kinds of claims to, and connections with, a certain territory. First, actual rights of roaming, hunting, fishing and digging; these rights belong usually to the local group (exceptionally, perhaps, to single families or individuals). Secondly, the customary right of local groups forming a tribe, mutually to use their hunting-ground; these forms of proprietorship have been designated "tribal over-right."[455] Third, the immaterial claim of individuals or families to a portion of the local district; this special right seems to be rather exceptional, and it appears problematic whether it has any economic character. In the light of this distinction it can easily be understood how the actual right of the local group was modified in two directions. The tribesman was tolerated on or invited to the ground, whereas the non-tribesman was killed. On the other hand, individuals or single families had possibly some claims of an unimportant character to particular spots. In general, we find it expressed in nearly all the statements more or less explicitly that the natives had a very clear idea of the rights of the local group to its territory, and that the boundaries of it were respected without exception.[456]

[455] In agreement with Mr. Wheeler.

[456] Compare nearly all of our statements, especially
those of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Curr. Mr. Wheeler
writes in his conclusions (_loc. cit._, p. 161).
"Territorial conquest is never sought, for the absolute
right of the local group to its district is fully
recognized." The respect for boundaries is also stated: in
_Science of Man_, xi. (1910), p. 197 ("tribal" area sharply
marked; death is the punishment for trespass). _Ibid._
(1900), p. 85. _Ibid._ (1901), p. 9.