Chapter V: Mode of Living (2)

We pointed out that the rights of individuals to a certain tract of country had in general some vague magical character, and that they were probably always derived from some mystical relation of the individual to his birthplace or to another special spot. Now it may be added that there are hints pointing to the fact that possession of land in its real form, _i. e._ as invested in the local group, was probably based to a considerable degree on ideas of religious or magical kind. The information is unambiguous and detailed on this point as regards the Central and North-Central tribes. We know of a whole series of ideas of totemic character that bind a group of men to a given locality. How far this was valid in the other parts of the continent it is difficult to decide on the basis of the information available. But putting side by side the facts we know about the extremely large area investigated by Spencer and Gillen, with what we know of mystic individual rights in other tribes, we are justified in supposing that everywhere the rights of the local group (the only ones that present a real economic character) were the sum or resultant of such individual rights of magical or religious character, or that the group as a whole was attached by such ties to its area.[457]

[457] It is impossible to enlarge here upon this
interesting subject, which would require a separate study
to itself. The two volumes of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen
especially are full of facts, showing that the tribal
traditions, the totemic cult, the initiation ceremonies,
and all other magical (or religious) functions were
intimately bound up with the locality in which a local
group lived. The local group itself was, so to say, an
offshoot of the local totem centre, the _Oknanikilla_; the
"spiritual parts" of its member, closely associated each
with its _Churinga_, are enshrined in the _Ertnatulunga_.
That the local group is intimately connected with its
territory is no wonder. Such a form of possession, although
it involves an extremely strong bond of union between man
and land, is evidently something quite different from more
developed forms of proprietorship.

Now to pass on to the main problem: to the mode of living. From the previous discussion we may infer that when the local groups are very small in themselves, then _ipso facto_ the natives live scattered in very small groups (Kurnai, probably Murring, Dieri, New South Wales tribes according to Rob. Dawson, and tribes described by Salvado).

The same applies to the cases where we are told that the families own exclusively a certain area (Roth, G. S. Lang, Grey). But these cases were found to be not quite beyond question. In some instances when the local group is a larger unit, and there is no subdivision of land amongst families, several statements mention that the natives lived scattered in small groups, varying from two to four families perhaps. (Murray tribes according to Eyre; the Central and North-Central tribes according to Spencer and Gillen; the Moreton Bay tribes according to J. D. Lang; New South Wales tribes according to McDougall, Henderson and Hodgkinson; the Kabi and Wakka, West Australians according to Withnell, Browne, Scott-Nind.)

In some cases there are reasons for supposing that the local group was larger (Bangerang, Western Victoria, at Encounter Bay, on the lakes; perhaps on the sea-shores in West Australia according to Grey). The remainder of our information (fifteen statements) does not give any clear answer to this question. From these approximately exact data we come to the conclusion that the majority of tribes lived in small groups of two or three families of six to nine individuals each, and only in a few tribes were there larger bodies living in actual daily contact.

To get a more reliable answer on this point it is better to drop the less clear evidence and to take into consideration only such as is better and more reliable. If only the fully reliable and unambiguous statements be used, there are twelve affirming that aborigines live in small parties, which in some cases shrink to one family only (Howitt on the Kurnai; Eyre; R. Dawson; G. S. Lang; McDougall; Spencer and Gillen in the Central and North-Central tribes; Henderson; Hodgkinson; Rev. Matthew on the Kabi and Wakka; Withnell; Salvado). It should be noted that (1) some of these authorities are our best informants (Howitt Spencer and Gillen, Salvado); (2) that the area covered by these peoples is very extensive, and that the tribes in question are scattered over the whole continent. The statements which assert the mode of living in larger bodies are much less reliable. But it appears undoubted that the statements of Curr and Dawson, perhaps also those of Meyer, Schurman and Taplin (confirmed by Angas), are of quite unquestionable reliability. It is therefore clear that there were local differences in that respect. And such a geographical difference in the mode of living appears quite plausible, from general considerations. The reasons which must have determined the degree of aggregation in the Australian tribes were peculiarly economic ones: the scarcity of food supply was conditioned partly by the aridity of the soil, partly by the primitiveness of the means of procuring subsistence. Where the means of subsistence were plentiful and not easily exhausted, there larger groups could permanently aggregate. This was, in the first place, the case where fishing was at all possible. The Bangerang tribe resided in two large bodies at the junction of the Glenelg and Murray rivers; the large group of the Narrinyeri on Lake Alexandrina; probably the coastal tribes in general were larger and more sedentary. This seems corroborated by the fact that they had usually larger and better-built huts (see below). The same factors would also tend to produce a more sedentary mode of living (the Bangerang, the Kurnai (partly at least), and possibly other coastal tribes). The view that density of population was directly dependent upon the nature of soil is strengthened by the direct statements of Wilhelmi, Turnbull, Moorhouse and Angas.[458]

[458] The difference in physical geography between the
coastal regions and the Central parts, the greater variety
in the South-East region in general, and the relations
of these physiographical features to the social features
of the Australian aboriginal society, are well brought
out by Prof. Frazer in his beautifully written chapter
on Physical Geography (_Tot. and Exog._, chap. v. § 1,
pp. 314-339). Prof. Frazer's conclusion that the coastal
and South-Eastern tribes are more advanced involves the
assertion set forth here that coastal tribes, and in
general tribes living in more fertile regions, live in
more numerous, stable and permanent aggregations. Many of
the instances and quotations of Prof. Frazer's chapter
directly confirm our results, and the reader is referred
to this chapter, which reviews nearly all the geographical
differences that can be traced in Australia. That I do
not agree with Prof. Frazer's views as to group marriage,
etc., and with all his conclusions referring to prehistoric
times, hardly needs to be pointed out, and does not affect
the importance for my argument of his splendid collection
and exposition of facts. Especially the two passages from
Grey, quoted by Prof. Frazer _in extenso_, which had
escaped my attention, are very valuable. They show that
on the coast, where the soil is more fertile, the natives
lived in larger bodies.

It may be mentioned that in places where, and times when, plenty of food was available, large numbers of natives gathered, but only temporarily, _e. g._ when a whale was stranded, or the Bunya-Bunya nuts were ripe, etc.[459] But as the major part of the continent is arid, we must suppose that the usual mode of living was in very small groups of one to three families; these groups being in exceptional cases regular local groups, in the majority of cases merely portions of them.

[459] Tom Petrie, _Reminiscences_, chap. i. Besides,
compare gatherings at initiation. R. H. Mathews, _Proc.
R.S.N.S.W._, 1904, pp. 114-123. _Science of Man_, xi.,
1910, p. 192. Bunya-Bunya gatherings.

Let us briefly examine whether this general assumption contradicts any other features of Australian tribal life. If we consider their modes of procuring food, we find that the women had to go in search of roots, grubs, etc., in short do purely collecting work. It is obvious that this kind of work is never done well in big bands. On the other hand it is probable that one woman alone would be afraid to go on remote wanderings. The most favourable unit would be a group of two to three women with their children. The men hunted their game also in rather small groups. There do not seem to be any collective methods of hunting. The kangaroo was perhaps tired out by the common effort of several men. For the hunting of the smaller game, which was practically also a kind of searching, it would be rather unfavourable to go out in big parties. Considerations of an economic order, therefore, give no reason for discarding our assumption; on the contrary it is corroborated by them. To the question whether for security's sake the aborigines would not be compelled to aggregate, we must also return a negative answer. War was not the normal condition of the Australian blacks.[460] And I have not been able to find any statement of collective methods of organized defence.

[460] Compare G. C. Wheeler, _loc. cit._, p. 161, and chap. ix.
on War, pp. 148 _sqq._

To sum up our results in a few words: the territorial division points only exceptionally and problematically, even in these exceptional cases, to possession of land by single families. The territorial unit, called by us Local Group, although varying in its extent according to the locality, appears to consist usually of several families. But these families in their turn live usually either in one smaller group, numbering two or three families or, exceptionally, one only. In more fertile tracts, near big rivers and fertile coastal districts, the number of families living in permanent contact appears to be greater; in the extensive arid areas the number of families grouped together seems to be rather small.

II

The second part of our problem must now be faced: whenever there is a certain number of families aggregated (permanently or temporarily), what are the features of their social contact in daily life? What are their dwellings? Do they belong to several families or only to one? Are there any rules of camping, or do they camp quite promiscuously? And if there are any customary rules, of what status are they the expression? Besides the answers to these questions, we shall find also that there are rules for occupying the huts, for eating, etc. In general, all our questions will tend to elucidate whether there is a quite unlimited, promiscuous social contact among the members of an aggregate, or whether there are facts pointing to the isolation and separation of the individual families. Undoubtedly there is a difference between aggregation which is merely temporary and that which is permanent; we shall try to find traces of this difference indicated in the statements. These latter are not very rich in information. The facts themselves seemed perhaps to the majority of our informants much too commonplace and unimportant. But we owe to some of the deeper and more conscientious observers highly interesting details in this connection. More especially this remark applies to Howitt and some of his correspondents. We begin with these statements.

_Statements._--We have a clear and detailed description of the
mode in which a camp was disposed amongst the Kurnai as well as
of the mode in which a hut was inhabited in this tribe.[461] As a
rule each hut was inhabited by a man and his wife. Even if some
families[462] were closely related,[463] a certain distance was
kept between their camps, which increased as the consanguinity
diminished.[464] A man's parents could occasionally sleep with
him and his wife in the same hut. But his sister-in-law or his
brother would not sleep in the same hut.[465] We see, therefore,
that each married couple occupied a separate hut, and that even
near relatives would not be admitted, especially if sexual jealousy
were possible. In the hut "custom regulates the position of the
individual. The husband and wife would sleep on the left-hand
side of the fire, the latter behind it, and close behind her the
children; nearest to them the little boy, if any, next to him the
little girl";[466] bigger children camped separately. We shall find
this statement confirmed by another set of facts. Similar rules
and customs applied as well to the Maneroo aborigines of New South
Wales (Murring)[467] as to the Wurunjerri[468] of East Victoria.

[461] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 208-210, and _Nat.
Tr._, pp. 773-776.

[462] I use the word family only in the sense of a man, his
wife or wives, and their offspring before reaching puberty.

[463] As in the example; _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 209.

[464] See this example and diagram in _Nat. Tr._, p. 774.

[465] _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 209, 210, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 774.

[466] _Idem_, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 774, 775. Compare _Kam. and
Kurn._, p. 209.

[467] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 210.

[468] _Nat. Tr._, p. 775.

Amongst the Gournditsh-Mara Tribe (Lake Condah, West Victoria)
"each family camped by itself." During the meals "each wife was ...
obliged to sit beside her own husband," and not "near any other
man unless her husband sat between them."[469] It is a statement
pointing to isolation of females from sex jealousy. We shall meet
in the future with a few statements referring to the way in which
meals are taken.

[469] Rev. Stähle in _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 277, 278.

Customs pointing to the isolation of families, on the ground of
sex jealousy are referred to by Curr.[470] "A woman never sat in
a mia-mia (hut) in which there was a man, save her husband; she
never conversed nor exchanged words with any man except in the
absence of her husband and in reply to some necessary question,"
and only from a distance. Women had "no communication with persons
of the opposite sex except little boys." From the paternal hut,
where they lived, "their brothers of eight or ten years of age
were excluded at night." And again, "among the Bangerang and other
tribes I have known, each married couple had their own mia-mia, or
hut."[471] These statements are quite clear. They coincide with the
majority of our information. What is important and will interest
us further in detail is the fact that boys at the age of about ten
were excluded from the paternal hut. Females were given away about
the same age, so that we may say that only small children remained
with their parents. "The bachelors had one (hut) in common."[472]

[470] _Recollections_, p. 250, refers to the Bangerang
tribe. Compare also _ibid._, p. 256 and _A.R._, i. pp. 65,
98, 100.

[471] _Recollections_, p. 259.

[472] Compare _A.R._, i. pp. 109, 110.

Describing the laying of a camp Curr says--

"As they arrived they formed their camps, each family having a fire
of its own some half-dozen yards from its neighbour's."[473]

[473] _Recollections_, p. 133.

From Dawson's description of the aboriginal habitations,[474] we
get a good glimpse into their mode of dwelling. Dawson says they
have either a permanent or temporary habitation, and describes
both. The former _wuurn_ is bigger, and may accommodate about a
dozen persons. But it serves only for the use of one family. "When
several families live together each builds its _wuurn_, facing
one central fire." But even the family, if the children are grown
up, does not live in one party; "the _wuurn_ is partitioned off
into compartments. One of these is appropriated to the parents and
children, one to the young unmarried women and widows, and one to
the bachelors and widowers." Here we see that husband and wife
sleep also quite apart, with their small children. Grown-up but
unmarried male or female children have compartments of their own.
And if they were married they must have had their own separate
camp. The isolation seems to have been amongst these tribes much
less accentuated than amongst the East Victorians, for instance.
Although separated, grown-up children lived in the same habitation,
and even the _wuurns_ of separate families were situated round a
common fire, so that it "appears to be one dwelling." In their
temporary huts the isolation is more pronounced. "While travelling
or occupying temporary habitations each of these parties (parent,
male and female children) must erect separate _wuurns_." Moreover
each family must camp separately. A certain communism of living is
expressed also by the common cooking,[475] although each family has
its basket in which it cooks food.[476]

[474] _Loc. cit._, pp. 10, 11.

[475] _Loc. cit._, pp. 17, 20.

[476] _Ibid._

Eyre's information about the Lower Murray River blacks agrees to a
certain degree with Dawson's statements. "Sometimes each married
man will have a hut for himself, his wives and family, including,
perhaps, occasionally his mother or some other near relative. At
other times, large long huts are constructed, in which from five to
ten families reside, each having their own separate fire."[477] Of
course, here the communism is much greater, although the separation
of the fire circles is still kept. These natives, as well as the
tribes described by Dawson, were in better economic conditions,
and therefore able to adopt sedentary life; they were also more
skilful in the building of huts. The general type of a hut was a
rude shelter of boughs only affording protection against rain.[478]

[477] Eyre, ii. p. 302.

[478] Compare Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 97, and Prof. Frazer,
_Tot. and Exog._, i. pp. 321, 322.

Brough Smyth affirms also perfect order and method in the
arrangement of a camp. "The aborigines do not herd together
promiscuously." If the whole tribe is present the natives are
divided into groups each composed of about six dwellings. "Each
mia-mia (hut) is five or six yards distant from its neighbours."
If there are several "tribes" (groups), each camps in a separate
place, in a position marking whence it came. Each hut has its
separate fire (in opposition to Dawson's statement).[479]

[479] _Loc. cit._, p. 124.

Complete isolation and strict camp rules are stated by
J. Moore-Davis. "Married men each with his family occupying the
centre" of the camp.[480]

[480] Br. Smyth, ii. 318, refers to New South Wales.

A statement quite contrary to nearly all others is given by
Beveridge. He speaks of "the promiscuous manner they have of
huddling together in their loondthals."[481] We need not, however,
take this statement very seriously, as it is given in immediate
connection with another doubtful one, viz. of absolute, even
incestuous, sexual promiscuity.[482] Perhaps the observations were
made on natives who were quite corrupted by contact with white men.
At any rate this statement is directly opposed to all we know about
these two features of Australian aborigines in their natural state
of life. We may therefore discard them as unreliable.[483]

[481] _Loc. cit._, p. 24.

[482] _Loc. cit._, p. 23.

[483] Beveridge seems to have been in long contact with
the aborigines, but he never says in what state of social
decomposition they were. In all he writes, although there
is some interesting information, there may be seen a lack
of accuracy of observation and expression.

Collins writes: "In their huts and in their caves they lie down
indiscriminately mixed, men, women and children together."[484]
This statement is not quite clear, as we do not know whether these
"men, women and children" form one family, or are related, or
whether there is a great number of them, etc. It is also opposed
to what we learnt from Howitt and many others of the customary
order observed in occupying a hut. Besides, Collins had under
his immediate observation blacks hanging round the town of Port
Phillip, demoralized and degenerate; their females seem to have
been already addicted to prostitution.[485] They were no longer in
their primitive state; and all observations, especially relating to
their mode of living, which changes immediately with the conditions
of life, must be accepted with caution. I do not consider this
statement any more reliable than that of Beveridge which I
discarded. From other passages where he speaks of the small inland
huts "affording shelter to only one miserable tenant,"[486] and the
larger huts on the sea-coast, "large enough to hold six or eight
persons," we might infer that there was room only for one family in
each hut. Here also we read that the coastal tribes, which probably
had a better food supply and led a more sedentary life, had larger
and better-built huts.

[484] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 555.

[485] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 560 and _passim_.

[486] _Loc. cit._, p. 555.

We read concerning the Turra tribe of South Australia[487]: "In
camping, the place of the parents is to the right-hand side of
their son's camp; the brother to the left side; sister-in-law to
the right side or near his father's. In the camp the husband sleeps
at the right hand of the fire, his wife behind him, and her young
children behind her." This, less detailed than Howitt's statement,
corroborates it to the full. We see that each camp is occupied
exclusively by a married couple and their small children; and
that inside the hut as well as in the configuration of the camp
there is a strict customary order. It is important to notice that
these statements, reporting strict camp rules and referring to
tribes scattered over a great area (Victoria, New South Wales and
South Australia) are given by very reliable authorities, and that
Howitt at least gathered them by collecting information about the
ancient customs of the Kurnai and Murring from old natives; using,
therefore, the only correct method. They refer, therefore, to old
customs, which probably were no longer observed in the tribes
spoilt and demoralized by contact with settlers. Much weight is to
be ascribed, therefore, in this matter to the information of Howitt
and his correspondents.

[487] Rev. W. J. Kühn in _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 287.

Schürmann states shortly: "Each family occupies a separate hut;
and, if there be any unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of
their own."[488]

[488] Woods, p. 222.

Henderson says about the New South Wales natives, "Each family has
its own gunya and fire."[489]

[489] _Loc. cit._, p. 109.

George Barrington observes that among the Port Jackson natives each
hut was occupied by one family.[490]

[490] _Loc. cit._, p. 82.

When the families who formed a "tribe" (= local group?) meet "each
family has its own fire and provides its own substance."[491]
In the description of his travels Dawson tells us that when the
native party was joined by a stranger with his wife the latter did
not approach the other men, but slept alone by herself at a small
fire.[492] This points to the fact that a married woman normally
never slept in the immediate neighbourhood of any other man but her
own husband.

[491] R. Dawson, p. 327. Port Stephens Blacks.

[492] _Loc. cit._, p. 249.

Spencer and Gillen affirm, again, the complete isolation of
families who, according to them,[493] normally roam scattered on
the territory of the local group. "Each family, consisting of a
man and one or more wives and children, occupies always a mia-mia,
which is merely a lean-to of shrubs, so placed as to shield the
occupants from the prevailing wind." This statement is perfectly
clear, and we may fit it into the general picture we drew from all
the other evidence.

[493] _Nat. Tr._, p. 18.

Among the natives of Central Australia (probably of the Arunta
nation) a married woman "may speak to any but the young men."[494]
Thus she is practically excluded from any intercourse with them.

[494] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 183 (W. H. Willshire in Prof.
Frazer's _Questions_).

Among the natives of Moreton Bay the conjugal relation is
maintained by them "with great decency and propriety, every family
having its separate hut and fire."[495]

[495] J. D. Lang, _loc. cit._, p. 337.

A very clear and concise statement is given on this point by the
Rev. J. Mathew, referring to the Kabi and Wakka tribes. "The
family, consisting of husband and wife, or wives, with their
children, constituted a distinct social unit. They occupied
the same gunya (dwelling), they ate together, they travelled
together."[496] After having described the construction of the hut
he adds: "This sufficed for a family. The dwellings were placed a
little distance apart, facing in the same direction, and each had
its own small fire in front."[497]

[496] _Loc. cit._, p. 153.

[497] _Loc. cit._, p. 84.

Roth says about the tribes of North-West Central Queensland: "The
husband sleeps in the same gundi as his wives."[498] The way of
taking meals is not quite uniform among all tribes observed by
this writer. At Cape Bedford "members of one family take their
meals together, except the single young men (above puberty),
who dine apart." In another tribe (Tully River) "each family
dines by itself." On the contrary, "on the Bloomfield River men,
boys and girls (up to four or five years of age) dine together;
all the other females ... mess apart."[499] Among the natives
of Koombana Bay, "in the family, the man, women and children
dined together."[500] There are three kinds of huts among the
North Queensland tribes: the simple shelter of boughs; a hut
built somewhat more carefully against rain; and a hut built for
protection against cold, this hut, being of course, the most
elaborate.[501] From the description of these huts we may infer
that they were occupied each by one family only.

[498] _Eth. Stud._, p. 182, § 327.

[499] Bull. iii. p. 7.

[500] _Proc. R.S.Q._, p. 48.

[501] _Eth. Stud._, §§ 159, 160, 161, pp. 105-107.

The isolation of families caused by the jealousy of the husband is
plainly stated by Grey: "He cannot, from the roving nature of their
mode of life, surround his wives with the walls of a seraglio,
but custom and etiquette have drawn about them barriers nearly
as impassable. When a certain number of families are collected
together, they encamp at a common spot, and each family has a
separate hut or perhaps two. At these huts sleep the father of the
family, his wives, the female children who have not yet joined
their husbands, very young boys[502] and occasionally female
relatives; but no males over ten years of age may sleep in family
huts. They have got their own separate encampment."[503] If any
strangers are present with their wives, they sleep in their own
huts, placed amongst the married people. If they are unmarried
or without wives "they sleep at the fire of the young men."[504]
"Under no circumstances is a strange native allowed to approach the
fire of a married man."[505] Their huts being so scattered over a
rather large area, their conversation is held by means of a loud
chant.[506] It must be remembered that Grey asserts in several
places the great and vigilant jealousy of the natives.[507]

[502] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 252.

[503] _Ibid._

[504] _Ibid._

[505] _Loc. cit._, pp. 252, 253.

[506] _Loc. cit._, p. 253.

[507] _Loc. cit._, pp. 242, 253, 255.

Bishop Salvado, who speaks also of the great jealousy of the
males and the fidelity exacted from the females,[508] gives us
the following account of their mode of camping: "Lorsqu' une
famille se dispose à dormir, les garçons qui ont passé l'âge de
sept ans dorment seuls, autour du feu commun, les plus petits
avec le père, et les enfants à la mamelle, aussi bien que les
filles, quel que soit leur âge, avec la mère. Les femmes
jouissent du droit d'ancienneté, la première dort plus près du
mari, ainsi de suite."[509] Another passage[510] testifies also
that they roam in single families; the reason alleged is easier
food supply.

[508] _Loc. cit._, p. 279.

[509] _Loc. cit._, p. 280.

[510] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 317.

We read in Browne that one hut holds only two or three persons.[511]

[511] _Loc. cit._, p. 448.

The general inference to be drawn from these twenty-four statements is, roughly speaking, that the general features of native camp arrangements were orderliness, fixed rules, isolation of families, settled and restricted social contact, and by no means social communism and unregulated social promiscuity.

Five instances give strict rules which obtain in arranging camps. These were probably much more widespread than might be supposed from these few instances. But, as mentioned above, these camp rules would probably fall into abeyance at once when the natives came in contact with civilization. It was only by attentive inquiries that Howitt extracted them from the natives. Besides these we read in fifteen statements that each family camped separately. So that twenty of twenty-four statements assert that there was in this respect complete isolation of the families. Sexual motives played undoubtedly an important part in this isolation. We are told so expressly in several places (Curr, Grey, Salvado, J. D. Lang). In the case of even friendly strangers a certain amount of mistrust--of evil magic as well as of actual bad intentions--may have operated. There are indications of it in statements of Br. Smyth and Grey. But in the detailed examples given by Howitt, where all the camping families are closely related and usually consist of more than one generation (father and sons, etc.), we can hardly conceive that either of the above-mentioned motives would come into play. At any rate this regulated camp order shows how important this question was in the native social life and how strong the idea must have been that each family had its own place apart from the others, and the more remotely related people were, the less intimate contact would be.

The aborigines possess different kinds of huts. Of interest for us is the fact that the majority of them are made to hold only one family. Fourteen statements assert it explicitly or implicitly. In three instances we are told of the existence of larger huts (Eyre, Dawson, Collins). In two of them the separation of families is maintained in spite of the larger dwellings. Only Collins' information is doubtful in this respect.

Within these huts the family camped according to fixed rules. We have five instances given by Howitt and his correspondents, and Bishop Salvado. These rules show clearly that each hut, each fire-place, was reserved for one family, and that this _status_ had its customary form and sanction. There were three instances of separation during meals (Gournditsh-Mara, some of the North-West Central Queensland tribes, and the Kabi and Wakka). In three statements we are told that both sexes separated during meals (Curr, Angas, Roth). What Curr tells us of the marked social separation of families is remarkable; especially in respect to the isolation of the women.[512]

[512] It is well to notice here that the isolation of
families was closely connected with the isolation of both
sexes. The men were in contact only with their wives
and perhaps with their near female relatives. That this
isolation cannot be due to motives of sexual jealousy is
certain; it is in great part due to the dread of evil
magic. But to work out this question would lead us too far.
Compare Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 776, 777.

Two statements were rather in contradiction with our general results: Beveridge's statement of promiscuous huddling and Collins' vague information. We stated our reasons for not giving them much weight, and they cannot outweigh the sum-total of reliable information which is fairly unanimous on this point. It is also in general agreement with the information we gathered on sexual matters as well as with our conclusion as to territorial distribution, and it corroborates our results on both these points. For on the one hand it was found that in normal life there exists individuality of sexual relations; on the other hand the usual scattered mode of living would correspond to a fairly complete isolation in cases of tribal assembly.

Our last considerations have clearly demonstrated how the individuality of the family unit shows itself in the aboriginal mode of living. A single family is normally in contact with a few other families only; sometimes it roams alone over its own area. But even when there are several families living together, the camp rules keep them apart from each other in nearly every function of daily life. The children, who live in intimate contact with their parents in the same hut, must necessarily set them apart from all their (the children's) other relatives. We must assume, therefore, that the individuality of the relation of each child to its actual parents is deeply impressed by all the circumstances of daily life on the child's mind. This assumption is in accord with the information we can gather on this point. But before we begin to look it through, let us discuss the theoretical side of the kinship (or relationship) problem.