Chapter VII: Parents and Children (2)

In other words we may say that our information on the regulation of paternal authority in the few cases where it can come into play is very scanty. Probably there are no rules, or only a few,[751] and the father is more or less free to dispose of his child. But I mentioned some contradictory instances, and I would not lay any stress on that assertion. What appears to be quite clear is that paternal authority does not play any important part in family life; for the parental relation is a _régime_ of love, and not of coercion. And considering that we know very little about the father's authority and only feel sure that it is insignificant, it cannot be reasonably chosen as a determining factor of the paternal relation.

[751] As mentioned above it is impossible to say how far
such rules are legal, _i. e._ laid down and _enforced_ by
society.

From the lack of any chastisement we may infer that the education given by the parents to their children was a very insignificant one, for it is impossible to conceive of any serious education without coercive treatment, especially at that low stage of culture. But as the children are continually with their mother and very often with their father, the parental influence must be of great importance in the questions of the arts of life and of all the knowledge necessary in tribal affairs. We read in several places of the control and educative influence exercised by the mother on her children (Kurnai, Euahlayi, Georgina Blacks, Herbert River tribes, North-West Australian tribes according to Withnell, Salvado). The father makes toys for his children and teaches the boys how to throw the spear, use the boomerang, and so on (Curr on Australians in general; Encounter Bay; Turnbull; Salvado; compare also Dr. Fraser's statement).

Here it must be remembered that education depends still more on another set of facts, namely on the facts of initiation and the secret society formed by all initiated men. The boy's education begins with the moment when he leaves his parents, joins the young men's camp, and begins to undergo a series of initiations. At any rate he begins then to be educated in quite a new order of ideas, initiated into the tribal mysteries, etc. And apparently he has then to submit to a severe _régime_, besides going through the ordeal of initiation itself. It seems, therefore, that the education received by the children in their parents' camp, where they are probably more under the influence of their mother and perhaps of other women who happen to be in the same encampment, that this education is definitive only for the females, who can learn from their mothers all they will want in their future life. For the boys this first education is of secondary importance. All they have learned of the tribal traditions and beliefs--their whole knowledge of the world--is destroyed at the initiation and replaced by a new one. We see, therefore, that the relations between parents and children are limited to a relatively short period; for the girls marry at about ten years of age, and the boys at the same age leave their parental camp and begin a new life. These facts are so important, as characterizing the aboriginal family life, that we must dwell upon them more in detail.

III

The relation of children to their parents undergoes an essential change at the time when the former arrive at puberty. At this time they are removed from their parents' immediate presence and control. The girls marry very early, that is they are very early removed from their parents' camp to that of their husband. Boys have to undergo the initiation ceremonies at about the age when the girls marry, and according to all we know never return any more to their parents' camp. The fact of the early marriage of Australian aboriginal females is well known. The age at which it takes place is stated to be from eight to fourteen years of age; but generally the age of about ten to twelve is alleged.[752]

[752] Curr states it to vary from eight to fourteen, at
various places: _Recollections_, pp. 50, 129, _A.R._, i.
p. 107; Meyer in Woods, p. 190, states it to be from ten
to twelve; Schürmann in Woods, p. 222, at arriving at
puberty; Fraser, p. 2, at a very young age; Eyre, ii.
p. 319, at about twelve years of age; Br. Smyth, i. p. 77,
very early; Spencer and Gillen at from fourteen to fifteen
years of age (_Nat. Tr._, p. 92 and _Nor. Tr._, p. 134);
Withnell, p. 8, at about twelve years of age; Parkhouse,
_A.A.A.S._, vi. p. 641, at arriving at puberty; Grey, ii.
pp. 229, 231, very early.

Very important is also the point which Curr emphasizes, viz. that no girl above about sixteen or widow under about forty-five is left unmarried.[753] So that, according to this statement, practically all women who are marriageable would be married. But this is perhaps in contradiction to a couple of statements we shall meet below, which affirm the existence of a camp of unmarried females. So that this point seems to present some ambiguity. At any rate it seems quite certain that unmarried females are not left long in this state.

[753] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 129.

We know very little as to how far the relations between a girl and her parents cease when she leaves them. Marriage seems to be as a general rule patrilocal; the wife leaves her parents' camp and removes to her husband's. The only exception to this rule will be quoted below (see p. 266). With that, a great part of the parents' influence and contact seem to be necessarily interrupted; for we saw in the discussion on the mode of living that the families camp either separately or in very small groups. And therefore a wife living in her husband's camp would probably not live in the same local group with her parents. And in some cases, where as in the Bangerang the local divisions seem to have been more numerous, or as in the Kurnai the population seems to have been more dense (the local groups living nearer each other), local exogamy prevailed and the girl naturally went away.[754]

[754] Such local exogamy prevailed also in some of the
North Central tribes, viz. in the Warramunga nation, owing
to the local segregation of the two moieties. There the
girl must always marry far away from her natal place.
Compare _Nor. Tr._, pp. 28-30.

Moreover, the mother-in-law taboo obtained well-nigh in all tribes, so that the husband was cut off from contact with his parents-in-law; therefore his wife was to some extent also handicapped in her relations with them. That when the married couple were in the same local group with the wife's parents there were some binding elements and forms of close intercourse between both parties appears in the description given below of the economics of the household. But in all probability the authority of the parents over the girl and the real intimacy of their relations ceased at the moment she was given over to her husband.[755]

[755] Grey, ii. pp. 229, 231, and Parkhouse, _A.A.A.S._,
vi. p. 641.

There is another point connected with marriage and age. We saw that girls marry very early, at the age of about twelve years. The men on the other side do not marry so early. We do not possess very copious information on this point. It is certain that boys were not allowed to marry before they passed the initiation ceremonies. Now these began at puberty, and were extended probably over several years. So it appears, at least, from all the more exact and detailed descriptions we possess of these ceremonies.[756] And it seems that the males had to pass through a whole series of ceremonies before they were allowed to marry. We read in Salvado (p. 277) that it was a crime, severely punished, often by death, for a man to marry below the age of thirty. And he adds that they had a marvellous skill in ascertaining age by means of a series of ceremonies through which every male had to pass. The same is stated by Curr (_A.R._, i. p. 107), viz. that the men seldom marry under thirty. According to some statements from the South-Eastern area boys appear to be allowed to marry younger.

[756] Compare the description of initiation ceremonies in
the works of Spencer and Gillen, Howitt, Roth, and Mathew.

From these few data it appears that males married much later and that consequently there must have been some disparity of age. But this disparity was much greater, owing to the circumstance that the young girls were as a rule allotted to old men, and the boys whenever they were allowed to marry got old _lubras_ as wives. We have a whole series of statements affirming this and reporting the difference of age to be usually about thirty years, if the female was younger; and at any rate stating that there was seldom a couple in which both partners were young. These statements refer to tribes scattered all over the continent, so that disparity of age in marriage seems to be quite a universal feature in Australia.

We may point to the circumstance that this disparity of age stands in connection with the very prevalent form of betrothal, viz. the promising of a girl in infancy usually to a mature man. Other modes of obtaining wives, as exchange of a daughter for a wife, and levirate, stand also in connection with the disparity of age.

_Statements._--We read in Curr: "The Australian male almost
invariably obtains his wife or wives either as a survivor of a
married brother, or in exchange for his sisters, or later on in
life for his daughters." An old widow often falls to the lot
of some young bachelor.[757] On the other hand young girls are
allotted to old men. "One often sees a child of eight the wife of
a man of fifty." And we read further: "The marriage rules of the
blacks result in very ill-assorted unions as regards age; for it is
usual to see old men with mere girls as wives and men in the prime
of life married to old widows. As a rule women are not obtained by
the men unless they are at least thirty years of age. Women have
very frequently two husbands during their lifetime, the first older
and the second younger than themselves."[758] "I never heard of
a female over sixteen years of age, who, prior to the breakdown
of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites, had not a
husband."[759]

[757] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 107. This is said about the
Australians in general.

[758] _Ibid._, p. 110.

[759] _Ibid._

Speaking again on marriage among the Bangerang, Curr says: "As a
rule, girls would be about twelve or fourteen years of age, and
their husbands-elect some five-and-thirty years older, and already
the lords of one or two spouses." "In this way it happened that one
seldom saw a couple in which both the parties were young."[760]
And further on we read, "Few men under thirty have lubras." But in
the age between fifty and sixty men usually possess two or three
wives. The difference between the spouses is usually twenty years;
sometimes much more.[761]

[760] _Recollections_, p. 129.

[761] _Recollections_, p. 171.

We find the disparity of age in marriage mentioned by Howitt in
several places. So we learn that old men were often betrothed to
young girls among the Wolgal.[762] We read that in Australia old
men secure the young females for themselves.[763] And that young
men obtain for wives some old repudiated wife of one of the old
men.[764] Among the Geawe Gal "girls were affianced to men much
older than themselves."[765] Speaking of the Dieri and other South
Central tribes he says that old wives of old men are handed over to
young boys.[766]

[762] _Nat. Tr._, p. 197.

[763] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 354.

[764] _Trans. R.S.V._ (1888), p. 126.

[765] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 280.

[766] _J.A.I._, xx. p. 55.

Howitt informs us also that no man might marry before duly
initiated; and then the old men of the tribe had to give their
consent.[767] Obviously, therefore, the age at which men could get
married was much later than that in which females were given away.

[767] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.

Eyre found in the tribes with which he was in contact that women of
between thirty and forty years of age were often cast off and given
to young boys.[768] Young girls were often allotted to old men.[769]

[768] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 322.

[769] _Ibid._, p. 319.

Disparity of age is stated also by Angas. Old men get often the
youngest and comeliest women; whilst the old and haggard females
were left for the young men.[770]

[770] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 82 (Murray River tribes).

Among the Encounter Bay tribes the girls "are given in marriage at
a very early age (ten or twelve years)." And as it is very often
the father who exchanges his daughter for a wife, it is evident
that a great disparity of age must prevail.[771]

[771] Meyer in Woods, p. 190.

Mrs. Parker says that among the Euahlayi baby girls were often
betrothed to "some old chap" who might have even already as many
as two or three wives.[772] Whereas quite a young man was often
allotted to an old woman. Age is not a disqualification for a woman
to marry.[773]

[772] _Loc. cit._, p. 55.

[773] _Ibid._, p. 56.

In the Central tribes, owing to the Tualcha Mura institution,[774]
"men very frequently have wives much younger than themselves,
as the husband and the mother of a wife obtained in this way
are usually of approximately the same age."[775] And it may be
remembered that this is the "most usual method of obtaining a
wife."[776]

[774] See above, p. 41.

[775] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 558.

[776] _Nat. Tr._, p. 558.

We are informed that among the tribes near Victoria River
Downs[777] a man may marry at about thirty years of age, and the
older he grows the younger girls he gets. Girls are married on
reaching puberty; and usually to old men; whereas young men often
receive old women.

[777] Northern Territory, South Australia, _J.A.I._, xxiv.
p. 181. In the answers to the _Questions_ of Prof. Frazer.

In the Kabi and Wakka tribes "the elder men had sometimes a
plurality of wives, while the young men had for a long time after
reaching manhood to remain, perforce, single. I never knew a man
to have more than two wives at the one time, and generally one
sufficed. There was no minimum of age for the marriage of girls,
and so it occasionally happened that a child of twelve became the
wife of a man of sixty. I knew a case in point."[778]

[778] Mathew, p. 162. Compare also Lumholtz, _loc. cit._,
p. 192.

"Il est défendu a un Australien ... de se marier avant au moins
vingt-huit à trente ans, et la mort est le châtiment de tout
infracteur de la loi."[779]

[779] Salvado, p. 277; natives of South West Australia.

In the tribes of King George Sound the old men seem partly to
monopolize the young females.[780]

[780] Scott Nind, _loc. cit._, pp. 38, 39.

As we have mentioned above, boys leave their parents' camp to undergo the initiation ceremonies. These latter seem to obtain in all tribes, with a few insignificant exceptions such as the Bidwelli mentioned by Howitt. This is a quite well-known fact. But what is their mode of living during this, in some tribes, rather prolonged period and afterwards, before they marry? They do not live in their parents' camp; and they have not yet their individual settlement. They appear in the great majority of cases to club together, have their own encampment, roam and hunt on their own account, and in general to live a life apart.

_Statements._--Howitt, speaking of the camping rules among the
Kurnai, says that a "'brogan' (a man initiated at the same time,
a comrade, or tribal brother, see _Nat. Tr._, p. 737), although
calling the man's wife 'wife' and she calling him 'husband,' would
have to camp with the young men, if any were there, or else by
himself."[781] And again: "The young men (brewit) and the married
men who have not their wives with them, always encamp together at
some distance from the camps of the married men."[782] "The young
man, or brewit, after his initiation, may be said to have commenced
a life independent, to some extent, of his parents."[783] "He lived
with the other young men, and with those who were initiated with
him, and accordingly his brothers."[784]

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

[782] _J.A.I._, xiv. p. 318.

[783] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 199, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 737.

[784] _Ibid._, and _Nat. Tr._, p. 737.

We read of the Wolgal tribe: "A married man would never stay in
the young men's camp when travelling, unless he were without his
wife, when he would be considered as being single. The married
people and the single young men camp entirely apart."[785] Howitt
mentions further the young men's camp in connection with animal
food division amongst the Ngarigo (Maneroo blacks).[786] That the
bachelors' camp was a rule is confirmed by Howitt's statement that
amongst the Mukjarawaint there was no young men's camp.[787] The
unmarried men seem to have lived with their grandparents.[788]

[785] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 776.

[786] _Ibid._, pp. 759, 760.

[787] _Ibid._, p. 764.

[788] _Ibid._ Compare Roth, _Eth. Stud._, p. 183.

Curr, speaking of the laying out of a native camp in the Bangerang
tribe, says: "the fire of the bachelors ..." is "rather further
off and somewhat isolated from the rest."[789] The same author
says: "Over the girls his (the father's) authority ceased when
they became wives, and after his twelfth year or so the boy was
very little subject to the father."[790] "When eight or ten years
of age he was sent to sleep in the bachelors' camp, when there
was one at hand, with the young men and boys of various ages, his
parents still supplying him with food. In his new home, though no
violence was used, its inmates being all his relatives, the child
gradually became to some extent the fag" of all older and stronger.
In short this was the real school he had to pass through, the most
important moment of which formed the initiation, when he became
_kogomoolga_.[791] "The bachelors, in their camp, cooked each for
himself"[792] (at least the older ones; as for the quite young,
the family provided, according to what we were told above). "The
bachelors had one (hut) in common."[793] Curr also emphasizes the
importance of the training enjoyed by the youths in the bachelors'
camp for the general tribal order.[794]

[789] _Recollections_, p. 133.

[790] _Ibid._, p. 248.

[791] _Ibid._, pp. 250, 253.

[792] _Ibid._, p. 256.

[793] _Ibid._, p. 259.

[794] _Recollections_, p. 252.

J. Dawson says that one partition of a big wuurn "is appropriated
to the parents and children, one to the young unmarried women and
widows, and one to the bachelors and widowers. While travelling or
occupying temporary habitations, each of these parties must erect
separate wuurns."[795] Here the young boys and young unmarried
girls lived with their family, but in separate compartments of
the hut. We are not informed if, when travelling, they formed a
separate group in the encampment.

[795] _Loc. cit._, p. 10; this refers to the West Victorian
tribes.

"Young, unmarried men frequently muster in parties of six or eight,
and make a hut for themselves."[796] In cases when a larger number
of natives are assembled it is required by custom that "all boys
and uninitiated young men sleep at some distance from the huts of
adults."[797]

[796] Eyre, ii. p. 302 (Murray River tribes).

[797] _Ibid._, p. 304.

"Until his fourteenth or fifteenth year he (the boy) is mostly
engaged in catching fish and birds, because already, for some
years, he has been obliged to seek for food on his own account.
Thus he early becomes, in a great measure, independent; and there
is nobody who can control him, the authority of his parents
depending only upon the superstitions which they have instilled
into him from infancy."[798]

[798] Encounter Bay tribes, Meyer, _loc. cit._, p. 187.

A vague but suggestive piece of information as regards our point
is given on the Turra tribe, by the Rev. J. Kühn: Two or three
months after initiation the lad is allowed to marry. But some of
the married men undergo a further operation and become "Willeru";
"after this they are not permitted to go to their wives for two
years."[799] Do they live in a separate camp during these two
years? It is probable, but the statement is not clear enough to be
useful for us.

[799] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 286.

We read about the Port Lincoln tribes: "If there be any young
unmarried men, they sleep apart in a hut of their own."[800] This
statement throws some light on the preceding one: there we had no
mention of any separate camp. But as both these tribes lived quite
close and must have had similar institutions, we may safely assume
that the seclusion from wives which is reported in the foregoing
passage was combined with an independent mode of living, _i. e._
with a bachelors' camp.

[800] Schürmann, _loc. cit._, p. 222.

Teichelmann and Schürmann report that there was a separate hut in
which women dwelt during their period.[801]

[801] In Waitz Gerland, p. 778. That refers probably to
South Australian aborigines in general.

We read in the description of the United States expedition to New
South Wales that the youths have to avoid women from initiation
till marriage and that they have their separate encampment.[802]

[802] Chas. Wilkes, smaller ed., i. p. 225; larger ed., ii.
p. 205.

In the Euahlayi tribe boys go after their seventh year to the
Weedeghal, bachelors' camp.[803]

[803] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 61.

Among the Central tribes (Krichauff Ranges) there is a separate
men's camp and a camp for women, where these latter are confined
during certain periods of their life.[804]

[804] Krichauff, _loc. cit._, p. 78.

We read that among the natives of Finke River (Central Australia)
"separate places are assigned for the unmarried men and for the
single females respectively."[805] The same author reports that
the natives are fond of visits. "The meeting-place is usually the
Tmara-nkanja for the men, _i. e._ the bachelors' camp."[806]

[805] Schultze, _loc. cit._, p. 230.

[806] _Ibid._, p. 234.

In the Arunta tribe the boys "go out with the women as they
searched for vegetable food and the smaller animals," up to the
first initiation ceremony. Afterwards "they begin to accompany the
men in their search for larger" game. At this first initiation they
change also their mode of living; "in the future they must not play
with the women and girls, nor must they camp with them as they have
hitherto done, but henceforth they must go to the camp of the men,
which is known as the Ungunja."[807] Among the Arunta there is a
"special part of the main camp where the men assemble and near to
which the women may not go."[808] It must exist only when a greater
number of natives are assembled,[809] for normally the people roam
scattered over the country. But during these latter periods the
unmarried men lead probably an existence of their own, as they
cannot live with families (compare above mode of living). This
information about the bachelors' camp in the Arunta is not quite
clear, as we see. But all we read points to its existence.

[807] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 215, 216.

[808] See index, p. 656; the Ungunja is mentioned several
times in the text, p. 557 and _passim_.

[809] See Chap. V.

We find the bachelors' camp (Lagerplatz der jungen Männer;
tmarankintja) mentioned by the Rev. E. Strehlow, in connection with
the totemic ceremonies amongst the Arunta.[810]

[810] Part iii. p. 7 and _passim_.

We read about the tribes near Port Darwin: "Children live with
their parents until puberty, when girls become members of their
husband's households, residing sometimes with him, and at other
times at the parental camp."[811] I may add here, that this is the
only example where matrilocal marriage is mentioned in Australia.
Everywhere else we find it stated that the girl removes to her
husband's camp.[812] We read farther that the boys are taken, after
their initiation, "in charge by those whose duty it is to train"
them. "They lived in a large wurley, which would accommodate all
the boys. As a fact ... no boys between seventeen and nineteen are
seen at Port Darwin."[813] Here we are told that there was one big
hut in which all the boys lived; but this seems rather to be an
exception.

[811] T. A. Parkhouse, _loc. cit._, p. 641.

[812] Compare N. W. Thomas, _loc. cit._, p. 16.

[813] _Ibid._, p. 643.

Roth says that children of about seven years of age leave their
parents' camp and go to stay with their grandparents.[814] We
are not informed whether there exists a bachelors' camp in the
North-West Central Queensland tribes; but this statement does
not deny it, for boys are apparently not at once initiated after
leaving their parental camp. Another statement of the same author
about the natives of Koombana Bay (Queensland), affirms it
explicitly: "The younger single males at a certain stage (puberty
and onwards) always had a fire to themselves."[815] And again: "The
grown-up lads sleep together, apart from the others."[816]

[814] _Eth. Stud._, p. 183.

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

[816] _Ibid._, p. 51.

Grey says that strangers visiting a tribe, if unmarried or without
their wives, "sleep at the fire of the young men."[817]

[817] Grey, ii. p. 252.

Bishop Salvado, according to whose information the South-West
Australian natives live in small tribes of six to nine persons,
says that when a family disposes itself to sleep "les garçons
qui out passé l'âge de sept ans dorment seuls autour du feu
commun."[818]

[818] p. 280.

It is stated in two statements above (Dawson and Schultze), that
there were camps of unmarried females as well as of single men.
We may add here two other statements about such camps.[819] In
the Maryborough tribes there were camps of unmarried girls, in
connection with which there was some sexual licence. Similarly in
the North-West Central Queensland tribes,[820] studied by Roth,
single girls lived in groups, under the control of an old man. Such
phenomena would account for the licence of unmarried females, which
we find sometimes reported. But they do not seem to have a very
large extension in the Australian aboriginal society.

[819] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 232, 233.

[820] _N. Q. Eth. Bull._ 8, p. 6.

We see in the first place from this evidence[821] that boys were actually removed from their parents' care and that they acquired a complete independence of their parents on reaching puberty. This is especially mentioned in several of our statements (Kurnai, Bangerang, Lower Murray River tribes, Encounter Bay tribes, Port Darwin tribes). It appears also to result _ipso facto_ from the circumstance that the boys lived in quite a different part of the encampment, and so could not be under the control of their parents. It appears from Curr's and Parkhouse's statements that they even lived in a separate locality. And confronting our evidence concerning the bachelors' camp with what we know about the aboriginal mode of living, it appears also highly probable that if the boys' camp numbered from six to eight inmates (compare Eyre's statement) they must have roamed about in a separate group. We read that in two cases the boys joined their grandparents (Howitt about the Mukjarawaint tribe and Roth). Only the statement of Dawson suggests that boys remained with their parents, and even that, as we saw, does not follow very clearly from this statement.

[821] We have collected here twenty-two statements in which
there are many more tribes included.

We are informed in several places about the mode of living of the lads in their separate camp. They seem to have partly provided their own food and cooked it (Curr). They slept in one big hut (Parkhouse) or round a common fire (Salvado and others). In general they seem to have formed a distinct, separate social unit. This time, spent in the bachelors' camp, was the real time of training (see Curr's statement. Compare Hutton Webster, _loc. cit._, chap. iv. pp. 49-51). They came under the influence of a new authority--the authority of the tribal elders. And, especially during the actual time of initiation, all the wisdom and morality they had to learn was imparted to the young people by the old men of the tribe. Probably there also they formed new acquaintances and relationships besides the family ones in which they were brought up. The institution of bachelors' camp is general among all the Australian tribes. Our evidence is not detailed enough to allow us to trace geographical differences in any particular feature. We may mention here, by the way, that the bachelors' camp of Australia was a form of the widespread institution of the men's-house.[822]

[822] In this connection the bachelors' camp in Australia
is mentioned by Hutton Webster (amongst the Kurnai,
Euahlayi, Arunta and Port Darwin tribes). The author speaks
of it as a symptom of the general principle of separation
of sexes. _Primitive Secret Societies_, pp. 1, 3.

In sum, all these factors give great weight to the facts here discussed; viz. to those of the early marriage of girls and the initiation of boys. We see that these facts take away from the Australian family its patriarchal character. The father's authority is exercised over his children merely during their early childhood, _i. e._ during a period when there is in a general way very little room for the display of any serious authority. Still more, as there was no serious and real training during this time, all education, as far as it was given at all by the father, assumed more the form of play, as we saw above (p. 256); and, as we saw, during that period great leniency towards the offspring was the chief feature of the father's behaviour.[823] When a serious and often harsh training took place, it was not the father's individual authority that enforced it, but the tribal elders'. So we see that our former result is hereby confirmed, viz. that there is no foundation for designing the father's relation to his child as based upon authority or any idea of proprietorship. That applies to a girl as well as to a boy. But in the case of the former we might attribute some meaning to the word property, although it would be rather straining the sense of the word.

[823] On these connections in general compare the
interesting article of Steinmetz, _Zeitschrift f.
Sozialw._, II, pp. 613, 614.

IV

It was seen that on reaching a certain age the children leave their parents' camp and are removed from their control; still the personal, individual bond of kinship is not broken. And although it does not find its expression in facts of daily life, for the children and the parents live apart, yet there are some facts which unmistakably reveal the existence of a strong lifelong affection and attachment between parents and children.

These facts are: real sorrow displayed at the death or funeral of a near relative, and especially that displayed by parents at the death of their children; joy and tenderness shown to children whenever met for the first time after a long absence. Here also must be placed the numerous occurrences in which love was displayed for white men who were recognized as dead relatives. In these cases their supposed parents always displayed the greatest amount of tenderness towards them, and often underwent considerable sacrifices for the sake of helping or even seeing their "children." The close connection between grandchildren and grandparents shows also that there was a near individual tie between the parents of the children and their parents. Let us adduce some statements.

_Statements._--Curr remarks shortly but clearly: "Parental
affection always endured," after the children left their parents
and became practically independent of them.[824]

[824] _Recollections_, p. 248.

A story showing strong filial attachment is told by R. Dawson.
Relating an anecdote, he concludes: "The manner in which Youee
told the story was exceedingly interesting; his lamentations, that
'white pellow' should treat his father so, and the mild complaining
tone in which they were made, thoroughly portrayed his filial
attachment to his father, of whom he said several times, turning
to him with a tone and manner that could not be mistaken, '_Murry_
good wool man! _Murry_ good wool man, massa.'"[825]

[825] R. Dawson, _loc. cit._, p. 312. Pt. Stephens tribes.

A characteristic story, proving paternal affection, is told by
Bonney. An old man was once cut with a tomahawk by his son, a big,
strong man who had fits of madness. "The old man returned to the
camp and with tears in his eyes told me what had happened, and
begged me to assist him to bring back his mad son before he had
perished in the bush."[826]

[826] Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 135. Riv. Darling tribe.

We have also a few statements about the relations between
grandparents and grandchildren. We are informed that among the
Mukjarawaint the grandparents had the exclusive right to decide
whether the child should be killed directly after birth or allowed
to live. In the former case the grandparents had the privilege
of eating the child.[827] We read of the important rôle the
grandmother played in the North Queensland tribes at the naming
of the child,[828] and amongst the Euahlayi at the Betrothal
Ceremony.[829] Amongst the Kurnai also "the name is given by the
paternal grandfather or grandmother, or in default by the mother's
parents."[830]

[827] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, pp. 243, 749.

[828] Roth, _Bull._ V. p. 8.

[829] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 51. Comp. above, p. 40.

[830] Howitt, _Kam. and Kurn._, pp. 190, 191.

A series of interesting instances is told by Fraser. He says,
"Their natural affections are keen; in proof of this I need only
refer to their grief over a dead relative, even though it be a very
young child; they utter loud lamentations and cut and burn the
flesh of their bodies in grief. This expression of grief is not all
artificial or professional like the hired 'ululatus' of the Romans
or the 'keening' of the Irish. That it is genuine on the part of
the near relatives of the deceased I can prove by examples. Jackey,
the 'king' of the Gresford blacks, died and was buried; his mother
could not be induced to leave the spot; she sat there night and
day, refusing food, until one morning she was found dead on his
grave. She was buried beside her son."[831]--"A woman of the Dungog
tribule had a child which was hunch-backed and otherwise deformed;
she carried it on her back for eighteen or nineteen years; it
seemed always no bigger than a child of six or seven years. Her
husband also carried about, for two or three years, a son whose
feet from the ankles had been destroyed by frostbite."[832]--"At
Durham Downs (Queensland), 'king' Brady had a little boy, two years
old, who became helpless from disease; the mother carried him
about with her for many years."[833]--"Then again, the transport
of delight with which Buckley was received by a woman of a local
tribe who believed that this white man was her deceased son come to
life again, is a proof of the strength of natural affection among
them."[834]

[831] J. Fraser, _loc. cit._, p. 44.

[832] _Ibid._

[833] J. Fraser, _loc. cit._, p. 44.

[834] _Ibid._

To this last might be added several other instances where white
people were received with the greatest love and affection by their
"black parents," who believed them to be their dead children. As we
mentioned these examples above (p. 222) in another connection we
merely refer the reader to that place.

Salvado says: "Reprenant la suite de mon récit, je dirai que les
fils adultes payent de retour l'affection de leurs parents. S'ils
sont vieux, ils réservent pour eux les meilleures pièces de gibier,
ou de tout autre mets, et se chargent de venger leurs offenses.
Enfin ils leurs témoignent leur amour au delà de la tombe, en tuant
un ou deux sauvages quand leur père vient à mourir."[835]

[835] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 277.

In the description of mourning and burial it appears in several
places that the "immediate relations," probably in the first
place their own parents and children, have special duties and
obligations. "In the Tongaranka tribe, when a death occurs, the
immediate relations smear themselves with _Kopai_ (gypsum)."[836]

[836] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 451.

"When one of the ... Wiim-baio tribe died ... the relations used
to lie with their heads on the body, and even stretched at length
on the corpse."[837] In the same tribe after a man's death "his
immediate relations cut off their hair and applied to their heads a
paste."[838]

[837] _Ibid._

[838] _Ibid._, p. 452.

In the Chepara tribe "the relations of a dead person for several
months after wore emu feathers, dyed red." "The mother of the
deceased had her nose and all her body painted with stripes of
white pipeclay, and wore red feathers over the whole of her head.
A sister had also her head covered with red feathers, but was
not painted white. After a few weeks the painting was changed to
red, and then was worn by father, mother and sisters for a long
time."[839]

[839] _Ibid._, p. 469.

At Port Stephens "an old couple had an only daughter of whom they
were very fond. She died, and her parents built their hut over
her grave close to the shore of the harbour, and lived there many
months, crying for her every evening at sunset."[840]

[840] _Ibid._, p. 465.

In the description of mourning ceremonies given by Spencer and
Gillen it appears plainly that the rôle of the individual mother
was quite singular and the most important. "The actual mother of
the deceased was painted deeply all over with pipeclay."[841]
"On the way to the grave the actual mother often threw herself
heavily on the ground and attempted to cut her head with a digging
stick."[842]

[841] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 508.

[842] _Ibid._, p. 509.

Also the blood brother plays, apparently, a part different from
that of the tribal ones. "After going a short distance they were
met by a man who was a blood brother of the dead woman, and was
accompanied by a number of his tribal brothers."[843]

[843] _Ibid._, p. 508.

All this evidence, although relatively scanty, shows clearly that the individual relations between parents and children continued to be strong and intimate. This fact also throws light on the character of these relations during early childhood. In this period the bonds were formed, and they must have been formed in a very strong and thorough manner indeed if they lasted so long. This conclusion is of such a general and fundamental character, and the evidence is so scanty, that it would be futile to attempt tracing any geographical distinctions between the different tribes. Like the other general conclusions arrived at in this chapter, it has features common to all the aboriginal tribes of Australia.

We have extremely scanty information concerning the relation between brothers and sisters; and the few hints we possess are very contradictory. Thus Gason says that a brother and sister "would sacrifice their lives for one another if called upon."[844] And Fraser informs us that when a man is sick it is his brother's duty to tend him and carry him about. And the author gives an example in support of this statement.[845] And again we read in Oldfield that a girl, if her mother is dead, "is bound to supply them (her brothers) with food for a certain period; indeed, brothers in general retain the privilege of maltreating their sisters long after these latter became the property of another."[846] On the other hand, Grey states that no "common bond of union" exists between brothers and sisters of the same father.[847] And according to Spencer and Gillen a man may never speak from a near to his younger sister, although he may speak freely to his older one.[848] Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula brothers and sisters were not allowed to converse.[849] In some West Australian tribes the boy was never allowed to speak to his sisters after the initiation ceremony. He had to say farewell to his sisters before he went to the initiation. The "own" brothers and sisters keep apart from each other. And even boys or girls of the same class cannot speak or play together.[850] The first three statements appear to indicate a close individual relationship between brother and sister; the four following seem to deny it again. Recalling to mind what we learned about the relation in question in other connections, we hardly get much help therefrom. The exchange of sisters would point to some ties; but, it is too uncertain a hint. The facts that children are suckled for a long time, and that owing to that and to the practice of infanticide connected with it, the children succeed each other at long intervals, reduce the possibility of close ties between the children of the same parents; especially as they so soon leave the parental camp, and as probably afterwards the intercourse between the sisters and brothers is interrupted (compare statements of Curr and Spencer and Gillen). On the whole we know very little about the relation in question; and we may only conjecture, although with a high degree of probability, that the tie is not a very strong one and does not play an important part in family life; if it were otherwise we probably would know more about it.

[844] _J.A.I._, xxiv. p. 170.

[845] _Loc. cit._, p. 44.

[846] Oldfield, p. 249.

[847] _Loc. cit._, ii. p. 230.

[848] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, p. 89.

[849] Sutton, _loc. cit._, p. 19.

[850] Mrs. D. M. Bates, _loc. cit._, p. 5. The same is
reported by A. L. P. Cameron of the natives of Cooper's
Creek. _Science of Man._ July 1904.