Chapter II: Modes of Obtaining Wives (1)

Keeping to these general methodological principles, the aim of this study will be merely an objective, unprejudiced description of the different forms of the Australian family organization.

In accordance with what has been said above, let us accept at the outset a general definition, along the lines of which our investigations will be carried out. My choice for this purpose is the well-known definition of Dr. Westermarck: "Marriage is a more or less durable connection between male and female, lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." In another place (_Moral Ideas_, ii. p. 364) Dr. Westermarck completes this definition: "As a social institution, on the other hand, it has a somewhat different meaning: it is a union regulated by custom and law. Society lays down the rules relating to the selection of partners, to the mode of contracting marriage, to its form, and to its duration." We may also remember that Dr. Westermarck first pointed out that "marriage is rooted in family, rather than family in marriage"[39]; and that he insists on the importance of economic elements in family life, and especially on the facts of the rearing of children and the mode of living.

[39] (_Hist. H. Marr._, chap. iii.) Dr. Westermarck's work
was written on much more general lines. He did not aim at
a purely morphological reconstruction of family life in
any ethnographical province. I did not, therefore, refer
to his researches in the methodological sketch; here,
however, they must serve as a starting point. It is the
most exhaustive treatise on the individual family; all the
essential parts of the problem are sketched in a masterly
manner in this fundamental work, and the outlines of more
special investigation indicated.

These remarks of Dr. Westermarck, corroborating what has been said in the introduction, direct our analysis to the relationship between parents and children as well as between the conjugal parties; resolving thus the marriage problem into the more general family problem. On the other hand, Dr. Westermarck, in these short passages quoted, as well as throughout his work, insists on the general and sociological aspect of family life. We shall try to apply his points of view systematically to our Australian material, keeping in mind the addition of the legal side of the question.

As each relationship is intended to be separately treated, let us begin with that of man and wife, and especially with its "legal" aspect. The first point for discussion will be the modes of obtaining wives. In this the search will be for elements, that enforce _ipso facto_ the validity of marriage; there will probably be found in them the expression of some collective ideas, referring to the validity, moral or customary sanction, that marital union enjoys in the eyes of the native. It is also highly important for the whole question of marriage and family to ascertain whether the modes of obtaining wives are subject to any norm, compliance with which was enforced by an active intervention of society in some form. Such norms, according to the definition given above, would be legal ones, and they, necessarily, involve and presuppose a series of collective ideas, the knowledge of which would afford a deep insight into the primitive social mechanism.

Betrothal or marriage ceremonies that would express a sanction of purely social or even _mystic_ or moral character are few, although not quite absent. Nevertheless the widespread practice of allotting young girls even in infancy, or before birth sometimes, shows _ipso facto_ how deeply rooted the idea of the individual right of a man to a woman is in the native mind. Also in the case when wives are obtained by elopement or capture, there are certain ordeals, formalities or duties, that give to such a marriage its social sanction.

The following statements it will be seen present but little field for correction. What we are asking for in this place are merely facts which are evident and palpable enough not to escape the attention of even ordinary observers. Only the betrothal ceremonies and acts seem to have been more esoteric, and therefore they are reported in only a few cases, where the authors were more intimately acquainted with native customs and ideas.

_Statements._--Amongst the Kurnai marriage was brought about
generally by elopement; sometimes by capture; and less frequently
by exchange or by gift.[40] In cases of elopement "the male
relatives searched for her (the fugitive), sometimes with success,
sometimes without success. If the couple could remain away till
the girl was with child ... she would be forgiven."[41] Otherwise,
if found, she was badly chastised, and the man had to fight her
relatives. If they should persevere in their plans and elope two or
three times ... they would be forgiven.[42] The Kurnai are the only
people among whom elopement was the general rule. The punishment
was there accordingly not very severe, and the marriage legalized
in case of perseverance, or if the couple were skilful enough not
to allow themselves to be soon caught.

[40] Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 343. See also their
modes of getting females by capture. Compare pp. 200 _sq._
and pp. 348 _sq._

[41] p. 202.

[42] _Ibid._

J. Bulmer, Lake Tyers, Gippsland, says that among the
Gournditch-Mara the majority of wives were obtained by exchanging
a sister or a near relative. Elopement was always followed by
bloodshed.[43] "Marriage was by betrothal of children by their
respective parents, therefore by exchange of sisters," says
Howitt[44] of the same tribe.

[43] In Brough Smyth, i. p. 77. Compare also Howitt,
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350.

[44] _Nat. Tr._, p. 249.

Exchange of sisters (own or tribal) was practised by the Youin;
the marriage being arranged by the fathers; there was a mutual
public agreement between them. "The two being thus promised to
each other, the girl is looked upon as the future wife of the
boy." In cases of elopement, if there was a baby the marriage
was legalized, especially if a sister (tribal or own) could be
given in exchange.[45] Here we may note that the arrangement was
made publicly, during one of the tribal gatherings. The future
brothers-in-law exchange gifts, and on the day of the arrangement
keep ostentatiously the whole time together. Thus the whole affair
was known to everybody and had a sort of tribal approval.

[45] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 263 264. Compare also _Trans.
R.S.V._, p. 117.

Among the Woeworung girls were promised in infancy. The arrangement
was entered into by the respective fathers, then made public.
The old men of the tribe had to decide when the girl was to be
handed over to her husband. There was a kind of betrothal ceremony
consisting in a public giving up of the bride to the bridegroom.[46]

[46] Howitt in _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.

In the Bangerang tribe "wives were obtained by the exchange of
females with any other tribe; so that a man who had a daughter,
exchanged her for a wife, for himself or his son, as he thought
proper." The custom of exchange of females was a check on abusive
cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband. A Black said once to
Curr, "If he beats my sister, I'll beat my wife."[47]

[47] Curr, _Recollections_, p. 248.

In the Victorian tribes described by Beveridge, girls were usually
exchanged. It was the father who had to dispose of his girl;
there was no betrothal ceremony. Only the woman was bound by the
marriage; the man could always send her away.[48]

[48] Beveridge, p. 22.

Amongst the South-west Victorian tribes "parents betroth their
children when just able to walk."[49] The arrangement was carried
out by the respective fathers. As a sign the boy's father gives
the girl an opossum rug, shows her attention, and gives her
"nice things to eat." The girl's father visits sometimes her
intended husband. "No marriage or betrothal is permitted without
the approval of the chief of each party."[50] The girl's mother
and aunts must not look at her intended husband from the moment
of betrothal.[51] In cases of elopement against the wishes of
parents fights take place. A second elopement makes the marriage
lawful.[52] Exchange of sisters exists also, with consent of
chiefs. The ceremony of betrothal is described at length by the
same author.[53] The bride and the bridegroom are painted and
specially dressed. Food is stored for the purpose, as feasting and
amusement accompany the ceremony. The chief is present and gives
his consent. Two months after the betrothal the two do not sleep
alone, but with the bridemaid and brideman. The alleged approval
of the chief in this statement would be interesting, but here we
may mistrust our author, for the general information about the
chiefs, their power, etc., seems to be not quite correct (see Curr,
_A.R._, i. p. 53). Besides, the whole style of the book is not
strictly scientific, and shows signs of literary embellishments.
We must also attach some caution to the detailed description of
the betrothal ceremony. It is the only account of a detailed and
elaborate ceremony of this kind, with feasting, chief, abstinency,
etc. Interesting and important as it is, we may attribute it to
local exception, but we cannot consider it as established beyond
doubt.

[49] J. Dawson, p. 28.

[50] _Ibid._, p. 28.

[51] _Ibid._, p. 29.

[52] _Ibid._, p. 34.

[53] _Loc. cit._, p. 31.

Amongst the Wotjobaluk (S. Victoria) girls were exchanged in
infancy by the elder brother. The father's consent was essential:
he could also dispose otherwise of his daughter. The marriage
arrangements and agreements were publicly made at large tribal
gatherings.[54]

[54] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 241. Also _Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 116.

Stanbridge says that "females are generally betrothed in early
infancy," either to friends, or to those whose friendship is
solicited. Although the father decides when she has to be given
away, "the bridegroom is sure of obtaining his bride, as the honour
of the family and of the tribe is considered to be involved in the
fulfilment of the betrothal." In case of subsequent elopement it
is the duty of the family to chastise the guilty pair.[55] This
statement is not quite clear, inasmuch as we scarcely understand
how the mediæval idea of honour is to be applied to Australian
Blacks. Probably it means that the family and local group of the
girl have some reason to keep the promise; whether this reason be
of magical, legal, or customary character is an open question. But
inferring by analogy we may say that all these factors are coercive
here, as in the other tribes. The family must also support the
husband in case of elopement.

[55] _Loc. cit._, p. 288. (Mount Gambier tribes.)

"Whenever a female child was promised in marriage to any man, from
that very hour neither he nor the child's mother were permitted
to look upon or hear each other speak, nor hear their names
mentioned by others; for, if they did, they would immediately grow
prematurely old and die." This statement refers to the Jajaurung
tribe of Victoria.[56]

[56] Brough Smyth, ii. p. 156, on the authority of some
first-hand observer. Brough Smyth gives also (i. pp. 83,
84) a detailed account of courtship and betrothal. But
according to our criterion we do not accept it as a
first-hand evidence; nevertheless, it may be useful as
illustration.

"Female children are betrothed usually from early infancy, and
such arrangements are usually adhered to," with rare exceptions.
Exchange of sisters is commonly practised, but the parents' consent
is essential. "If a wife be stolen, war is always continued until
she is given up, or another female exchanged." These statements
refer to the Lower Murray and Adelaide tribes.[57]

[57] Eyre, ii. p. 319.

There is a very plain and primitive form of betrothal, performed
by the "principal old man in the camp" amongst the Lower Darling
natives. They usually exchange sisters, and girls are promised in
infancy.[58]

[58] F. Bonney, _J.A.I._, xiii. p. 129.

Among the Parkengee tribe of the Darling River, "A brother had the
right of giving away his sister, which he usually did with a view
to his own matrimonial interests. They were in this way promised
when quite children, and in the event of the death of the claimant,
his nearest of kin became possessed of his rights."[59] This means
that levirate was valid in case of betrothal.

[59] S. Newland, _loc. cit._, p. 21.

Exchange was the chief feature of the Narrinyeri marriage.
Sometimes the father, usually the brother, disposed of the girl.
There is a simple ceremony, consisting in a formal handing over
of the bride, who seems usually to be rather unwilling.[60] It is
a social disgrace for a girl not to be given away; if she goes by
herself and lives by her own choice with a man, she is "regarded
as very little better than a prostitute."[61] A woman is supposed
to signify her consent to the marriage by carrying fire to her
husband's wurley and making his fire for him.[62]

[60] H. E. A. Meyer, quoted by Rev. Taplin, _loc. cit._,
p. 10.

[61] _Ibid._, p. 11.

[62] _Ibid._, p. 12. Taplin's own remark. See also
_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 350, where it is added that in
cases of unsuccessful elopement against the parents' will,
the couple were severely punished; the offender being even
put to death.

Among the natives of Yorke's Peninsula, "Betrothal took place in
infancy, and the marriage ceremony after circumcision and other
rites performed on the male."[63]

[63] Sutton, p. 17.

"In the Geawe Gal tribe marriage was ordinarily by the gift[64] of
the woman and by consent of both fathers ... and would be arranged
years before the time of marriage." In cases of elopement the
offender had to fight the female's relatives; he retained her only
if victor. In cases of capture, only a woman of the right class
could be retained.[65]

[64] I think it means not by exchange.

[65] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 216. Geawe Gal, Hunter River,
New South Wales; possessing the Kamilaroi sub-class. See
also _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 250.

In New South Wales marriage was arranged by the parents. If two
people fell in love, they eloped, but if the family applied to the
camp council, the latter would interfere and punish the culprit.[66]

[66] G. S. Lang, p. 11.

Henderson says that among the Blacks of New South Wales abduction
always arouses fights.[67] Using legal terms, this means that
abduction of a woman, whether married or not, was considered a
crime.

[67] _Loc. cit._, p. 110.

Of the courtship in some of the New South Wales tribes we have
an account by J. Turnbull: "When a young man sees a female to
his fancy, he informs her she must accompany him home; the lady
refuses; he not only enforces compliance with threats, but blows:
thus the gallant, according to the custom, never fails to gain the
victory, and bears off the willing though struggling pugilist."[68]
In the following context the author asserts that violence is here a
mere formality. It is difficult to say anything definite about this
statement. If it refers merely to the final marriage "ceremony"
it might be accepted. But if it is to be accepted as describing
all that refers to marriage, it is obviously false. The author
was a "circumnavigator," and in his voyage round the world, about
the year 1800, had probably little opportunities for observing
the Australian aborigines. Such statements as this, uncritically
accepted (as this is, _e. g._ in Waitz-Gerland), are usual sources
of error in ethnology and hence in sociology.

[68] Turnbull, pp. 98, 99.

In some other New South Wales tribes "the ceremony of marriage is
peculiar. In most cases the parties are betrothed at an early age,
and as soon as they arrive at the proper age, the young man claims
his 'gin' or wife."[69] "The women are considered as an article of
property, and are sold or given away by the parents or relatives
without the least regard to their own wishes."[70] The well-known
elements of infant betrothal, and a kind of purchase of a female
from her family, are contained in this statement.

[69] Wilkes (smaller edition), i. p. 225.

[70] _Ibid._

According to another author, who has written about the New South
Wales tribes, the girls are given away at a corroboree. Sometimes
they are "stolen," but then fights always ensue.[71] This statement
contains the feature of publicity of marriage. It does not say
anything about the conditions preceding such a public allotment.

[71] Hodgkinson, _loc. cit._, pp. 229, 230.

According to Tench, capture was the prevalent form in which
marriage was brought about in the Port Jackson tribes.[72] Tench
was in very early times at the settlement, but being a military man
and making only a short stay, he hardly had very good opportunities
of observing the natives. His statement cannot outweigh all the
contrary ones.

[72] _Loc. cit._, p. 199.

The statement of Barrington, who says that among the Port Jackson
natives blows are the usual mode of courtship and that they are
well accepted as a token of tenderness,[73] can only be understood
if we accept these facts as a kind of pretended marriage by
capture. But much importance cannot be attached to it.

[73] _Loc. cit._, p. 168.

Amongst some tribes in the neighbourhood of Sydney[74] small
children are betrothed, and as a sign of that the girl wears a
necklace. In another place[75] the same author says that marriage
by capture occurs.

[74] C. P. Hodgson, p. 220.

[75] _Ibid._, p. 243.

Among the tribes of the South-east coast of New South Wales
(Hawkesbury River to Cape Howe) the "marriages are regulated by
a system of betrothal." "The old men assemble in council," and
establish the relation of _Nanarree_ between a boy and a girl or
woman. The boy then marries eventually the woman's daughter. The
_Nanarree_ couple "theoretically occupy the position of son-in-law
and mother-in-law." They are tabooed to each other. A man and woman
may be _Nanarree_ to several individuals.[76]

[76] R. H. Mathews in _J.R.S.N.S.W._, xxxiv. pp. 263, 264.

We read of an instance of a formal betrothal (called _Bahumul_),
although meagre in its ceremonial, among the Euahlayi tribe. A
baby girl is destined by her parents to be "given to a man." She
is brought to him, some feathers are taken off the baby's head
and put on the man's. Her grandmother says, "Look at him and
remember him, because you are promised to him." "That makes it
a formal betrothal, binding to both sides." "I have heard great
camp rows, because girls made a struggle for independence, having
found out they had only been promised, not formally betrothed, to
some old chap whom they did not wish to marry." Here we meet with
an instance of a formality, which has in itself much more than a
simple promise, that is "binding for both sides."[77]

[77] Mrs. Parker, _loc. cit._, p. 55.

Amongst the Wiradjuri the girl was promised in infancy and sisters
were exchanged.[78]

[78] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 211.

Amongst the Dieri the individual or _Tippa Malku_ marriage was
established when girls were quite young, and upon the basis
of exchange, the decision lying in the hands of the mother's
brother. In another place we read that the _Tippa Malku_ marriage
was brought about sometimes also by the council of old men.[79]
_Pirrauru_ "wives" were allotted by the council of old men.[80] In
cases of elopement the offender was pursued by the kindred.[81]

[79] Howitt, _J.A.I._, xx. p. 55, and Frazer, _ibid._,
xxiv. p. 169.

[80] Howitt, _N.T.S.E.A._, p. 177, and _J.A.I._, xx. pp. 57
_sq._

[81] _Kam. and Kurn._, p. 350.

The German missionary, L. Schultze, informs us about the Central
tribes that "the betrothal is solely and absolutely arranged by the
father of the girl. He promises and contracts his daughter, within
the limits of the class, to whomsoever he pleases." "A youth cannot
select a bride for himself, or a girl a bridegroom." "The betrothal
is often made by the father, soon after the girl is born, from
mercenary motives," for the future son-in-law is obliged to hunt
and provide his father-in-law with food.[82]

[82] _Loc. cit._, p. 236.

We are informed about the Central tribes that "girl-stealing is not
a trifling matter." Fights always ensue as the result of it.[83]

[83] W. H. Willshire, _loc. cit._, p. 27.

By the detailed data given by Spencer and Gillen[84] we get a
good insight into the legal and customary side of the modes of
obtaining wives amongst the Central tribes of the Arunta nation.
Methods of securing a woman are (_a_) charming by means of magic,
(_b_) capture, (_c_) elopement, (_d_) the custom of _Tualcha-Mura_,
by means of which a man secures a wife for his son by making an
arrangement with some other man, with regard to the latter's
daughter. The legal side of the first method is shown by the fact
that a man's right to a woman, secured by means "of magic, is
supported by the men of his own local group."[85] Capture is the
"very rarest way in which a Central Australian secures a wife." If
captured by an avenging party, the woman must be lawfully allotted
to one of the men (who has exclusive right to her afterwards).[86]
There is an accompanying ceremony, and the decision lies in the
hand of an old man, the leader of the party.[87] In cases of
elopement there was always a fight, sometimes between the two
parties only, sometimes their local groups taking part. There
were some (tribal) relatives having a special duty of supporting
the eloper. Sometimes the aggrieved husband will consent to hand
over the wife; the offender has then an ordeal to undergo.[88] "The
fourth and most usual method of obtaining a wife is that which is
connected with the well-established custom" of _Tualcha-Mura_.[89]
This is a relation between a man and his mother-in-law[90]
established by a simple ceremony,[91] and it signifies that the man
has the right to take as wife the daughter of the woman. In this
way "practically every man in the tribe is provided with at least
one woman to whom he is lawfully entitled."[92] He has a definite
right over her; he may waive it or exchange it for another right
over his mother-in-law's son.[93] He stands in a definite relation
to his _Tualcha-Mura_ (mother-in-law); receives her hair to make
his hair girdle,[94] and may not speak to her. He has the duty of
providing his father-in-law with food, which is a condition for the
obligations to be kept.[95] It is seldom that these obligations
are broken; and if the parents give the girl to someone else,
the latter is sure to have to undergo a struggle with the former
fiancé.[96] All this holds good also in respect to the Northern
Central tribes.[97] There, too, "as a general rule women are
obtained quite peacefully by the system of betrothal."[98]

[84] Spencer and Gillen, _Nat. Tr._, chap. xvii, _Methods
of obtaining Wives_, pp. 554 _sqq._ Compare also _Nor.
Tr._, pp. 32 and 33.

[85] Compare also the detailed description of charming by
magic (different methods) given by J. Gillen in _Proc.
R.G.S.S.A._, iv. pp. 25 _sqq._

[86] No other man of the party having any access to her.
_Nat. Tr._, p. 556.

[87] _Nat. Tr._, p. 555. The story related in this place is
given by the author as an illustration of a general custom.

[88] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 556, 557. The story told, pp. 557,
558, where both the eloped woman and her actual husband
have an ordeal to submit to from the former husband. After
having renounced her in this way she became the property of
the man with whom she had eloped.

[89] _Ibid._, p. 558.

[90] Who is often of the very same age as he, pp. 558, 559.

[91] _Ibid._, p. 559.

[92] _Ibid._, 554. As also _Nor. Tr._, p. 33.

[93] _Ibid._, p. 559.

[94] _Nat. Tr._, p. 559.

[95] _Ibid._, p. 555.

[96] _Ibid._, p. 560.

[97] _Nor. Tr._, p. 77.

[98] _Ibid._, p. 33.

Among all the tribes, described by Spencer and Gillen, there
seem to be some marriage ceremonies.[99] In their first work
(_Nat. Tr._) these authors describe such ceremonies among nine
tribes.[100] In the main these ceremonies consisted of a ritual
defloration of the girl by men standing to her in a definite
relationship. In each case the girl had to submit to sexual
intercourse with a series of men standing to her also in a definite
relationship. Men of forbidden degrees have on these occasions
access to women. The girl was afterwards painted and decorated
and handed over to her husband, to whom she was allotted.[101]
In the _Northern Tribes_ there is also a detailed description of
this ceremony among the Warramunga,[102] where the husband keeps
abstinence for three days after marriage. Among the Binbinga, Anula
and Mara tribes the ritual defloration seems not to be a marriage
ceremony, _i. e._ seems not to be connected with the handing over
of the girl to her allotted husband.[103] Messrs. Spencer and
Gillen state the existence of this ceremony among sixteen tribes.
It is to be noted that these ceremonies do not seem to express any
special sanction of the marriage to which they lead, unless they
are viewed as "expiation for marriage."[104] Then they might be
interpreted as the renouncement of all men's rights and claims to a
woman for the benefit of her future owner. The ceremonial handing
over of a woman may be also regarded as expressing the public
sanction of marriage. We must still notice an interesting ceremony
amongst the Warramunga, Tjinjilli, Gnanji, Binbinga, Mara, which
consists of some hair being given by the maternal uncle of the girl
to her future husband. This hair is worn by him under his arm-band;
"it is a simple plan of publicly announcing the fact" of the
betrothal.[105] Amongst the Binbinga there is a form of betrothal.
The future husband must present his father-in-law with boomerangs,
etc., and must avoid him, but goes on giving him presents.[106]

[99] Compare _Nat. Tr._, chap, iii., pp. 92 _sqq._, and
_Nor. Tr._, chap. iv., pp. 133 _sqq._

[100] _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92 _sqq._

[101] For detailed description see _Nat. Tr._, pp. 92,
93 (Arunta and Ilpirra), p. 94 (S. Arunta), pp. 94,
95 (Kaitish), p. 95 (the remaining six tribes). These
ceremonies differ only in details from each other in
different tribes.

[102] _Nor. Tr._, p. 135.

[103] _Ibid._, p. 135.

[104] According to Lord Avebury; see _Nat. Tr._, p. 96.

[105] _Nor. Tr._, pp. 603, 604.

[106] _Ibid._, p. 77, footnote.

Among some tribes of South Queensland (Bunya-Bunya country)
marriage was arranged without any consent of the contracting
parties. Sometimes it was arranged when the girl was an infant,
and she was then promised to some man of importance or influence.
Sometimes exchange of females took place at large tribal
gatherings. Elopement was known in these tribes, and a fight
decided whether it was legalized or not.[107]

[107] Tom Petrie, _loc. cit._, pp. 59, 60.

We find a ceremony of betrothal among the Kuinmurbura. "The parents
having painted the girl and dressed her hair with feathers, her
male cousin takes her to where her future husband is sitting
cross-legged in silence, and seats her at his back and close to
him. He who has brought the girl after a time removes the feathers
from her hair and places them in the hair of her future husband,
and then leads the girl back to her parents." The future son-in-law
must give presents of game to the father of his promised wife.[108]

[108] Howitt, _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118.

We read about the natives of Moreton Bay, that marriage is
generally contracted with the consent of the relatives of both
parties and the approval of the tribe. As a form of betrothal they
join their hands. The stealing of women from neighbouring tribes
ends usually in war.[109]

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

Among the Herbert River natives, exchange of sisters or daughters
is the commonest way of obtaining wives.[110] Girls are promised to
their respective husbands[111] in infancy and delivered at the age
of nine or ten years.

[110] Lumholtz, _loc. cit._, p. 154.

[111] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._, p. 165.

We find in Brough Smyth an account of a betrothal ceremony, as
practised by the natives on Fraser Island (Queensland). This
description is given by a correspondent of the Rev. L. Fison: "The
bride makes a fire, and the other natives come and place white
feathers on her head; then the bride places feathers on the head
of the bridegroom; the bridegroom makes a fire, and every one of
the blacks present on the occasion brings a firestick and throws it
down at the bridegroom's fire."[112]

[112] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 89.

Girls were betrothed in infancy by their mothers amongst the
Wakelbura. It was supposed that a girl would be given in exchange
for her.[113] In case of elopement, there was a severe fight, and
only after a victory over many adversaries could the man keep his
wife.

[113] Howitt, _Nat. Tr._, p. 222, and _Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 117.

Among the North-West Central Queensland tribes[114] "each male
can have an official wife" supplied him by the camp in general
council assembled,[115] and an unofficial one of his own choice.
"Both share equal rights and responsibilities." The consent of the
girl's family is in both cases essential.[116] The ceremony of
betrothal consisted in exchange of firesticks, and "is binding on
both sides."[117] Exchange of sisters is practised, too.[118] If
eloping, "both have to run the gauntlet of the outraged community,"
which gives them a rather harsh reception. After which "the couple
is now recognized as husband and wife."[119] In cases of elopement
of a married woman there is a fight, or compensation is granted to
the injured husband. In another place Roth says that taking a girl
against the wishes of parents was punished by death.[120]

[114] W. E. Roth, _Ethnol. Stud._, pp. 180, 181, sec. 323.

[115] See _Ibid._, sec. 238.

[116] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _a._

[117] _Ibid._

[118] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _b._

[119] _Ibid._, p. 181, under _c._

[120] W. E. Roth, _N.Q. Ethnog._, Bull. 8, p. 5.

According to Macgillivray's information, infant betrothal even
before birth was prevalent in the Port Essington tribes.[121]

[121] _Loc. cit._, i. p. 151.

The following account is reported by a Lascar who spent several
years among the tribes of the North-East coast (Raffles Bay):
"Their marriage ceremony is performed in the following way: The
father and mother of a female child lead in one hand between them
the intended bride (whilst in the other they each carry a piece of
burning wood) towards the intended husband, he standing with his
back towards them. When they arrive at the appointed place, the
parents lay down the burning pieces of wood, beside which the child
sits down, and the parents retire, on which the husband turns round
to his wife and takes her home."[122]

[122] Wilson, p. 144.

We are informed about the natives of the Cape of York Peninsula and
Prince of Wales Islands: "In most cases females are betrothed in
infancy, according to the will of the father, and without regard to
disparity of age. Thus the future husband may be, and often is, an
old man with several wives."[123]

[123] Macgillivray, _loc. cit._, ii. p. 8.

J. Forrest, speaking of the natives of Central and Western
Australia, says: "Betrothal is very general. A child a year old
will sometimes be betrothed to an old man, and it will be his duty
to feed and protect her, and (unless she is stolen by someone else)
when she is old enough she becomes his wife."[124]

[124] _Loc. cit._, p. 317.

"The girls are not the exclusive property of the father until he
thinks fit to give them in marriage to some of his friends; by the
law of these people the females, from the time of their birth,
are appropriated to certain males of the tribe, and not even the
parents have the right to set aside these obligations." If this man
dies, the mother may dispose of her daughter.--This refers to the
Watchandee tribe of West Australia.[125] The same author writes
that elopement is punished in these tribes by the death of the
female, and a severe ordeal is imposed on the male; an instance
is adduced to illustrate this.[126] The statement is quite unique
in this, that it asserts no right of the family to betroth their
daughter. On the other hand, we are by no other author informed
of such a thing as a man having an _a priori_ right to a girl. We
are led to the supposition that these male individuals are simply
men belonging to the right marriage class. For undoubtedly in
an exogamous tribe, having four or eight classes and being not
too numerous, the number of marriageable individuals must have
been very limited, and one of them might have had some special
prerogatives. This supposition would also account for the severe
punishment inflicted in case of elopement with a man to whom "she
did not lawfully belong," viz. with an individual of the improper
class. Otherwise this statement would be contradictory with all the
others, and we could hardly harmonize it with the general view we
form of the aboriginal marriage rules.

[125] Oldfield, p. 249.

[126] _Ibid._, pp. 249, 250.

Among the tribes observed by Salvado "Le sauvage demande la
personne qu'il veut épouser au père de celle-ci, et si celui-ci ne
l'a promise à aucun autre, et n'y voit pas d'empêchement, il la lui
accorde. Dès ce moment, la jeune personne appartient au sauvage
qui l'a demandée, quoiqu'elle reste en compagnie de sa famille,
jusqu'à l'age de la puberté. Cet engagement est inviolable, et si
jamais un père y manquait, ce serait la cause de beaucoup de sang
répandu. Le sauvage pourtant quand il demande une jeune personne en
mariage, s'il ne se fie pas à la parole du père, l'emmène avec lui
et lui tient lieu de frère, jusqu'à ce qu'elle ait atteint l'âge
convenable. Dans aucun cas on ne demande à la jeune personne son
consentement. Neanmoins j'ai entendu dire à des fiancés: 'Je l'aime
et elle m'aime aussi.'"[127] "L'autre manière de prendre femme est
de la ravir à son père, ou à son mari, soit à cause de sa rare
beauté, soit parce que son mari la maltraite. Mais ensuite si
celui-ci la trouve, il la tue sans pitié, aussi le ravisseur
l'emmène-t-il au loin, et tâche de se soustraire à tout jamais à la
présence de l'offensé."[128]

[127] Salvado, _loc. cit._, p. 278.

[128] _Ibid._, pp. 278, 279.

In West Australia "female children are always betrothed within a
few days after their birth; and from the moment they are betrothed
the parents cease to have any control over the future settlement
of their child." The woman is kept by her husband as his exclusive
property. "Stealing a wife is generally punished with death." It
means that elopement was punished by death, but we are not told if
of both parties or only one, and which one. This statement agrees
with our last one. It might be, therefore, that in West Australia
the rules were in this regard more stringent. But it seems more
probable that death was the extreme punishment only, and that
usually an ordeal was sufficient.[129]

[129] Geo. Grey, ii. pp. 229, 230.

We are informed in G. F. Moore's vocabulary of West Australian
languages that the word meaning "firm," "fixed" is "applied to a
man and wife as firmly united together."[130] It shows that this
idea must have been strongly inculcated in the aboriginal society,
if the expression for firmness and marriage were associated in
their language. By itself, such a linguistic argument might be
justly designated as futile; but it is a valuable addition to the
other evidence in our possession. The same author mentions three
modes of obtaining wives: infant betrothal, inheritance from a
brother or relative (levirate), and elopement.[131]

[130] _Loc. cit._, p. 5.

[131] _Loc. cit._, p. 41.

We read in Scott Nind's description of the aborigines of King
George's Sound: "The girls appear to be at the disposal of their
father and are generally bespoke in their infancy; even before
they are born we have been told to whom they were betrothed, if
they prove to be females." Sometimes exchange of relatives is
practised. In some cases boys are adopted as sons-in-law--a custom
called _cotertie_.[132] This seems to be analogous to the customs
reported from Central Australia and New South Wales. "Attentions
and presents are paid more to her (the bride's) father than
to herself, and indeed the trifles she receives are generally
transferred to him. These chiefly consist of game or other articles
of food; the father, perhaps, receives a cloak, spears or other
implements."[133] The author says: "I do not think they have any
nuptial ceremony."[134] Another mode of procuring a wife is to
carry her off; sometimes against her will, generally by mutual
agreement. In both cases the couple must beware of the husband's
revenge. If the female become pregnant and presents are given to
the husband, she is released from her first engagement.[135] A
woman may be also betrothed during her husband's lifetime to a man,
to whom she passes when widowed.[136]

[132] _Loc. cit._, p. 38.

[133] _Ibid._

[134] p. 38.

[135] _Ibid._

[136] p. 39.

Browne relates that girls were often promised in infancy; elopement
also often took place.[137]

[137] _Loc. cit._, p. 450.

We have also six statements in the answers given to Professor
Frazer's _Questions_ (_J.A.I._, xxiv., pp. 157 _sq._). I have not
ranged them with the foregoing, for they seem not to be of equal
accuracy[138] except perhaps that of Police Inspector Foelsche,
Port Darwin, North Territory, South Australia. And this agrees
with the majority of our data: girls are promised in infancy to
men of different ages, and go to live with them when arrived at
puberty. It is noteworthy that all these six statements deny
the existence of any betrothal ceremony. Five of them inform us
that wives were obtained by "purchase" from their parents. The
word purchase covers, probably, the fact that the girl's parents
obtained, at the marriage contract, and probably ever after, gifts
from their future son-in-law. We have such statements already in
our collection, and it seems that wherever there was no exchange
of females the girl's family received some compensation for her in
another form.

[138] They are given by police troopers, stationmasters,
etc. One of them is Sam Gason, whose information about the
Dieri we know from another place. It is crude, but not
quite useless; here he does not teach us anything new.

According to our already described methodological plan, the area or range of the facts covered by all this evidence must be divided into smaller fields. Or, in other words, it is needful to bring our information under several headings, show the points upon which there is complete agreement, and discuss the other points in greater detail.

There are forty-nine statements (including one of the six just summarily mentioned). Not all of them give us full information concerning the whole of our subject; some mention only one or other of the methods of obtaining wives, without asserting or denying the existence of the other forms. But roughly speaking, we may say that in all tribes there are on the one hand some normal, pacific modes of obtaining wives (exchange of relatives, promise in infancy, betrothal), and on the other hand some more or less violent forms (elopement, capture). About twenty-three of the forty-nine statements, all which are explicit and reliable, assert the existence of both these forms amongst the tribes they deal with. The violent forms, elopement and capture, seem to have been rather the exception than the rule, but there seems to have been not a single tribe in which elopement was completely absent.[139] Among the Kurnai elopement was a prevalent form of marriage. In all other tribes the methods, called here normal or pacific, were prevalent. The main features of these forms are: betrothal in infancy, exchange of sisters or relatives, and a series of obligations and mutual duties which both contracting parties undertake. All these features may be briefly discussed.

[139] Compare _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 118. Howitt says that in
all South-Eastern tribes elopement was in use; especially
if there was any difficulty in finding a relative for
exchange, or if two people fell in love with each other.
It was considered a breach of custom and law, but it
was a valid, recognized form of marriage if legalized
subsequently. Practically the same may be said of all
tribes of the continent.

The custom of _betrothing_ females _in infancy_ seems to be very widespread. That this custom was known in all tribes appears in all the statements explicitly or implicitly (with the exception of those statements only which were discarded as unreliable, _e. g._ those which assert marriage by capture as the most usual form). So in the tribes described by Howitt and his correspondents (chiefly referring to Victoria, New South Wales, and South territory of South Australia) girls were as a rule promised in infancy, and these engagements were kept. This appears the most usual way of obtaining wives amongst the Central tribes, in Queensland, and in West Australia (J. Dawson, Curr, Stanbridge, Howitt, Eyre, F. Bonney, R. H. Mathews, Spencer and Gillen, T. Petrie, Grey, Browne); whereas according to Oldfield, girls belonged by birth to a certain man. In Roth's statement we are not informed whether women were allotted by camp council in infancy or when grown up.

This widespread custom of infant betrothal had its important consequences, some apparent at first sight. So it is evident, that not only had the woman no voice as to her husband, but even the latter had scarcely a choice in the proper sense of the word. For when he entered into the engagement, although he was often of a mature age, he could not have any idea how his bride would look when grown up. The legal importance of this form of marriage and all the mutual obligations connected therewith will be discussed below.

Another point of importance is that this form of marriage contract was in many tribes combined with the _exchange_ of sisters or relatives. Fifteen statements mention this explicitly as the most usual condition under which a female could be obtained. It must have been prevalent in the South-Eastern tribes.[140] In the case of exchange it was usually the sister who was given in exchange for a wife,[141] but sometimes also a father secured a wife in exchange for his daughter (Curr, Taplin, Beveridge), which is in perfect accord with the fact that disparity of age was very frequent in Australian marriages. At any rate the father's consent was always essential (Stanbridge, Beveridge, Schultze, Taplin on the Narrinyeri, Rusden on the Geawe Gal, Howitt on the Wotjobaluk). In general when a girl was promised in infancy it was always done by her family; or at least with the consent of her family. As, for instance, in N. Central Queensland, where, according to Roth, girls were disposed of sometimes by the camp council, but by agreement with the family. By the word family must be here understood in the first place the girl's father, whose consent, as just said, was essential, then her brothers and nearest relatives, who would eventually have profit from exchanging her. But also other members of the female's family are interested in the transaction and possibly benefit by it.

[140] Speaking of the South-Eastern tribes in general,
Howitt says: "It may be safely laid down as a broad and
general proposition that among these savages a wife was
obtained by the exchange of a female relative, with the
alternative possibility of obtaining one by inheritance
(Levirate), by elopement, or by capture."--_Trans. R.S.V._,
p. 115.

[141] "It seems to me that the most common practice is the
exchange of girls by their respective parents, as wives
for each other's sons, or in some tribes the exchange of
sisters, or of some female relatives by the young men
themselves."--_Trans. R.S.V._, p. 116.

The important _part_ played by the _family_ appears in all our statements; the only contradictory one is that of Oldfield, who says that the parents had no right over their daughter from her birth (but see above our critical remark). From the moment of the "betrothal" the man or boy enters into a certain relation to his future wife's nearest relatives; he has certain duties to perform, certain obligations to fulfil, and certain restrictions to observe. In the case where it is the male's family which makes the contract for him, the two families have certain duties towards each other and stand in a certain mutual relationship. They exchange gifts (Yuin, Woljabaluk, S.W. Victoria and others); the boy's father has to give presents to the girl, and the boy is visited from time to time by his future father-in-law (W. Victoria); the future mother-in-law is tabooed (Jajaurung, New South Wales, according to R. H. Mathews; Central tribes); in the Central tribes there is the relation of Tualcha Mara and the duty of hunting for the future father-in-law. In the Binbinga there is a present at the betrothal and sometimes duties afterwards.

It seems that in all cases, even when exchange does not take place, it is the father who disposes of his daughter (compare just above). This privilege is important: in this way, as we saw above, an old man may procure a young wife for himself. In other cases by these means the friendship of an influential man may be gained. It is therefore probable that the father, who wields all the authority in the family, enjoys this privilege of disposing of his daughter.

We may view the facts of exchange of females on the one hand, and the various duties of the husband towards his (future or actual) wife's family on the other, also in another light; they show distinctly the features of _marriage by purchase_. In the first place let us remark that the two forms--exchange of females and exchange of gifts or duties for a female--seem to be localized in different areas. We saw that Howitt affirms that exchange is the prominent feature in the South-eastern tribes with the exception of the Kurnai. In those of our statements which refer to this area we found with very few exceptions (J. Dawson, Stanbridge, G. S. Lang, Mrs. Parker) confirmation of his views. The above exceptions do not deny this fact. They are not very explicit, so that we can hardly insist on them as negative evidence. On the other hand, in the Central and Northern area, exchange of females seems not to take place. Here we have some detailed statements, such as those about the Dieri by Gason and Howitt, about the Arunta by Spencer and Gillen, about the other Northern tribes by the same authors, about the N.W. Queensland tribes by W. E. Roth. In all these explicit statements there is not a single remark about exchange. Nor is the latter mentioned in any statement referring to the Central and Northern area, nor in the four statements which refer to West Australia. We may therefore conclude with a high degree of probability that we have here to do with a real geographical difference between the tribes indicated. As to Queensland, exchange was probably known in the Central and Southern tribes (Tom Petrie and Lumholtz mention it), whereas, as we saw, it was absent in the Western part of that colony. But in nearly all these tribes, where exchange of females is apparently not in use, there is evidence of the existence of duties and obligations on the part of the future husband towards his parents-in-law. We may remember the five statements in which the word purchase was used, and the statement of Wilkes. Schultze says explicitly that the father often gave his daughter away from mercenary motives. The same is confirmed by the more exact and detailed statement of Spencer and Gillen, where the duties of providing the father-in-law with game are reported to be a necessary condition for the obligations to be kept. Among some of the Northern tribes (Binbinga, Anula, Mara) the man has to present his father-in-law with boomerangs and weapons at the contract, and then to supply him with game. There is no information about purchase-marriage either from Queensland or from West Australia. But such a negative evidence is not convincing. Again among the Kurnai, where exchange of females happened very seldom, there were duties of supplying the parents-in-law with game (compare below, pp. 283 _sqq._). So that if we leave on one side the Western part of Australia and Queensland, and take into consideration only the Northern, Central and South-Eastern tribes, we may say that exchange of females and obligations, of gifts and hunting duties were geographically exclusive. Now it appears to me that exchange of females was a kind of marriage by purchase. If we regard as the chief feature of the latter the fact that the bridegroom has to contribute for his wife something of more or less equal value, we must agree that exchange of females was such a kind of contribution, and even a very fair one.[142] Besides, it appears that the exchange of females was often accompanied by exchange of gifts (compare p. 50, Yuin, Wotjobaluk). That the facts reported from the Central and Northern area show a form of marriage by purchase appears quite clear.

[142] With reference to the Australian facts Dr.
Westermarck makes the same remark. "The simplest way of
purchasing a wife is no doubt to give a kinswoman in
exchange for her."--_H.H.M._, p. 390.

As a further characteristic feature we are told in several instances that such mutual agreements are made _publicly_, during great tribal gatherings, so that all the tribe knows about it (Yuin, Woeworung, New South Wales according to Mathews, New South Wales according to Hodgkinson). Or else the bride is publicly handed to the bridegroom (Narrinyeri, Lower Darling, Kuinmurbura, Fraser Island). In the Central and North Central tribes there are outward signs: the maternal uncle's hair worn under the arm-band; or hair is procured from the future mother-in-law. In some New South Wales tribes a necklace is worn as a sign of engagement (Hodgson).

In some statements we are directly told that there is no _betrothal or marriage ceremony_ (in the six notes in _J.A.I._, xxiv.). But this negative evidence seems on one side to result from the slight and superficial acquaintance these observers had with the aborigines; on the other side from the fact that even in cases where we have such ceremonies described by very reliable informants and their binding power asserted, they are described as being so simple and insignificant, that it is easy to conceive they might readily escape the notice of even a good observer, or at least their nature and importance might be misunderstood. We possess nine statements about betrothal or marriage ceremonies. We have Dawson's detailed statement, which seems, nevertheless, not to be absolutely trustworthy. But we are also informed of the existence of some simple and apparently insignificant ceremonies by J. Bonney, Taplin, R. H. Mathew, Mrs. Langloh Parker, Spencer and Gillen, Roth, Fison's anonymous correspondent, Howitt on the Kuinmurburu, Wilson.[143] Some of these are our best sources.

[143] Curr, _A.R._, i. p. 107, says also that in some
tribes there are some insignificant marriage ceremonies.

Turning now to the other, the _violent form_ of obtaining wives, we may distinguish the _elopement_, when both sides are consenting, and _capture_ where the woman is secured by a mere act of brutal force. These latter forms occur, but they are by no means frequent. They are mentioned by several writers (Hodgson, Rusden, Turnbull, Tench, Barrington and Collins); and by the two latter as the only form of marriage. That this is obviously incorrect was mentioned above in connection with their statements. It is characteristic that all statements reporting the prevalence of marriage by capture refer to New South Wales, and more especially to the neighbourhood of Sydney. But I think that it would be inadvisable to attribute this to a local peculiarity of those tribes. It appears more probable that as all those reports date from the early days of the settlement, and were written nearly at the same time, their opinions cannot be considered as independent, and they are probably repetitions of the same erroneous view which may be assumed to have been held by the general public in the settlement.