,,social ,,origins    ,,by    ,,andrew  
,,lang1 ,m4,a41 ,,ll4,d4                
,,primal ,,law    ,,by    ,j4 ,j4       
,,atkinson    ,,longmans1 ,,green1 ,,and
 ,,co4    #ci ,,paternoster ,,row1      
,,london    ,,new ,,york ,,and ,,bombay 
#aijc          ,,to    ,,annabella      
,,alleyne      ,dear ,annie1    ,as you 
first pointed out to me the facts which 
are the germ of my  ,theory of the      
,origin of ,totemism1 you are one cause 
of my share in this  book4 ,the other is
 affection for the memory of the author 
of #8,primal  ,law4'    ,yours always1  
,a4 ,,lang4    ,st4 ,andrews3 ,feb4 #ac1
 #aijc4          ,,introduction         
,the portion of this book called        
#8,primal ,law' is the work of the late 
,mr4 ,james ,jasper ,atkinson4 ,born in 
,india1 of ,scottish parents 7his       
mother being the paternal aunt of the   
present editor71 ,mr4 ,atkinson  was    
educated 7#aheg-ahfa7 at ,loretto       
,school1 then managed by ,messrs4       
,langhome4 ,while still young he settled

 on certain stations in ,new  ,caledonia
 bequeathed to him by his father1 and1  
except for visits to  ,australia and a  
visit to ,england1 he lived and died in 
the ,french  colony4 ,his ingenious mind
 was much exercised by the singular laws
  and customs of the natives of the ,new
 ,caledonian ,archipelago and the       
adjacent isles4 ,these peoples have been
 little studied by competent  ,european 
observers--that is1 in ,new ,caledonia4 
,mr4 ,atkinson wrote an  account of     
native manners before he had any        
acquaintance with the  works of modern  
anthropologists1 such as ,mr4 ,tylor1   
,mr4 ,mc,lennan1  ,lord ,avebury1 and   
others4 ,to these he later turned his   
attention2 he  joined the               
,anthropological ,institute1 and1 in the
 course of study and  observation1 he   
discovered what he conceived to be the  
#8,primal ,law'  and origin of morality1
 as regards the family4 ,in his last    
illness1  in #ahii1 he was most kindly  
attended by ,commander ,john ,haggard1  

,r4,n41  then ,her ,majesty's ,consul in
 ,new ,caledonia4 ,mr4 ,atkinson's mind1
 in his  latest moments1 was occupied by
 his anthropological speculations1 and1 
through ,mr4 ,haggard1 he sent his ,,ms4
 to his cousin and present editor4  ,i  
have given to it the last cares which   
the author himself would have  given had
 he lived4 ,but ,i have also taken the  
opportunity to review1 in  the following
 pages1 introductory to #8,primal ,law1'
 the present state  of the discussion as
 to the beginnings of the rules         
regulating marriage  among savages4     
,the discussion is now nearly forty     
years old1 if we date it from the       
appearance of ,mr4 ,j4 ,f4 ,mc,lennan's 
,primitive ,marriage in #ahfe4 ,yet1  in
 spite of the speculations of some and  
the explorations of other  distinguished
 students1 the main problems are still  
in dispute4 ,was  marriage originally   
non-existent8 ,was promiscuity at first 
the rule1  and1 if so1 what were the    
origins1 motives1 and methods of the    

most  archaic prohibitions on primitive 
license8 ,did man live in #8hordes1'    
and did he bisect each #8horde' into    
exogamous and intermarrying  moieties1  
and1 if he did1 what was his motive8    
,are the groups and  kindreds commonly  
styled #8totemic' earlier or later than 
the division  into a pair of moieties or
 #8phratries'8 ,do the totem-kins       
represent the  results of an early form 
of exogamous custom1 or are they        
additions to  or consciously arranged   
subdivisions of the two exogamous       
moieties8  ,is a past of #8group        
marriage' or #8communal marriage' proved
 by the  terms for human relationships  
employed by many backward races1 and by 
survivals in manner and custom8         
,these are among the questions examined 
in the introductory chapters  that may  
be read either before or after ,mr4     
,atkinson's ,primal ,law4 ,to  him ,i am
 indebted for the conception of sexual  
jealousy as a powerful  element in the  
evolution of exogamy4    ,since my      

attention was first directed to these   
topics1 ,i have felt that  a clear and  
consistent working hypothesis of the    
origin of totemism  was indispensable1  
and such an hypothesis1 with a criticism
 of other  extant theories1 is here     
offered4 ,throughout ,i have attempted  
to  elucidate and bring into uniformity 
the perplexing and confused special     
terms employed in the discussion4 ,here 
it should be explained that  by         
#8marriage' in this work ,i mean        
permanent cohabitation of man and       
woman1 sanctioned by tribal custom1 and 
usually preceded by some rite  or       
initiation which does not prelude to    
casual amours4 ,by family or  fire      
circle ,i mean the partners to this     
permanent cohabitation1 their           
offspring1 and such kinsfolk by blood or
 affinity as may be members of  their   
camp4 ,in the first sentence of the book
 ,i speak of the family as  #8most      
ancient and most sacred1' and ,i do so  
deliberately4 ,the primitive            

association described ,i take1 with ,mr4
 ,darwin and ,mr4 ,atkinson1 to be      
#8most ancient1' and to be the germ of  
the historic family1 which is  #8most   
sacred4' ,but to #8sacred' when ,i apply
 the word to the primitive  fire-circle 
,i give no religious sense1 such as the 
,greek hearth enjoyed  under ,hestia1   
youngest and oldest daughter of ,zeus4  
,i mean that the  rules given to the    
primitive fire-circle by the sire were  
probably the  earliest and the most     
stringent1 though not yet sanctioned by 
a tabu or  a goddess4    ,such a small  
circle1 and not a promiscuous horde or  
commune1 ,i  conceive1 with ,mr4 ,darwin
 and ,mr4 ,atkinson1 to have been the   
earliest  form of human society4    ,the
 book deals only with the institutions  
of races certainly  totemistic1 and     
mainly with the ,australian and ,north  
,american tribes1  which present        
totemism in the most archaic of its     
surviving forms4 ,but  little is said1  
and that tentatively1 on the question as

 to whether or  not the ancestors of the
 great civilised peoples1 ancient and   
modern1  have passed through the stage  
of totemic exogamy1 as our evidence is  
weak and disputable4 ,too late for      
citation in the body of the book ,i     
read ,mr4 ,a4 ,h4 ,keane's theory of the
 origin of totemism4#a    ,mr4 ,keane's 
theory is much akin to my own as it     
stood in ,custom and  ,myth 7#ahhd7 and 
to that of ,garcilasso de la ,vega1 the 
oldest of all4  ,garcilasso             
7#aedj-afaf71 an ,inca on the mother's  
side1 describing the  animal and plant  
worship of the low races in the ,inca   
,empire1 says  #8they only thought of   
making one differ from another and each 
from  all4'#b ,but it may be that he had
 not totemism in his mind2 the  passage 
is not too explicit4    ,mr4 ,keane     
says3 #8,and thus the family1 the       
initial unit1 segments into  a number of
 clans1 each distinguished by its totem1
 its name1 its  heraldic badge--which   
badge1 becoming more and more venerated 

from age  to age1 acquires inherited    
privileges1 becomes the object of       
endless  superstitious practices1 and is
 ultimately almost deified4444 ,its     
origin lies behind all strictly         
religious notions1 and it was at first  
a mere device for distinguishing one    
individual from another1 one  family or 
clan group from another4#c ,thus among  
the ,piaroas of the  ,orinoco below ,san
 ,fernando de ,atabapo the belief holds 
that the tapir1  originally the totem of
 the clan1 has become their ancestor1   
and that  after death the spirit of     
every ,piaroa passes into a tapir2 hence
 they  never hunt or eat this animal1   
and they also think all the surrounding 
tribes are in the same way each provided
 with their special animal  fore-father4
 ,it is easy to see how such ideas tend 
to cluster round  the clan#d or family  
totem1 at first a distinguishing badge1 
later a  protecting or tutelar deity of 
,protean form4 ,it should be remembered 
that the personal or family name        

precedes the totem1 which grows out of  
it1 as seen by the conditions still     
prevailing amongst the very lowest      
peoples 7,fuegians1 ,papuans of ,torres 
,strait#e74'    ,i am indebted in       
various ways to assistance1 chiefly in  
the interchange  of ideas1 from ,mr4 ,a4
 ,c4 ,haddon1 ,mr4 ,g4 ,l4 ,gomme1 ,miss
 ,burne1 and ,mr4  ,a4 ,e4 ,crawley1    
author of ,the ,mystic ,rose4 ,mr4      
,crawley kindly read  the book1 or most 
of it1 before publication1 and          
collaborated most  efficiently in the   
way of suggesting objections4 ,it is not
 implied that  any of these students    
accept the ideas of the two authors4 ,i 
regret  that it has been found          
impossible to wait for the publication  
of a new  book by ,mr4 ,a4 ,w4 ,howitt1 
from which we may expect much new       
information4    ,the question of the    
relations of religion and totemism is   
scarcely  touched on in this work4 ,a   
certain amount of regard is given to    
their  totem animals and plants by some 

of the ,australian tribes1 to the       
extent of not killing1 plucking1 or     
eating them1 except under stress  of    
need1 but even this is not universal4   
,there also exists1 in some  cases1 a   
sense of kinship with them4 ,they are   
not worshipped4 ,that  magic is worked  
for their preservation and propagation1 
as by the  ,arunta1 proves nothing in   
the nature of a religious attitude      
towards  them4 ,in my opinion this      
religious regard for the totem does not 
appear till ancestor worship1 which does
 not occur in ,australia1 has  made     
considerable advance and a myth arises  
that an ancestral spirit  or family god 
is incarnate in the animal which        
originally was only a  totem4 ,if so1   
totemism is not an element in the       
origins of religion1  but a field later 
invaded by religion4    ,on the other   
hand1 ,dr4 ,achelis1 of ,bremen1 writes 
that to savage man  #8animals are his   
equals4 ,to the ancient worship of      
animals is added1  under the influence  

of sympathetic emotion1 the worship of  
ancestors  and totemism1 which sees in a
 beast worshipped as a god the ancestor 
of  the whole tribe4'#f ,clearly this   
sentence is replete with errors and     
confusions4 ,the whole tribe1 in        
,australia1 does not regard any animal  
as its ancestor4 ,no beast is worshipped
 as a god4 ,no ancestors are            
worshipped4 ,if the animals are #8his   
equals1' why did man worship them1  and 
that apparently before the worship of   
ancestors and totemism arose8  ,in an   
essay like that of ,dr4 ,achelis on     
,ethnology and ,religion the  facts     
ought to be correctly ascertained4    ,i
 have been obliged to place in ,appendix
 ,a certain facts about group  names    
derived from animals which came late to 
hand1 among them ,mr4  ,robertson's     
interesting letter on many such names in
 the ,orkneys1 and  some remarks on     
village names derived from animals among
 the ancient  ,hebrews4      ,footnote  
#a3 ,man1 ,past and ,present1           

,cambridge1 #ahii1 pp4 #cif1 #cig4      
,footnote #b3 ,royal ,commentaries1 i4  
#dg4    ,footnote #c3 ,the ,import of   
the ,totem1 ,amer4 ,ass41 ,detroit1     
#ahig4    ,footnote #d3 ,m4 ,chaffanjon1
 ,tour du ,monde1 #ahhh1 lvi4 #cdh4     
,footnote #e3 ,ethnology1 pp4 #i1 #aa4  
,footnote #f3 ,the ,international       
,quarterly1 ,dec4-,march1 #aijb-aijc1 p4
  #cba4          ,,contents             
,,introduction      ,,chapter ,i        
,,the ,,early ,,history ,,of ,,the      
,,family    ,the family4 ,theory of ,mr4
 ,atkinson--,primitiveness in           
man--,recent  history of the speculation
 as to the early human family--,what is 
exogamy8 ,difficulties of               
terminology--,totemism and              
exogamy--,theories of  exogamy4 ,mr4    
,mc,lellan's theory--,mr4 ,crawley's    
theory--,dr4 ,westermarck's             
theory--,mr4 ,morgan's theory--,return  
to the author's theory      ,,chapter   
,,ii    ,,the ,,class ,,system    ,the  
class system in ,australia--,the        

varieties of marriage divisions in      
,australia--,mr4 ,fison on the great    
bisection--#8,primary classes8'--,the   
#8primary divisions' are themselves     
totemic and exogamous--,the totem       
difficulty      ,,chapter ,,iii         
,,totems ,,within ,,the ,,phratries     
,american support of the author's       
hypothesis--,deliberate                 
arrangement--,totems all the            
way--,distribution of totems in the     
#8phratries'--,the ideas of ,mr4        
,frazer4 ,his earlier                   
theory--,objections  to ,mr4 ,frazer's  
early theory--,mr4 ,spencer's theories  
of the  bisection--,advantages of the   
system here proposed--,the              
,arunta--,arunta  metaphysics--,arunta  
totem eating and traditions--,dr4       
,durkheim on  the ,arunta--,the         
relations of totems and #8phratries'    
among the  ,arunta--,arunta myths--,mr4 
,spencer on ,arunta legends             
,,chapter ,,iv    ,,arunta ,,phratries  
,,and ,,totems    ,views of ,dr4        

,durkheim--,how did the ,aranta anomaly 
arise8      ,,chapter ,v    ,,other     
,,bars ,,to ,,marriages    #8,group     
marriage'--,mr4 ,morgan and the class   
system--,difficulties of  ,mr4 ,morgan's
 theory--,mr4 ,morgan on terms of       
relationship--,how the  terms of        
relationship originally arose--,supposed
 survivals of group                     
marriage--,piraungaru and               
piraura--,growth of social rules in the 
tribe--,group marriage and ,mr4 ,tylor's
 statistics      ,,chapter ,,vi    ,,the
 ,,change ,,of ,,class ,,among ,,the    
,,new ,,generation    ,the system of    
,herr ,cunow--,classes again            
,,chapter ,,vii    ,,theories ,,of      
,,lord ,,avebury    ,lord ,avebury on   
totemism--,lord ,avebury on the origin  
of totemism  --,communal marriage--,lord
 ,avebury on relationships              
,,chapter ,,viii    ,,the ,,origin ,,of 
,,totem ,,names ,,and ,,beliefs         
,sacred animals in savage               
society--,proposed restriction of the   

use  of the word #8totem'--,the word    
#8totem'--,the totem #8cult'--#8,totem  
gods'--,savage speculations as to the   
origin of totemism--,modern             
theories--,mr4 ,max ,mller's            
theory--,the theory of ,mr4 ,herbert    
,spencer--,mr4 ,frazer's                
theories--,suggestion of ,mr4 ,n4 ,w4   
,thomas--,dr4  ,wilken's theory--,miss  
,alice ,fletcher's theory--,mr4 ,hill   
,tout's  theory--,messrs4 ,hose and     
,mc,dougall--,mr4 ,haddon's theory--,an 
objection  to all the theories          
enumerated--,statement of the           
problem--,the author's  own             
conjecture--,the connection between     
groups and totems--,no #8disease  of    
language'--,hypothetical early groups   
before totemism--,how the  groups got   
names--,illustration from               
folk-lore--,how the names became        
known--,totemic and other group names4  
,english and ,north ,american           
,indian--,theory that ,siouan gentes    
names are of ,european origin           

,,chapter ,,ix    ,,the ,,melanesian    
,,systems    ,how the origin of totem   
names was forgotten--,other sources of  
sacredness in plants and                
animals--,recapitulation--,an objection 
answered--,other objections             
answered--,totems and magical           
societies--,totem survivals--,did the   
ancestors of the civilised races  pass  
through the ,australian stage8          
,,primal ,,law      ,,chapter ,i        
,,man ,,in ,,the ,,brutal ,,stage       
,mr4 ,darwin on the primitive relations 
of the sexes--,primitive man  monogamous
 or polygamous--,his                    
jealousy--,expulsion of young           
males--,the  author's inferences as to  
the evolution of ,primal ,law--,a       
customary  rule of conduct              
evolved--,traces surviving in savage    
life--,the customs  of                  
avoidance--,custom of exogamy arose in  
the animal stage--,brother  and sister  
avoidance--,the author's own observation
 of this custom in  ,new                

,caledonia--,strangeness of such a      
custom among houseless nomads in        
,australia--,rapid decay under ,european
 influences      ,,chapter ,,ii         
,,sexual ,,relations ,,of ,,animals     
,brother and sister avoidance1 a partial
 usage among the higher                 
mammals--,males' attitude to females in 
a group dominated by a single  male     
head--,band of exiled young             
males--,their relations to the          
sire--,examples in cattle and           
horses--,in game-fowl--,strict          
localisation  of animals--,exiled young 
males hover on the fringe of the parent 
group--,parricide      ,,chapter ,,iii  
,,man ,,varying ,,from ,,animals        
,effect of the absence of a special     
pairing season on nascent               
man--,consequent state of ceaseless war 
between sire and young males  --,man    
already more than an ape--,results of   
his prolonged infancy  and of maternal  
love--,a young male permitted to live in
 the parent  group--,conditions in which

 this novelty arose      ,,chapter ,,iv 
,,earliest ,,evolution ,,of ,,law       
,truce between semi-human sire and      
son--,consequent distinction taken      
between female and female1 as           
such--,consequent rise of habit of      
brother  and sister avoidance--,result1 
son seeks female mate from              
without--,note  by the editor           
,,chapter ,v    ,,avoidances    ,results
 in strengthening the groups which admit
 several  adult males--,disappearance of
 hostile band of exiled young           
males--,relations of sire and female    
mates of young males now within  the    
group--,father-in-law and               
daughter-in-law avoidance--,rights as   
between two generations--,elder brother 
and younger brother's wife              
avoidances--,note on hostile capture    
,,chapter ,,vi    ,,from ,,the ,,group  
,,to ,,the ,,tribe    ,resemblance of   
semi-brutal group1 at this stage1 to    
actual savage  tribe--,resemblance      
merely superficial--,in this            

hypothetical  semi-brutal group paternal
 incest survives--,causes of its decline
  and extinction--,the sire's widows of 
the group--,arrival of outside  suitors 
for them--,brothers of wives of the     
group--,new comers  barred from marital 
rights over their daughters--,jealousy  
of their  wives intervenes--,value of   
sisters to be bartered for sisters  of  
another group discovered--,consequent   
resistance to incest of  group          
sire--,natural selection favours groups 
where resistance is                     
successful--,cousinage recognised in    
practice--,intermarrying sets of        
cousins become phratries--,exceptional  
cases of permitted incest in  chiefs and
 kings--,no known trace of avoidance    
between father and  daughter--,progress 
had rendered such law superfluous       
,,chapter ,,vii    ,,traces ,,of        
,,period ,,of ,,transition ,,avoidances 
,survivals in custom testify to a long  
period of transition from group  to     
tribe--,stealthy meetings of husband and

 wife--,examples--,evidence  to a past  
of jealousy of incestuous group         
sire--,evidence from                    
teknonymy--,husband named as father of  
his child--,formal capture as  a symbol 
of legal marriage--,avoidance between   
father-in-law and  son-in-law--,arose in
 stage of transition--,causes of        
mother-in-law  and son-in-law           
avoidance--,influence of                
jealousy--,examples--,mr4  ,tylor's     
statistics--,resentment of capture not  
primal cause of this  avoidance--,note  
on avoidance4      ,,chapter ,,viii     
,,the ,,classificatory ,,system    ,the 
classificatory system--,the author's    
theory is the opposite of ,mr4          
,morgan's1 of original brother and      
sister marriage--,that theory is based  
on ,malayan terms of                    
relationship--,nephew1 niece1 and       
cousin1 all named  #8sons and           
daughters'--,this fact of nomenclature  
used as an argument  for                
promiscuity--,the author's theory--,the 

names for relationship  given as regards
 the group1 not the individual--,the    
names and rules  evolved in the         
respective interests of three           
generations--,they  apply to food as    
well as to marriage--,each generation is
 a strictly  defined class--,terms for  
relationship indicate1 not kinship1  but
 relative seniority and rights in       
relation to the group--,the  distinction
 of age in generations breaks down in   
practice--,methods  of bilking the      
letter of the law--,communal            
marriage--,outside suitors  and         
cousinage--,the fact of cousinage       
unperceived and unnamed--,cousins  are  
still called brothers and sisters2 thus1
 when a man styles his  sister's son his
 son1 the fact does not prove1 as in    
,mr4 ,morgan's  theory1 that his sister 
is his wife--,terms of address between  
brothers  and sisters--,and between     
members of the same and of different    
phratries--,these corroborate the       
author's theory--distinction as  to     

sexual rights yields the classificatory 
system--,progress outran  recognition   
and verbal expression--,errors of ,mr4  
,morgan and ,mr4                        
,mc,lennan--,conclusion--,note--#8,group
 marriage'      ,,appendices            
,a4--,,english1 ,,orcadian1 ,,and       
,,hebrew ,,village ,,sobriquets         
,b4--,,the ,,ba ,,ronga ,,terms ,,of    
,,relationship    ,,index               
,,social ,,origins    ,,and    ,,primal 
,,law          ,,chapter ,i    ,,the    
,,early ,,history ,,of ,,the ,,family   
,,the ,,family4 ,,theory ,,of ,,mr4     
,,atkinson    ,the ,family is the most  
ancient and the most sacred of human    
institutions2 the least likely to be    
overthrown by revolutionary  attacks4   
,in epochs of change the ,family        
naturally invites the  attentions of    
impetuous reformers1 like ,shelley 7who 
advocated a scheme  more than any other 
apt to shock the conscience of a        
savage71 and  like the friends of       
#8,free ,love1' who would introduce a   

license beyond  the ,urabunna model4    
,the horror aroused by certain          
relations1 such as  that of             
brother-and-sister marriage1 is perhaps 
the oldest of moral  sentiments1 yet it 
has lost its hold of some barbaric      
races1 and has  been overcome by        
dynastic pride1 as in the ,royal ,house 
of the ,incas  of ,peru1 and in that of 
,egypt4 ,while the ,family1 everywhere  
almost1  has been secured by a religious
 and all but instinctive dread of       
certain aberrations1 the laws or customs
 which may not be broken have  varied in
 different lands1 and in different      
stages of civilisation4  ,what is incest
 in one age or country is innocent in   
another2 still  certain unions1 varying 
in various regions1 have always been    
regarded  with loathing4 ,no such       
emotion is known to be felt among the   
lower  animals1 and scientific curiosity
 has long been busy with the question1  
why should the least civilised of human 
races possess the widest  list of       

prohibited degrees8 ,what is the origin 
of the stringent laws  that1 among naked
 and far from dainty nomads1 compel men 
and women to  seek their mates outside  
of certain large groups of real or      
imagined  kindred8 ,the answers given to
 this question have varied with the     
facts of savage law which chanced to be 
at each moment accessible to  inquirers1
 and all attempts to solve the problem  
must be provisional4  ,new knowledge may
 upset even the most recent theory1 and1
 indeed1  new knowledge of the rules of 
certain ,australian tribes has already  
produced fresh hypotheses1 as regards   
certain aspects of the problem4    ,the 
whole subject is thorny1 and ,i must    
crave pardon for venturing to  differ1  
provisionally1 on several important     
points1 from authorities  whose         
learning1 research1 and experience far  
exceed my own4 ,the facts  which they   
have collected from personal knowledge  
of savages1 and  from reading1 often    
group themselves otherwise in my eyes   

than in  theirs--the perspective is     
different4 ,my observations1 therefore1 
are  submitted to criticism with all    
diffidence4 ,only the main lines of a   
complex discussion are here traversed1  
and the works cited are1 as a  rule1    
either by ,english-speaking authors1 or1
 at least1 are sometimes  accessible in 
,english translations4 ,it will be seen 
that students have  differed greatly1   
not only from each other1 but1 at       
different times1  from themselves1 under
 the influence of new facts brought in  
from the  most remote and isolated of   
savage races4 ,one author is most       
interested  in this1 another in that1   
factor of the problem4 ,the difficulty  
of the  subject cannot be exaggerated2  
for the origins of our human society    
cannot be historically traced behind the
 institutions of the races  now lowest  
in the scale of culture4 ,we are driven 
to risk hypotheses4  ,again1 it is by no
 means certain that some of these lowest
 peoples of  to-day 7say the ,arunta of 

,central ,australia7 represent a moment 
in the  main current of the stream of   
tendency1 a point through which all     
progress has passed4 ,the ideas and     
institutions of such tribes may  be mere
 local #8sports1' other divergencies may
 have arisen in other  quarters1 and it 
would be an error 7repudiated by ,mr4   
,mc,lennan1 the  founder of the study in
 ,england7 to suppose that1 everywhere1 
exactly  the same series of changes     
evolved itself in due sequence4 #8,in   
one  place or another everything may    
have been going on1' ,i have heard ,mr4 
,mc,lennan observe4    ,once more1 the  
subject is obscure because the races    
apparently #8nearest  the beginning1'   
the naked ,australians1 houseless       
hunters1 just  emerging from the        
palolithic condition as regards         
implements1 are1  as to society and     
system of thought1 very far from being  
#8primitive2'  very remote from #8the   
beginning4' ,their social rules are     
various and  extremely complex1         

especially as regards marriage3 some of 
their social  customs are perhaps       
inexplicable--a field for modern        
guesswork--their  speculative philosophy
 is1 in one instance1 ingenious1        
elaborate1  and highly peculiar4 ,the   
#8beginning' lies far behind them1 yet  
their  society and institutions may have
 their germs 7on the ,darwinian theory7 
in a state of all but complete          
brutality4    ,to trace human           
institutions back to that hypothetical  
stage of first  emergence from the brute
 is the purpose of the following        
treatise1  #8,primal ,law1' by ,mr4     
,atkinson4 ,it were superfluous for me  
to dwell on  the audacity of his        
enterprise4 ,of thoroughly human man we 
know a good  deal3 of the brutes we know
 something4 ,of a hypothetical creature1
 not  wholly brute1 but not yet         
#8articulate-speaking man1' we know     
nothing1  and as to the ways of his     
supposed next of kin1 #8the great extant
  anthropoid apes1' our knowledge is    

vague1 resting on the accounts of       
native observers4 ,such a creature1     
however1 half ape1 half human1 is  in   
part the theme of ,mr4 ,atkinson's      
speculations1 on which ,i venture  to   
express no opinion3 as not being        
persuaded that man ever had such a      
direct ancestor4      ,,primitiveness   
,,in ,,man    ,as to men really         
primitive1 and their social             
arrangements1 ,i only  venture to       
conjecture that1 in the nature of the   
case1 they probably  lived a nomadic    
life1 #8selecting a temporary place of  
abode1 whether  a cave1 rock1 shelter1  
or hut1 influenced chiefly by the amount
 of  edible materials to be found in the
 neighbourhood4'#a ,the area of the     
wandering of each group of hearth-mates 
would be limited1 probably1 by  the     
existence of other groups1 which would  
resent poaching4 ,a large  trout may    
often be seen to turn angrily and drive 
away a little trout  that has ventured  
too near the bend of the brook which the

 large trout  finds a good station for  
flies2 and human groups would also1 as  
in  cases to be cited they do1 mortally 
resent intrusions4 ,i conceive that  the
 males would be polygamous 7like the    
gorilla7 and jealous1 killing  or       
expelling the young males1 as in the    
theories of ,mr4 ,darwin and ,mr4       
,atkinson4 ,thus groups would1 on the   
whole1 be hostile1#b #8wandering  from  
one locality to another1 now gathering  
fruits and seeds1 now  hunting wild     
animals1 or1 as a last resource1 feeding
 on shell-fish and  other produce of the
 shore4'#c ,the implements now used by  
backward  savages for fish-catching1    
nets1 spears1 and barbed hooks1 cannot  
be  precisely primitive4 ,primitiveness1
 we must remember1 does not depend  on  
antiquity of date4    ,the ,australians1
 though now their groups have coalesced 
into local  tribes in defined areas1 and
 though their customary law is extremely
  complex1 are least remote from the    
primitive1 least remote1 but very  far  

removed4 ,they are1 though our          
contemporaries1 infinitely beneath  the 
status in culture of palolithic man of  
the mammoth and reindeer  period4 ,it is
 not improbable that he had domesticated
 the ox1 goat1  pig1 horse1 and dog4    
#8,they manufactured fine needles of    
bone1 with  which they sewed their skin 
garments4 ,they adorned their persons   
with a variety of beads4444' ,their art 
was of notorious and amazing            
excellence4 ,dr4 ,munro says that they  
were #8ignorant of the rearing of       
domestic animals1'#d but also that      
#8there seems to be no inherent         
improbability in the idea that some of  
them' 7ox1 goat1 horse1 pig1  and dog7  
#8had been domesticated by the          
indigenous inhabitants prior  to the    
coming of the neolithic brachycephals   
into ,france4'#e ,a  palolithic sketch  
of a horse #8with a supposed cover1' and
 another of  a horse with a bridle1#f   
may be misinterpreted3 ,dr4 ,munro      
thinks that  the horse-cloth #8may be no

 more than the hunter's skin coat thrown
  over the back of the animal when led  
home by means of a halter made  of      
thongs or withes to be there            
slaughtered4' ,if palolithic man had    
advanced as far as ,dr4 ,munro supposes1
 it was a short step to the             
domestication of the horse4 ,it is      
hardly conclusive to say that1 if  he   
had tamed the horse1 #8we would         
undoubtedly ere now have had an         
equestrian representation of the fact1' 
though it is also said that #8we  have  
only as yet a preliminary instalment of 
these most interesting  art             
productions4'#g ,the representation may 
later be discovered4 ,that  palolithic  
man1 so far advanced as he was1 was     
#8ignorant of the  principles of        
religion1'#h seems a hasty conclusion4  
,if he had the  beliefs of our          
,australians in such potent beings as   
,baiame1 ,nooreli1  ,daramulun1         
,mungun-ngaur1 ,pirmaheal1 and ,pundjel1
 that belief would  leave no material   

traces1 except1 perhaps1 the            
,bull-roarer1 whose noise  represents   
the voice of one or other of these      
beings4 ,now a small but  unmistakeable 
pair of palolithic bull-roarers in bone1
 or of amulets  which are bull-roarers  
in miniature1 one of them decorated with
 the  sacred ,australian pattern of     
herring-bone and concentric circles1    
have  been found in a quaternary station
 in ,france4#i    ,palolithic man in    
,france1 countless ages ago1 was thus1  
especially  if he had domesticated      
animals1 immensely more remote from     
#8the  beginning' than contemporary wild
 ,australian tribes4 ,they1 again1 with 
their copious languages1 ingenious      
implements1 complex institutions1  and  
prolonged tribal assemblies1 are        
infinitely in advance of those  really  
primitive men among whom we must        
tentatively seek the origins of         
customary law regulating the family and 
marital arrangements4 ,a society  almost
 incalculably ancient may have been much

 more advanced than a  society of       
to-day1 and the society of the lowest   
known modern savages  must be equally   
advanced from the status of #8primitive 
man'4    ,the best proof of all that no 
,australians are now in or near #8the   
chrysalis state' of humanity1 is to be  
found in their combinations  into large 
friendly tribes1 each covering a wide   
extent of country1  and holding stated  
meetings1 for social1 political1        
religious1 and  commercial purposes4    
,mr4 ,matthews remarks on #8articles of 
barter1'  exchanged #8at the great      
meetings which were held for the        
initiation of  the youths of the        
tribes4' ,among these articles were     
stone hatchets1  first chipped1 then    
ground1 the tribes having passed out of 
the  stage in which mere rude flaking   
sufficed4 #8,at the conclusion of the   
ceremonies1 before the people dispersed1
 a kind of fair was held1 when  natives 
in whose country stone was plentiful1   
would barter their things  with other   

people for reeds for making spears1 rich
 plumage of birds1  c4 444 or for any   
other articles brought by the various   
tribes for the  purpose of exchange4'#aj
 ,we can scarcely conceive that this    
amount  of tribal or inter-tribal unity 
was possible to man really primitive4   
,backward and conservative as the       
,australians are1 we must not expect  to
 find among them1 with their highly     
complex customary laws1 anything  like  
the first beginnings of social          
regulations4 ,to look for these1  even  
among the naked and houseless hunters of
 ,australia1 is to organise  failure in 
this research as to origins4            
,,recent ,,history ,,of ,,the           
,,speculation ,,as ,,to ,,the ,,early   
,,human ,,family    ,from the age of    
,aristotle onwards1 inquirers naturally 
began with a  belief in the ,patriarchal
 ,family as the original social unit4   
,to this  opinion1 in a peculiar form1  
,mr4 ,atkinson returns1 as will be seen4
  ,the idea was natural4 ,aristotle1    

like ,hesiod1 starts from #8the ,man1   
the ,woman1 and the labouring ox1'      
though men and women were wedded  long  
before oxen and other animals were      
domesticated4 ,the ,biblical  account in
 ,genesis opens with the same theory of 
the primal pair1 whose  children1       
brother and sister1 must have married   
each other1 as in the  late ,mr4        
,morgan's hypothesis of the             
#8,consanguine ,family2' but1 contrary  
to almost universal savage custom1 and  
to ,mr4 ,atkinson's #8,primal ,law4'    
,in #ahfa1 ,sir ,henry ,maine's         
celebrated book1 #8,ancient ,law1'      
appeared4  ,herein he wrote that it was 
difficult to say #8what society of men  
had  not been originally based on the   
,patriarchal ,family4#aa ,his studies   
had lain chiefly in the law of civilised
 peoples1 ,romans1 ,hebrews1  ,greeks1  
,irish1 and ,hindoos2 not in the        
customary law of the lowest  races4 ,he1
 like ,mr4 ,freeman1 concluded that the 
patriarchal family1 by  aggregation of  

descendants 7and aided by adoption of   
outsiders1 and by  the ownership of the 
family by its ,head71 formed the gens1  
while the  aggregation of gentes formed 
the tribe1 and the aggregation of tribes
  made the ,state4 ,but1 as the gentes  
had traditions contrary to this  theory1
 traditions of separate origins1 he     
supposed that #8the incoming  populace  
should feign themselves to be deduced   
from the same stock as  the people on   
whom they were engrafted4' ,thus we know
 that ,mc,ulrigs  7,kennedys7 of        
,galloway joined the remote ,macdonnells
 of ,moidart and  ,glengarry1 and wore  
the ,macdonnell tartan#ab 7#agde-agfj71 
and so might  come to pass as           
,macdonnells1 though they still regard  
the ,marquis  of ,ailsa1 a ,kennedy1 as 
their chief1 at least in ,eilean ,shona 
7,loch  ,moidart74 ,in the same way the 
,camerons of ,glen ,nevis1 though called
  #8,camerons1' were really             
,mac,sorlies1 a branch of the           
,macdonnells1 and  from the sixteenth   

century to #aged were always on ill     
terms with the  chief of the clan       
,cameron1 ,lochiel4 ,these are very     
modern instances1  but illustrate ,sir  
,henry's theory of incomers4    ,the    
members of the ,roman tribes had        
traditions that they were not1  really1 
of the same original blood with each    
other4 ,only by a fiction  were they of 
the same blood4 ,they did not all       
descend by natural  increase from one   
patriarchal ancestor4 ,there really did 
exist #8a  variety of alien groups in a 
local tribe1' however they might all    
adopt the same name1 and assert descent1
 in ,west ,scotland from  ,somerled1 let
 us say4 ,this fact1 of                 
heterogeneousness within the  #8tribe'  
among others1 was so obvious and so     
imperfectly explained1  by friends of   
the ,patriarchal theory1 that it        
occupied #8writers  belonging to the    
school of so-called prehistoric         
inquiry1' as ,sir ,henry  styled it4#ac 
,they were not satisfied with the theory

 that ,society  arose in the            
,patriarchal ,family1 based on direct   
descent from1 and  ownership by1 a      
single male ancestor4 ,to be sure a     
,cameron will #8cross  the hill1' and   
call himself ,stewart1 and a ,chinese   
immigrant into  ,australia has          
discreetly entitled himself ,alexander  
,mac-gillivray4  ,but such accretions1  
and such legal fictions1 do not explain 
the  heterogeneousness of the local     
tribe1 which1 by the theory of some     
historians1 is of common descent4       
#8,prehistoric inquirers' could not  but
 notice that1 among ruder #8non-,aryan' 
races of various degrees  of culture1   
#8the family is radically different from
 the ,patriarchal  ,family1' and        
suggests a different origin4    ,roughly
 speaking1 the groups of real or fancied
 kindred among various  low races       
exhibit the peculiarity that the        
kin-name is often inherited  from the   
mother1 not from the father2 that the   
maternal blood is  stronger in          

determining such cases of inheritance as
 arise2 and that  marriage is forbidden 
within the recognised limits of the     
maternal  kinship4 ,it was natural for  
inquirers to derive this condition of   
affairs1 this reckoning in the female   
line1 from a state of society  in which 
fatherhood 7owing to promiscuity1 or to 
polyandry--several  husbands to one     
wife7 was notably uncertain4 ,bachofen1 
who first  examined the problem1        
attributed the system to a supposed     
period of the  ,supremacy of ,women3    
,mc,lennan to dubious fatherhood1 and   
possible early  promiscuity4 ,the       
recovery of supremacy by men1 or the    
gradual advance  in civilisation1       
especially in accumulation of property1 
would finally  cause descent to be      
reckoned through the male line1 as among
 ourselves4    ,as to the question of   
early promiscuity--sexual relations     
absolutely  unregulated--,dr4           
,westermarck1 ,mr4 ,crawley1 and others 
have argued1  and ,mr4 ,atkinson argues1

 that it never existed1 at least to any 
wide  extent1 and with any potent       
influence4 ,we hear rumours of savages  
utterly promiscuous1 say the ,mincopies 
of the ,andaman ,islands1 just  as we   
hear of savages utterly without         
religion4 ,but later and better         
evidence proves that the ,andamanese    
have both wives and a ,god4#ad          
,again1 the lowest savages known are so 
far not #8promiscuous1' that they       
recognise certain sets of women as      
persons with whom 7as a general  rule1  
subject to occasional exceptions7       
certain sets of men must have  no       
marital relations4 ,it was the opinion  
of ,mr4 ,darwin1 as of ,mr4  ,atkinson1 
that sexual jealousy1 from the first1   
must probably have been  a bar to       
absolute promiscuity1 even among the    
hypothetical anthropoid  ancestors of   
human race4 ,to tell the truth1 our     
evidence on these  points1 as to        
existing savages1 is1 as usual1         
contradictory4#ae      ,,what ,,is      

,,exogamy8 ,,difficulties ,,of          
,,terminology    ,in these inquiries a  
great source of confusion arises 7as all
 students  must be aware7 from the      
absence of exact terminology1 of        
technical  terms with a definite and    
recognised meaning4 ,thus when my       
friend1  the late ,mr4 ,john ,fergus    
,mc,lennan1 introduced the word         
#8,exogamy1' in  #8,primitive ,marriage'
 7#ahfe71 he probably knew perfectly    
well what  he meant4 ,but he did not    
then1 from lack of practice in an       
inquiry  practically novel1 and         
originated by himself1 express his      
meaning with  exactness4 ,he at first   
spoke of exogamy as the rule #8which    
prohibited  marriage within the         
tribe4'#af ,but the word #8tribe' was   
later taken  by ,mr4 ,mc,lennan to mean1
 and is now used as meaning1 what cannot
 be a  primitive community1 a local     
aggregate of groups amicably occupying  
a considerable area of country2 say the 
,urabunna tribe of ,central  ,australia4

 ,mr4 ,mc,lennan did not wish to say    
that exogamy forbids an  ,urabunna      
tribesman to marry an ,urabunna         
tribeswoman2 he meant that  exogamy     
prohibited marriage within the          
recognised kindred--that is1  in this   
case1 between members of totem kindreds 
of the same name1  say ,emu or          
,kangaroo4 ,this fact he later made     
perfectly clear4 ,but  meanwhile such   
terms as #8horde1' #8tribe1'            
#8sub-tribe1' #8family1'  #8gens1'      
#8section1' #8phratria1' #8clan1' many  
of them derived from  civilised         
classical or ,celtic usage1 have been   
tossed up and down1  in company with    
#8class1' #8division1' #8section1' and  
so on1 in a  way most confusing4#ag ,odd
 new terms come from ,america1 such as  
#8socialry1' #8tutelaries1' #8ocular    
consanguinity1' #8ethnogamy1'           
#8conjugal conation1' and so forth4#ah  
,most perplexing it is to find  words   
like clan1 family1 tribe1 gens1 phratry1
 words peculiar to  civilised peoples1  

,greek1 ,roman1 or ,celtic1 applied to  
the society of  savages4 #8,the term    
8clan0 implies descent in the female    
line1' says  the late ,mr4 ,dorsey1     
following ,major ,powell2 but why take  
the ,celtic  term #8clan1' which has no 
such signification1 and confer it on    
what  is really a totem kindred with    
descent in the female line8#ai ,next1   
#8several of the ,siouan tribes are     
divided into two1 and one into three    
sub-tribes4 ,other tribes are composed  
of phratries1 and each sub-tribe  or1   
phratry comprises a number of gentes4'  
,is there a distinction  between the    
#8sub-tribes' of some tribes1 and the   
#8phratries' of others1  or not8        
,apparently there is not1 but the method
 of nomenclature is most  confusing4    
,i shall understand the terms which ,i  
employ1 as follows3    ,the tribe1      
speaking of the ,australians1 for       
instance1 is a large  aggregate of      
friendly or not hostile human groups1   
occupying a  territory of perhaps a     

hundred square miles1 and holding       
councils and  meetings for social and   
religious purposes4 ,it is so far       
#8endogamous'  that its members may     
marry within it--that is to say1 it is  
no more  endogamous than the parish of  
,marylebone4 ,an ,urabunna man1 a man of
  the ,urabunna tribe1 may marry an     
,urabunna woman--if no special native   
law interferes4 ,he may also at pleasure
 marry1 out of his tribe1 say a  woman  
of the neighbouring ,arunta tribe1      
again1 if no special law bars  the      
arrangement4 ,so far the tribe1 the     
large local aggregate of groups1  stands
 indifferent4 ,but1 within the tribe1   
there are laws barring  marital         
intercourse4 ,first1 each tribe is      
usually composed of two  #8primary      
exogamous divisions1' or #8phratries1'  
so called2 in the case  of some tribes  
the phratries are named2 for example1   
,matthurie and  ,kirarawa4 ,every man   
and woman1 in such tribes1 is either a  
,matthurie  or a ,kirarawa1 and can only

 marry into the opposite division1 and  
the  children follow the name of the    
mother4 ,these two divisions are called 
#8primary classes' by some students2    
#8phratrias' 7from the ,greek3  7 by    
others2 #8sub-tribes' by others2 or1    
again1 #8moieties1' or  #8groups4' ,i   
shall1 in each instance1 use the term   
7#8class1' #8phratria1'  #8moiety1'     
#8primary exogamous division1' #8group1'
 and the like7 employed  by the author  
whose opinion ,i am discussing1 though  
,i prefer #8phratry1'  as #8class' has  
another significance2 so has #8group1'  
c4    ,again1 the tribe contains a      
number of totem kindreds 7often called  
#8clans' or gentes1 rather at random71  
that is1 of sets of kin  deriving their 
names from totems1 plants1 animals1 or  
other objects  in nature4 ,to the       
possible origin of ,totemism we return  
in a separate  section4 ,no ,urabunna   
man may marry a woman of his own        
#8phratry1' nor  of his own totem1 and  
the children inherit the phratry and    

totem  names from the mother4 ,finally1 
there are sets of relationships1        
roughly indicating1 it would seem1      
seniority by generations1 and  degrees  
of actual or supposed kindred4 ,within  
many of these1 which  ,i shall style    
#8classes' 7they have other terms       
applied to them71  marriage is          
forbidden4 ,thus there are bars of three
 several sorts on  the intermarrying of 
an ,urabunna man with an ,urabunna      
woman4 ,in a way1  there are three      
grades of exogamous prohibitions4       
,mr4 ,mc,lennan1 who introduced the word
 #8exogamy1' defined it thus3 #8an      
exogamous marriage is a marriage between
 persons of different clans of  kinship1
 not entered into fortuitously1 but     
because of law declaring  it to be      
incest for a man to marry a woman of his
 own clan4'#bj ,the  same community     
cannot be #8both exogamous and          
endogamous1' as some  suppose4 ,thus    
,lord ,avebury writes1 #8some races     
which are endogamous as  regards the    

tribe1 are yet exogamous as regards the 
gens4' ,but really  #8exogamy is the law
 prohibiting marriage between persons of
 the same  blood or stock as            
incest--often under pain of death--and  
endogamy is  the law prohibiting        
marriage except between persons of the  
same blood  or stock4'#ba ,in ,mr4      
,mc,lennan's sense ,i shall take the    
word #8exogamy1'  while dealing with    
peoples apparently nearest the          
beginning4    ,later1 when descent in   
the male line is established1 the       
prohibition  on marriage within the     
totem name comes to apply1 sometimes1 to
  marriage within the local district    
held by the men of the name4 ,the  old  
prohibition1 we see1 is to many within  
the recognised limit of the  blood      
kinship1 or stock1 designated by the    
totem name4 ,but1 as tribes  advance to 
kinship through males1 and as1 thereby1 
groups of one totem  name come to       
possess one region of country1 it often 
happens that  exogamy prohibits marriage

 between persons dwelling in that       
region4  ,whereas ,grouse was forbidden 
to marry ,grouse2 later1 the ,grouse    
living  together1 say in ,corradale1 the
 exogamous prohibition takes the shape  
#8persons dwelling in ,corradale must   
marry out of ,corradale4' ,the name     
marking the exogamous limit is now1 in  
such cases1 local1 but the  prohibition 
is derived from the older tabu on       
marriage between #8persons  of the same 
blood or stock'--all those in ,corradale
 being conceived to  share the same     
blood or stock4 ,this origin of #8local 
exogamy' must be  kept in mind1         
otherwise confusion will arise4 ,there  
are a few cases1  even in ,australia1   
where even local exogamy has become     
obsolete1 and  marriage1 as with        
ourselves1 is prohibited between persons
 of near  kindred simply4    ,now1 if ,i
 may venture to interpret the mind of   
,mr4 ,john ,fergus  ,mc,lennan1 ,i      
conceive that he regarded the totemic   
division as older  than the #8phratry'  

or the #8class' bar1 and he thought it  
the oldest  traceable exogamous limit4  
,not to marry within the totem name 7no 
male ,emu to marry a female ,emu7 was1  
in ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's opinion1 the  most 
archaic marriage law4#bb ,this appears  
from the words of ,mr4  ,mc,lennan's    
brother1 ,mr4 ,donald ,mc,lennan4#bc ,he
 writes3 #8,as the theory  of the       
,origin of ,exogamy took shape1 and the 
facts connected reduced  themselves to  
form in his mind1 the conclusion was    
reached that the  system conveniently   
called 8,totemism0 444 must have existed
 in rude  societies1 prior to the origin
 of ,exogamy4#bd ,this carried back the 
origin of ,totemism to a state of mind  
in which no idea of incest  existed4    
,from that condition my brother hoped to
 trace the progress of                  
,totemism--necessarily a progress       
upwards--in connection with kinship  and
 ,exogamy4 ,it may here be said that he 
had for a time a hypothesis of  the     
origin of ,totemism1 but that he        

afterwards came to see that there  were 
conclusive reasons against it4'         
,meanwhile may we not1 then1 assume     
that1 in ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's opinion1 the 
earliest traceable human aggregate      
within which matrimony was legally      
forbidden was the totem kin1 indicated  
by the totem name1 the totem  tabu1 and 
the totem badge1 or symbol--where it    
existed8    ,we now see how             
heterogeneous elements came to exist in 
the tribe of  locality1 a puzzle to the 
friends of the theory of the            
,patriarchal  ,family4 ,for the nature  
of totemism1 plus exogamy and female    
descent1 is obviously such that under   
totemism1 each family group  even 7each 
#8fire circle' of men1 wives1 and       
children71 must contain  persons of     
different totems4 ,the father and mother
 must be of  different totems 7persons  
of the same totem not intermarrying71   
and  the children must inherit the totem
 either of the father or of the         
mother4#be ,when paternal kinship is not

 only recognised 7as1 in  practical     
life1 it always is71 but becomes        
exclusive in its influence  on customary
 law1 and when an approach to the       
,patriarchal ,family1 with  the power of
 the patriarch1 is evolved1 all the     
members of the family  in all its       
branches will 7if ,totemism persists7   
have the same totem2  derived from the  
father4 ,thus there will now be a local 
totem group1  a group mainly of the same
 totem name1 as is practically the case 
in  parts of ,central ,australia4#bf    
,it is necessary to understand this     
clearly4 ,take a very early group1  in a
 given district2 suppose it1 at first1  
to be anonymous1 and let it  later be   
called the ,emu group4 ,so far1 all     
members of the group will  be ,emus1    
they will form an ,emu local group4     
,but1 next1 suppose that  there are many
 neighbouring groups1 also at first     
anonymous2 let them  later be styled    
,rat1 ,cat1 ,bat1 ,sprat4 ,suppose that 
each such group now  7for reasons to be 

indicated later7 takes its wives not    
from within  itself1 but from all the   
other groups2 that these women bring    
into the  ,emu group their group names2 
and that their children inherit their   
names from their mothers4 ,then the     
name1 #8,emu group1' will cling to  that
 local aggregate1 as such2 but1 in time1
 the members of the ,emu  group will all
 be1 say1 ,rats1 ,cats1 ,bats1 and      
,sprats1 so called from  the group-names
 of their alien mothers4 ,suppose that1 
for one reason  or another1 children at 
last come to inherit their names and    
totems  from their fathers4 ,then a ,cat
 father will have ,cat children1 though 
his wives may still be of different     
totems1 and his sons' children will     
also be ,cats1 and so the local group   
will become mainly1 if not wholly1  a   
group of one totem1 the ,cat4 ,the      
,arunta of ,central ,australia do trace 
kinship in the male line1 and thus there
 is #8one area which belongs to  the    
,kangaroo men1 another to ,emu men1     

another to ,hakea flower men1' and  so  
on4 ,this has reached such a pitch that 
#8in speaking of themselves  the natives
 will refer to these local groups1' not 
by the prevalent  totem names in each1  
but #8by the name of the locality which 
each of  them inhabits1' namely1 as men 
of the ,iturkawura camp1 and so on4#bg  
,thus we might say #8the ,glen ,nevis   
men1' #8the ,corradale men1' and so on4 
,thus we begin with an anonymous group1 
or group of unknown name1 a  local      
group4 ,we introduce ,totemism1 and that
 group becomes a local  group with a    
totem name4 ,granting exogamy           
7prohibition of marriage  within the    
group71 and reckoning in the female     
line1 it soon developes  into a local   
group made up of various totems1 but1 at
 first1 as a  local group1 it probably  
retains its original totem name among   
its  neighbours4 ,reckoning1 still      
later1 through the male line1 we again  
meet1 as at first1 a local totem group1 
but already ,totemism is on  the wane1  

and the groups are soon to be called by 
the territorial  names of their lands4  
,at this stage totem names are tending  
to decay1  and the next step will       
probably be to style the group by the   
name of  some remembered1 or mythical1  
male ancestor1 such as #8children of    
,donald'--,macdonalds4    ,thus if1 at a
 given time1 the name of a certain male 
ancestor is  substituted1 as            
#8eponymous1' for the totem name1 or the
 district name1  we shall find a local  
group of1 say1 ,sons of ,donald1 into   
which other  groups1 ,sons of ,sorlie1  
or ,ulrig1 will enter1 as occasion      
serves1 and  be more or less absorbed4  
,a ,state may at last arise1 say1       
#8,softs of  ,israel4'    ,we are not   
assuming1 however1 that all human       
societies have passed  through the      
totemistic and exogamous stages4        
,,totemism ,,and ,,exogamy    ,but what 
was the original unit1 the totem group1 
or other division  outside of which     
alone could marriages be arranged8 ,and 

why was the  totem name the limit8      
,returning to ,mr4 ,donald ,mc,lennan's 
account of the  opinions which his      
brother did not live to set forth1      
,totemism arose  #8in a state of man in 
which no idea of incest existed4' ,on   
this theory1  ,i presume1 there would be
 totem groups before exogamy arose2     
before  it was reckoned #8incest' to    
many within the totem name4 ,this1 as we
  shall see1 appears to be sometimes the
 opinion of the best ,australian        
authorities1 ,messrs4 ,fison and        
,howitt1 and ,messrs4 ,spencer and      
,gillen4  ,it is also the theory of     
,arunta tradition4 ,the totem belief1 as
 it now  exists1 imposes many tabus3 you
 may not 7as a rule7 kill1 eat1 or use  
the plant or animal which is your totem2
 still less perhaps1 in the  long run1  
may you #8use1' sexually1 a woman of    
your totem4 ,if this1  or a kindred     
totem tabu1 is the origin of exogamy1   
then to exogamy 7as  a law1 though not  
necessarily as a tendency7 the totem is 

prior in  time4 ,but ,i have no reason  
to suppose that ,mr4 ,mc,lennan ever    
regarded  the totem tabu as the origin  
of exogamy4 ,in his published works he  
offers another theory1 not commonly     
accepted4    ,but the important thing to
 note is that exogamy may conceivably   
7contrary to ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's opinion1 
but in accordance with that of ,mr4     
,atkinson7 have existed1 or rather      
tended to exist1 before totems arose2   
much more1 then1 previous to the        
evolution of totem names1 of totem      
tabu1 and of the idea of incest1 as a   
sin1 or mystic misdeed1 and as  an      
offence to the totem--a religious       
offence to ,god1 or to ancestral        
spirits4 ,persons may have been         
forbidden to marry within their local   
group1 their #8fire circle' before that 
group had a totem1 or a totem  name1 and
 they may have been forbidden for       
reasons purely secular1 to  which the   
totem later lent a sanction1 and a      
definite limit4 ,thus ,mr4  ,tylor1 our 

most sagacious guide in all such        
problems1 writes #8,exogamy  can and    
does exist without ,totemism1 and for   
all we know was originally  independent 
of it4'#bh    ,it is part of my argument
 that exogamous tendencies1 at          
least--that  is1 a habit of seeking     
female mates outside of the             
fire-circle--may  very well have        
prevailed before any human group had    
even a totemic  name4 ,but exogamous    
tendencies are not1 of course1 the same 
thing as  exogamy strictly defined1 and 
sanctioned by religious or superstitious
  fear1 and by secular penalties        
inflicted by the tribe4 ,against the    
notion that exogamy may have been prior 
to ,totemism1 ,mr4 ,robertson  ,smith   
argued that very early man would not be 
restrained from  marriages by such an   
abstract idea as that of kindred--#8not 
to marry  your near kin'--while the idea
 of kindred was still fluid1 and not    
yet crystallised around the totem       
name4#bi ,but1 without thinking of      

kindred by blood1 perhaps without       
recognising consanguinity 7though it    
must have been recognised very soon71   
early man may have decided that  #8thou 
shalt not marry within this local group 
or crowd1 of which ,i am  head4'        
,nothing abstract in that6 ,there was no
 tribal law--there were as  yet 7,i     
suppose7 no tribes--only the will of the
 head of each small set  of people      
practically enforced exogamy4    ,we can
 have no certainty on this point1 for we
 know of no pre-totemic  race1 no people
 who certainly have not yet entered into
 the totemic  stage4 ,any such people1  
probably1 in the remote past1 had no    
idea of  incest as a sin1 or of exogamy 
as a law sanctioned by a tabu4 ,but they
  may have1 at least1 had a strong      
tendency to marry outside of the  circle
 of the hearth1 the wandering hearth of 
homeless nomads ranging  after food4    
,the reader of ,mr4 ,atkinson's treatise
 will find that this kind of            
exogamy--marriage outside the local     

group--would1 on his theory1 be  the    
rule1 even when no idea of blood        
kindred1 or of incest as a sin1  need   
have arisen2 and no totem1 or anything  
else1 had yet been named4  ,the cause of
 the prohibition would1 in ,mr4         
,atkinson's opinion1 be the  sexual     
jealousy of the hypothetical patriarchal
 anthropoid male animal2  and1 later1   
the sexual jealousy of his adult male   
offspring1 and of  the females4 ,still  
later the group1 already in practice    
exogamous1  would accept the totem name1
 marking off the group from others1 and 
the totem name1 snipe1 wolf1 or what    
not1 would become1 for the time1  the   
exogamous limit4 ,no man and woman of   
the same totem name could  intermarry4  
,still later1 a myth of kinship with the
 totem would arise1  and would add the  
religious sanction of a tabu4    ,a     
prohibition may perhaps have arisen very
 early1 even if ,mr4  ,atkinson's       
hypothesis 7that the rule of marriage   
outside the group  arose in a state of  

brutality7 be rejected4 #8,the origin of
 bars to  marry is1 in fact1 complex1'  
writes ,mr4 ,crawley4 ,a dislike of     
marriage  with a group-mate1 familiar1  
through contiguity1 from infancy1 may   
have been developed among early men2#cj 
and may have been reinforced  by the    
probably later superstitions which      
create #8sexual tabu1' and  mutual      
avoidance1 among many existing peoples4 
,men and women are1  by savages1        
conceived to be mysteriously perilous to
 each other1  especially when they live 
in close contiguity4 ,mr4 ,crawley also 
allows  for ,mr4 ,atkinson's main       
factor1 jealousy1 #8proprietary feeling1
  which is one crude means by which the 
family has been regulated and           
maintained4'#ca ,if these things were so
 7whether we go back to ,mr4            
,atkinson's semi-brutal ancestors1 or   
not71 then1 contrary to ,mr4 ,donald    
,mc,lennan's opinion1 and to general    
opinion1 it would not #8appear to be    
possible to demonstrate that ,totemism  

preceded exogamy1' or at least  preceded
 the exogamous tendency4 ,for1 in the   
first place1 exogamy might  conceivably 
tend to arise before the explicit idea  
of kinship--whether  male or            
female--arose4 ,mr4 ,atkinson's #8primal
 law' would be unuttered  in speech     
7speech1 by his theory1 there was none71
 but would amount  to this3 #8,i1 the   
patriarchal bull of this herd1 will do  
my best to  kill you1 the adult young   
bulls1 if you make any approaches to any
 of  the cows in this crowd4' ,there is 
no notion of #8incest1' but there is    
jealousy producing the germ exogamy4    
,the young bulls must find mates        
outside of the local herd--or do        
without4 ,this rule persisted1 on ,mr4  
,atkinson's theory1 till the            
hypothetical anthropoid became a man1   
and  named his group 7or had it named   
for him1 as ,i later suggest7 by a      
totem name4    ,but real human and      
speaking beings might enforce marriage  
outside of  the group1 though they did  

not perhaps think explicitly of kindred 
7or1  at least1 did not think the idea  
fully out71 still less of #8incest1' as 
sin4 ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's theory1 as given 
in his works1 was partly identical  with
 that of ,mr4 ,atkinson4 #8,the earliest
 human groups can have had  no idea of  
kinship'--they must1 therefore1 have    
been rather low  savages4 #8,but1' he   
said1 #8they were held together by a    
feeling of  kinship1' not yet risen into
 explicit consciousness4 ,cat and kitten
  have1 probably1 feeling of kinship1   
and that feeling is very  strong1 while 
it lasts1 in the maternal cat1 while    
between semi-human  mothers and         
children1 arriving so very slowly at    
maturity1 mother-kin  must have been    
consciously realised very early4 ,mr4   
,mc,lennan then  showed the stages by   
which the savage would gradually1 by    
reflection1  reach explicit             
consciousness of female kinship1 of     
mother-relationship1  sister and brother
 relationship1 and all the degrees of   

female kin4    ,but ,mr4 ,fison and     
others have argued powerfully against   
this  theory4#cb ,moreover1 we find male
 relationships1 as we saw--#8descent    
counted in the male line'--among the    
,arunta of ,central ,australia1  whom   
,mr4 ,j4 ,g4 ,frazer regarded1 in #ahii1
 as actually #8primitive2'  while the   
neighbours of the ,arunta1 the          
,urabunna1 reckon through the  female   
line4#cc ,mr4 ,crawley1 for various     
reasons1 says1 #8the famous             
,matriarchal theory' 7the prepotency and
 dominion of women7 #8was as            
exaggerated in its early forms as was   
the ,patriarchal4444 ,it is a  method of
 tracing genealogy1 more convenient in  
polygamous societies  and more natural  
in primitive times when the close       
connection of  mother and child during  
the early days of infancy emphasises the
  relation4'#cd ,dr4 ,westermarck argues
 to a similar effect4#ce ,his  motive is
 to discredit the theory of promiscuity1
 and consequent  uncertainty of         

fatherhood1 as the cause of reckoning on
 the spindle  side4 ,but the ,arunta1   
who reckon on the sword side1 actually  
do  not even know that children are the 
result of sexual intercourse1  according
 to ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen4 ,how 
they can have any idea  of blood-kinship
 at all is1 therefore1 the mystery4 ,it 
may perhaps be  argued that they have   
none4 ,but these ignorant ,arunta reckon
 descent  through the male line--while  
the ,royal ,picts1 in early ,scotland1  
infinitely more civilised1 reckoned by  
the female line4    ,for myself1 ,i     
still incline to the opinion#cf that the
 reckoning of  descent through the woman
 is the more archaic method1 and the    
method  that1 certainly1 tends to       
dwindle and disappear1 as at last it did
  among the ,picts4 ,this applies to    
human society1 not to that of ,mr4      
,atkinson's hypothesis1 in which the    
question is not of kin1 but of          
property4 #8,every female in my crowd is
 my sole property1' says--or            

feels--,mr4 ,atkinson's patriarchal     
anthropoid1 and the patriarch gives     
expression to his sentiment with teeth  
and claws1 if he has not yet  learned to
 double up his fist1 with a stone in it4
 #8,these were early  days4'            
,,theories ,,of ,,exogamy4 ,,mr4        
,,mclennan',s ,,theory    ,in any case1 
,mr4 ,mc,lennan's hypothetical first    
groups1 like ,mr4  ,atkinson's1 were    
very low indeed4 ,they developed        
exogamy1 not 7as  in ,mr4 ,atkinson's   
theory7 through sexual jealousy on the  
part of  the sires1 but1 first1 through 
regular female infanticide4 ,this       
practice1 being reasonable1 could not   
prevail among ,mr4 ,atkinson's          
anthropoids4#cg ,girl babies being      
mostly killed out1 women became  scarce4
 ,neighbouring groups being hostile1    
brides could only be  procured by       
hostile capture4 ,each group thus stole 
all its brides and  became exogamous1   
and marriage inside the group became a  
sin1 by dint  of #8a prejudice strong as

 a principle of religion4'    ,this     
theory of ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's is1 ,i      
think1 quite untenable4 ,the  prevalence
 of female infanticide1 at the supposed 
very early stage of  society1 is not    
demonstrated1 and did not seem probable 
to ,mr4 ,darwin4  ,even if it existed1  
it could not create a prejudice against 
marrying  the few women left within the 
group4 ,mr4 ,mc,lennan1 unhappily1 was  
prevented by bad health1 and death1 from
 working out his hypothesis  completely4
 ,his most recent statement involves the
 theory that the  method of the ,nairs  
of ,malabar1 living in polyandrous      
households 7many  men to each woman7 was
 the earliest form of #8marriage4' ,but 
people who1  like the ,nairs1 dwell in  
large households1 are far indeed from   
being  #8primitive4' #8,a want of       
balance between the sexes' led1 ,mr4    
,mc,lennan  held1 to #8a practice of    
capturing women for wives1' and was     
followed  by #8the rise of the law of   
exogamy4' ,the first prohibition would  

be  against capturing women of the      
kindred 7marked by the totem71 for such 
capture1 if resisted1 might involve the 
shedding of kindred blood4  ,women being
 scarce1 through female infanticide1    
kindred groups would  not give up or    
sell their women to each other 7though  
to the males of  the groups1 such women 
could not be wives71 nor could women be 
raided  from kindred groups1 as we saw4 
,so they would be stolen from alien     
groups1 #8and so marriages with kindred 
women would tend to go into  desuetude4'
 ,the introduction of captured alien    
wives would change the  nature of       
matrimonial relations4 ,under the ,nair 
system #8a woman would  live in the     
house of her mother1 and under the      
special guardianship and  protection of 
her brothers and her mother's brothers4 
,she would be in a  position of almost  
absolute independence of her            
husbands4444'    ,but really pristine   
man and woman can have had no houses1 no
  matriarchal rule of women4 ,the       

,nairs1 not being primitive1 have       
houses1 and their women have authority3 
pristine man was not in their           
condition4 ,however1 captured alien     
wives would1 ,mr4 ,mc,lennan argues1 be 
property1 be slaves2 and men would find 
this arrangement 7now obsolete7  so     
charming that polyandry and the reign of
 woman would go out4 ,the  only real    
legal marriage would be wedlock with an 
alien1 a captive1  a slave woman4       
,marriage with a woman of the same stock
 would be a  crime and a sin4 ,it would 
be incest4#ch ,really it would be1 at   
worst1  concubinage4    ,this theory    
seems untenable at every point1         
community of wives1 female  infanticide1
 household life1 supremacy of women in  
the household1  living with a           
non-captive wife reckoning as incest1   
and1 in short1 all  along the line4     
,even if the prejudice against marrying 
native women  did exist1 it could not be
 developed into the idea of             
sin--granting  that the idea of sin     

already existed4 ,to be sinful1 endogamy
 within the  group must have offended   
some superstitious belief1 perhaps the  
belief  in the totem1 with its tabu4#ci 
,,mr4 ,,crawley',s ,,theory    ,to      
disengage from his learned book1 ,the   
,mystic ,rose 7#aijb71 ,mr4  ,crawley's 
theory of the origin of exogamy is no   
easy task4 ,he strongly  insists on the 
#8religious' element in all early human 
thought1 and  as in #8religion' he      
includes the vague fears1 misgivings1   
and ideas  of #8luck1' which haunt even 
the least religious of modern men1 we   
may say that #8religion1' in this sense1
 mingles with the thought of  all ages4 
,the present writer1 like ,dr4 ,johnson1
 is an example of  the #8religious'     
character1 and of ,mr4 ,crawley's remark
 that #8human  nature remains           
potentially primitive4' ,to the         
#8religious' man or  woman 7using       
#8religious' in this sense7 the universe
 is indeed a  thing of delicate poise1  
and may #8break1 and bring down death1' 

if  we walk under a ladder1 or spill the
 salt1 or enter a doorway with  the     
wrong foot foremost1 or fail to salute a
 magpie1 or the new moon4  ,the         
superstitious anthropologist1 of course1
 knows that all these  apprehensions of 
his are utterly absurd1 but the savage  
is careful  and troubled about them4    
,the ,philistine1 on the other hand1 is 
proud  of his conquest of these airy    
terrors3 he #8cannot imagine what people
  mean by such nonsense1' and1 exactly  
so far as he is sincere1 he cannot      
comprehend early mankind4    ,now1 as to
 exogamy1 our difficulty is to          
understand why breach of  the rule      
against certain marriages is1           
everywhere1 so deadly a sin3  so black  
an offence against #8religion4' ,mr4    
,crawley's explanation  is not1 perhaps1
 easily to be disengaged from the mass  
of his work1  but it begins in his      
appreciation of the  of early men1      
their ever-present sense of #8religious'
 terrors4 #8,thus all persons  are      

potentially dangerous to others1 as well
 as potentially in  danger4444'#dj ,this
 sense of peril arises #8in virtue      
simply of the  distinction between a man
 and his fellows4' ,much more1 then1 are
 women  dangerous to men1 and men to    
women1 the sexes being so distinct from 
each other4 ,we know that the most      
extraordinary precautions are taken  to 
avoid contact with women in certain     
circumstances1 and a well-known  story  
of ,sir ,john ,mandeville's is only one 
case of the fact that the  bridegrooms  
of some races1 from a superstitious     
terror1 insist on being  made cocus en  
herbe4 ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen    
give the instance  of #8the marriage    
ceremony' 7an odious brutality7 among   
the ,arunta of  ,central ,australia4#da 
,it is perhaps intended to deliver the  
bridegroom  from a peril imagined by    
superstition 7as in ,mandeville's       
tale72#db  and1 without it1 the         
,australian would resemble the man      
derided in the  old ,scottish song3     

,the ,bridegroom grat when the sun gaed 
doon4    ,thus a #8religious' dread     
attaches among savages 7the theory      
holds7 to  all marriages2 all are       
novelties1 new steps in life1 and       
therefore  are so far #8sinful' that    
they involve a peril1 vague but awful1  
the  creation of superstition4          
,marriages contrary to the exogamous    
rule1  are only especially and          
inexplicably bad cases of the           
#8sin'--that is1  mystic danger--of     
marital relations in general1 as ,i     
understand ,mr4  ,crawley4 ,marriage    
ceremonies of every kind are devised to 
avoid #8sin1'  as our ,marriage ,service
 candidly states1 using #8sin' in the   
,christian  sense of the word4 ,but     
there are savage marriages1 those       
forbidden  by the law of exogamy1 which1
 as a general rule1 no ceremony can     
render other than sinful4 ,so great and 
terrible is the danger of such          
marriages--namely1 among many savages1  
between persons of the same  totem1 that

 it threatens the whole community1 just 
as the marriage  of ,charles ,i4 with a 
,catholic bride caused the ,plague1     
according to  the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,row1 and  
therefore such unions are punished by   
the death  penalty1 and are but seldom  
left to the automatic vengeance of the  
tabu4 ,foremost in this black list of   
sins are the unions of brothers  and    
sisters of the full blood1 though1 we   
must remember1 these are not  more      
heavily punished than marriage between a
 man and woman of the  same totem1 even 
if the pair come together from opposite 
ends of the  continent1 and are not     
blood relations at all4 ,why is this8   
,as ,i understand ,mr4 ,crawley1 the    
sexes1 in savagery1 avoid each other's  
society in everyday life1 partly from   
#8sexual tabu'--the result of the       
superstitions already indicated2 partly 
because of #8sexual solidarity1'        
perhaps even of #8sexual antipathy4' ,in
 fact1 men and women are often  very    
much in each other's way4 ,we do not    

want women in our clubs and             
smoking-rooms--nor do savages--and we   
despise a man who lurks in              
drawing-rooms when his fellows are out  
of doors2 a man who is a pillar  of     
luncheon parties and of afternoon tea4  
,but this separation of the  sexes is   
especially rigid between the children of
 the same hearth1 even  among nomads4   
,the boys go with the father1 the girls 
with the mother4  ,the manlike apes have
 the same ideas4 #8,diard was told by   
the ,malays1  and he found it afterwards
 to be true1 that the young ,siamangs1  
when  in their helpless state1 are      
carried about by their parents1 the     
males  by the father1 the females by the
 mother4' #8,the nests 444 are only     
occupied by the female and young1 the   
male passing the night in a fork  of the
 same tree or another tree in the       
vicinity4'#dc    ,these facts of ape    
etiquette would1 to use an ,elizabethan 
phrase1 have  been #8nuts' to ,mr4      
,atkinson1 and prove that sexual        

separation of the  children is a very   
early institution4 ,in ,australia1 ,new 
,caledonia1  and other countries1       
brothers and sisters must not even speak
 to each  other1 and must avoid each    
other utterly4 ,thus the danger and     
#8sin'  of the most innocent intercourse
 between brothers and sisters is        
emphasised2 much more awful1 then1 are  
matrimonial unions of brother  and      
sister4 #8,the extension' 7of this idea7
 #8by the use of relationships  produces
 the various forms of exogamy1' says    
,mr4 ,crawley4#dd ,there are            
difficulties here2 for example1 ,mr4    
,crawley tells us that incest did  not  
#8need prevention1' though the rules of 
brother-and-sister avoidance  seem      
really to mean that it did1 or was      
thought to do so 7but perhaps  only     
superstitious dread of ordinary         
intercourse caused the rule871 and      
though we know of regions where such    
incest1 in early youth1 is said  to be  
universal4#de #8,such incest1' says ,mr4

 ,crawley1 #8is prevented by  the       
psychological difficulty with which love
 comes into play between  persons either
 closely associated1 or strictly        
separated before the  age of            
puberty4444'#df ,now we know that lust  
does come into play--for  example1 among
 the ,annamese--between brothers and    
sisters not closely  separated2 and we  
also know that1 the more persons are    
#8strictly  separated1' the more does   
the novelty and romance1 when they do   
meet1  produce natural attraction1 as   
between ,romeo and ,juliet4 ,incest     
among  the young is really prevented by 
the religious horror with which1 by     
most peoples1 it is regarded2 as well   
as1 among the civilised1 by the         
constant and sacred familiarity of      
family life4 ,the bare idea of it  can  
only occur1 as a desirable notion1 to a 
boyish revolutionary1 like  ,shelley1 or
 to minds congenitally depraved4        
,again1 men and women of the same totem 
have no #8avoidances' forced  upon them1

 as far as ,i know 7and1 as they may not
 marry1 this is an  oversight72 yet     
their marriages are as terribly sinful  
as marriages  between brother and sister
 of the full blood4 ,mr4 ,crawley       
writes1  #8,obviously the one invariable
 antecedent in all exogamous systems1   
indeed in all marriage systems1 is the  
prohibition of marriage 8within  the    
house40' ,but1 we reply1 ,a 7a male7 and
 ,b 7a female71 of the same  totem1 may 
never have been in the same house1 or in
 the same degree  of latitude and       
longitude1 before they met and fell in  
love4 ,as to  #8house1' houses they may 
have none4 ,yet their union is a deadly 
sin4  ,mr4 ,robertson ,smith is said to 
have #8set the question in the right    
direction1' when he wrote1 #8whatever is
 the origin of bars to marriage1  they  
certainly are early associated with the 
feeling that it is  indecent for        
house-mates to intermarry4'#dg    ,but  
what is early need not be primary4      
,again1 if ,mr4 ,crawley reads on1 he   

will find1 ,i think1 that the context   
of ,mr4 ,robertson ,smith's argument    
shows him not to have held that  exogamy
 arose in #8the feeling that it is      
indecent for 8house-mates0'  7or        
tent-mates7 #8to marry4' ,for ,mr4      
,robertson ,smith adds1 #8it will not   
do to turn this argument round1 and say 
that the pre-,islamic law of  bars to   
marriage may have arisen 444 in virtue  
of a custom that every  wife and her    
children shall have their own tent4#ej  
,in any case1 we  cannot speak of       
#8house-mates' before there were houses4
 ,but if for  #8house-mates' we read    
#8hearth-mates1' then no sense of       
#8indecency1'  as on ,mr4 ,crawley's    
theory1 need necessarily attend their   
marriage1  for hearth-mates may be of   
different totems1 derived from different
  mothers1 and may be marriageable      
enough1 at least as far as totem  law is
 concerned4 ,a1 male1 an ,emu1 marries  
,b1 a ,bandicoot1 and ,c1 a  ,grub4 ,his
 children by ,b have the ,bandicoot     

totem1 his children by ,c  have the     
,grub totem4 ,as far as totem law goes1 
these children may  intermarry1 but this
 is not allowed in practice to-day4 ,mr4
 ,mathews  says1 of the ,kamilaroi1 #8in
 order to prevent such a close marriage'
  7of brother and sister on the father's
 side71 #8every tribe has strict  social
 customs1 founded upon public opinion1  
which will not tolerate  the union of a 
man with a woman whose blood            
relationship is considered  too         
near4'#dh ,australian ethics1 long      
trained under the old totem  and phratry
 prohibitions1 are now sufficiently     
enlightened to reject  unions which we  
also forbid4 ,but it cannot have been so
 in the  beginning1 or the totem and    
phratry tabus on marriage would have had
  no occasion to exist4 ,it would have  
sufficed to say1 #8,thou shalt not      
marry thy sister1 or mother1' and the   
totemic rule would have been a  cumbrous
 superfluity4 ,superfluous it would have
 been1 even under the  hypothetical     

#8group marriage system1' where the law 
would have run  #8,thou shalt not marry 
thy group-sister or group-mother4'      
,while ,mr4 ,matthews gives a kind of   
bye-law1 forbidding marriage1 under     
female descent1 with the paternal       
half-sister1 ,mr4 ,fison avers that the 
,kamilaroi do allow such unions4 #8,it  
is marriage within a phratria1' but  not
 within a totem4#di ,the fact was       
denied1 or at least questioned1  by many
 correspondents1 but ,mr4 ,fison        
believed it to be authentic4  #8,the    
natives justified it on the ground that 
the parties were not of  the same mudji'
 7totem74 ,apparently these natives1 who
 let a man  marry his father's daughter1
 had not arrived at an objection to     
unions  of #8too near flesh4' ,but mere 
decadence1 under ,european whisky1 may  
be the explanation4 ,mr4 ,matthews      
denies1 as we saw1 what ,mr4 ,fison     
asserts1 as to the ,kamilaroi4 ,mr4     
,crawley writes1 #8if we apply to the   
word 8indecent0 the connotation of      

sexual tabu 444 and if we understand  by
 8house-mates0 those upon whom sexual   
tabu concentrates1 we have  explained   
exogamy4'#ej    ,scarcely1 for sexual   
tabu against marriage1 in fact1 now1 at 
least1  concentrates on people of near  
kin1 and on totem-mates1 man and woman  
of the same totem1 and they may be      
#8house-mates1' or #8hearth-mates1'  or 
they may not 7in polygamous society71   
and the hearth-mates 7as  far as the    
totem rule goes1 but not now in         
practice7 may thus be                   
intermarriageable1 as not of the same   
totem1 while totem-mates1 from  opposite
 ends of a continent1 are not           
intermarriageable 7except in the        
peculiar case of the ,arunta and cognate
 tribes74    ,but ,mr4 ,crawley may     
reply that each totem1 originally1 did  
really  pertain to all members of each  
small local group1 and that the totem   
prohibition was extended1 later1 to all 
groups of the same totem name1  however 
distant in space4 ,thus according to the

 ,euahlayi blacks there  were originally
 no totem names1 but the divine ,baiame 
gave them to  mortals with the rule that
 no pair of the same totem name were to 
marry1 #8however far apart their hunting
 grounds4' ,thus considered1  the tabu  
which forbids an ,emu man to marry an   
,emu woman1 would mean  no more1        
originally1 than that marriage between  
persons living in the  close contiguity 
of the same local group 7in this case   
the ,emu group7  was forbidden4 ,there  
might be no original intention of       
prohibiting  marriage with a person of  
an ,emu group1 dwelling a thousand miles
  away2 probably no such group was known
 to exist4 ,the original meaning  of    
exogamous law1 ,i repeat1 would be      
merely #8you must not marry  a          
hearth-mate1'--or a #8house-mate1' in   
,mr4 ,crawley's phrase--the             
hearth-mates1 in this particular        
instance1 being delimited by the  name  
#8,emu4' ,so far my conjecture agrees   
with that of ,mr4 ,crawley4 ,the        

extension of the prohibition to persons 
of the same totem-name1 however  remote 
their homes and alien their blood1 ,i am
 content to regard as a  later kind of  
accidental corollary4 ,there came to be 
totem kins of the  same name1 far       
remote1 and thus1 as it were casually1  
the law acquired  an unpremeditated     
sweep and scope1 including persons not  
really of the  same group or blood1 only
 of the same name4    ,but why was there
 originally any objection at all to     
marrying the most  accessible bride1 the
 female hearth-mate8 ,here1 as ,i have  
tried to  show1 ,mr4 ,crawley would     
explain by his idea of sexual tabu4 ,all
 men are  regarded with superstitious   
dread by all women1 and vice versa2     
above  all1 as a daily danger1 the men1 
or women living in close contiguity     
must avoid each other4 ,to keep them    
apart all sorts of tabus and  avoidances
 are invented1 including the tabu on    
their marriage4    ,this is a plausible 
and taking theory1 and ,i am far from   

arguing that  it cannot be a true       
theory4 ,but the insuperable difficulty 
of deciding  arises from the            
circumstance that we know nothing at all
 about the  intellectual condition of   
the more or less human beings among whom
  the prohibition of marriage within the
 group first arose4 ,were they  advanced
 enough to be capable of such a         
superstitious dread of each  other as   
the supposed cause of the prohibition   
takes for granted8 ,males  and females1 
among the lower animals1 have no such   
superstition4 ,it  requires human       
imagination4 ,on the other hand1 animal 
jealousy was well  within their reach1  
and ,mr4 ,atkinson derives the original 
prohibition  of marriage within the     
group from the sheer sexual jealousy of 
the  animal-patriarch4 ,in his opinion  
the consequent aversion to such  wedlock
 crystallised into a habit1 as the race 
advanced towards full  humanity4        
,even before his anthropoid clients were
 completely human1 the group  would be  

replete with children of females not of 
the full group blood1  captives1 and    
therefore these children 7if blood kin  
through females  were regarded7 would be
 eligible as wives4 ,but this would not 
yet1 of  course1 be understood4 ,perhaps
 it would not be fully understood till  
the totem name was given to1 and        
accepted by1 each group1 and so there   
was a definite mark set on each woman   
brought in from without the  group1 and 
on her children1 who bore her totem     
name4 ,after that1 each  totem group    
obviously contained members of other    
totems1 and those1  being now recognised
 by their mother's totem names1 were    
technically  intermarriageable4 ,what   
had been a group not explicitly         
conscious of  its own heterogeneous     
elements1 became1 in fact1 an assemblage
 of  recognised heterogeneousness1      
capable of finding legal brides within  
itself1 and no longer under the         
necessity 7had it understood7 of        
capturing brides from without in hostile

 fashion4 ,such an assemblage  would1 or
 might1 come to consist of families1    
dwelling1 or rather  wandering1 within a
 given region1 all on terms of          
friendship and mutual  aid4 ,i take it  
that1 by this time1 improved weapons and
 instruments1  and improved skill1      
enabled groups larger than the small    
original  groups to live in a given     
area4 ,in fact1 the group would1 or     
might1  be a small local #8tribe1' but1 
probably1 was unconscious of the        
circumstance4 ,if conscious1 one cause  
of hostility among the groups  was at an
 end1 there was no necessity for        
stealing women1 a system of  peaceful   
betrothals within the group might now   
arise1 though certain  facts1 to be     
dealt with later1 raise a presumption1  
perhaps1 that this  relatively peaceful 
state of life did not appear until two  
of the  original local totem groups     
coalesced in connubium1 intermarrying   
with each other1 in fact becoming       
#8phratries4'    ,to produce the new    

condition of affairs1 two factors were  
necessary3  first1 a means of           
distinguishing the captured women within
 every group  from each other1 and from 
the group into which they were brought  
by  capture4 ,this means of distinction 
was afforded by the totem names4  ,next1
 a recognition of kinship was needed1   
and this was supplied1 let  us          
conjecture1 by naming the children of   
each of the captive women  after the    
totem name of the group from which she  
was captured4 ,if all  the children     
indiscriminately were called by the     
totem name 7say ,emu7  of the local     
group into which their mothers had been 
brought--that is1  by the totem name of 
their fathers--there would be no        
recognisable  heterogeneity within that 
group1 and so there would be1 within the
  local group1 no possible wives1 under 
the exogamous rule4 ,whether  polyandry 
then existed1 or not1 still all the     
fathers were of one  local totem name1  
say ,emu1 and children could only be    

differentiated  by styling them after   
the totem names of their alien mothers4 
,this  is usually done among the savages
 who are least advanced1 but not  among 
the ,arunta1 whose totem names1 as we   
shall see1 by a curious  divergence1 do 
not indicate stock1 but are derived from
 a singular  superstition about         
ancestral spirits1 of various totems1   
incarnating  themselves in each new-born
 child4    ,mr4 ,mc,lennan1 in          
,primitive ,marriage 7#ahfe71 had       
arrived at  conclusions very like these4
 ,the primitive groups #8were assumed to
  be homogeneous4444 ,while as yet there
 was no system of kinship1 the  presence
 of captive women in a horde' 7group71  
#8in whatever numbers1  could not       
introduce a system of betrothals'--the  
women and their  children not yet being 
differentiated from each other1 and from
 the  group in which they lived4 ,mr4   
,mc,lennan1 in #ahfe1 did not ask how   
these women ever came to be distinctly  
differentiated1 each from  each1 and    

from the group which held them1 though  
that differentiation  was a necessary   
prelude to the recognition of kindred   
through these  women4 ,but presently1 in
 his ,studies of ,totemism 7#ahfi71 he  
found1  whether he observed the fact or 
not1 the means of differentiation4      
,differentiation became possible after1 
and not before1 each primitive  group   
received a totem name1 retained by its  
captive women within each  group to     
which they were carried1 a name to be   
inherited by their  children in each    
case4    ,he says1 #8heterogeneity as a 
statical force can only have come into  
play when a system of kinship led the   
hordes to look on the children of  their
 foreign women as belonging to the      
stocks of their mothers4' ,that  was    
impossible1 before the totem or some    
equivalent system of naming  foreign    
groups arose1 a circumstance not easily 
observed till ,mr4  ,mc,lennan himself  
opened the way to the study of          
,totemism4#ea    ,it thus appears that  

,mr4 ,crawley's theory of exogamy and   
mine are  practically identical in      
essence 7if ,i rightly interpret him74  
,the  original objection was to the     
intermarriage of the young of the  group
 of contiguity1 the hearth-mates4 ,if   
there was but one male of  the elder    
generation in the group of contiguity1  
these young people  would be brothers   
and sisters4 ,if there were two or more 
males of  the elder generation1         
brothers1 the group would include       
cousins1 who  7even before the totem    
name was accepted by the group7 would   
also be  forbidden to intermarry4 ,when 
the totem name was accepted1 cousins1   
children of brother and sister1 and even
 brothers and sisters1 children  of one 
father1 by4 wives of different totems1  
would be1 technically1                  
intermarriageable3 though their         
marriages may1 in practice1 have been   
forbidden because they were still of the
 group of contiguity1 and as  such bore 
its local totem name1 say1 ,emu1 while1 

by the mother's  totem name1 they may   
have been ,bats1 or ,cats1 or anything4 
,where ,i must  differ from ,mr4        
,crawley is in doubting whether at this 
hypothetical  early stage1 the          
superstitions which produce #8sexual    
tabu' had arisen4  ,we cannot tell2 but 
certainly1 as soon as the totem name had
 given rise  to the myth that the totem1
 in human beings as in animals and      
plants1  was inviolable--the beast or   
plant of the totem blood not to be      
killed  or eaten1#eb the woman of the   
totem name not to be touched--so soon   
would endogamy1 marriage within the     
totem1 be a sin1 incest4 ,this it  would
 be2 the totem tabu once established1   
whether sexual tabu1 or  sexual         
jealousy1 or both1 caused the first     
prohibition1 not to marry  group1 mates4
 ,here we may briefly advert to ,dr4    
,westermarck's theory of  exogamy1      
though it interrupts the harmonious     
issue of our speculations4    ,,dr4     
,,westermarck',s ,,theory    ,as to     

exogamy1 ,dr4 ,westermarck explains it  
by #8an instinct' against  marriage of  
near kin4 ,our ancestors who married    
near kin would die out1  he thinks1 and 
they who avoided such unions would      
survive1 #8and thus  an instinct would  
be developed1'#ec by #8,natural         
,selection4' ,but why  did any of our   
ancestors avoid such marriages at all8  
,from #8an aversion  to those with whom 
they lived4' ,and why had they this     
aversion8  ,because they had an instinct
 against such unions4 ,then why had they
  an instinct8 ,we are engaged in a     
vicious circle4 #8,lastly it is not     
scientific to use the term instinct of  
this kind of thing4'#ed    ,,mr4        
,,morgan',s ,,theory    ,as to ,mr4     
,morgan's theory1 in his ,ancient       
,society 7#ahgg71 of a  movement of     
sanitary and moral reform1 which led to 
prohibition of  #8consanguine marriages'
 ,i shall return to it in a later part  
of this  essay 7#8,other ,bars to       
,marriage'74 ,here it will be found that

 ,mr4 ,morgan  is the source of certain 
other theories which we are to discuss1 
a fact  involving a certain amount of   
repetition of arguments already         
advanced4    ,,return ,,to ,,the        
,,author',s ,,theory    ,we conclude1   
provisionally1 that exogamy1 for various
 reasons of  sexual jealousy1 and       
perhaps of sexual superstition1 and of  
sexual  indifference to persons familiar
 from infancy1 may1 at least1 have      
tended to arise while each little human 
group was anonymous2 before the         
acceptance of totem names by local      
groups4 ,but this exogamous tendency1   
if it existed1 must have been immensely 
reinforced and sweepingly  defined when 
the hitherto anonymous groups1 coming to
 be known by  totem names1 evolved the  
totem superstitions and tabus4 ,under   
these1 ,i  suggest1 exogamy became fully
 developed4 ,marriage was forbidden1    
amours  were forbidden 7there are       
exceptional cases71 within the totem    
name4  ,this law barred1 of course1     

marital relations between son and       
mother1  between brother and sister1    
but1 just as it stood1 permitted incest 
between father and daughter1 so long as 
the totem name was inherited  from the  
mother4 ,but that form of incest1 in    
turn1 came to be barred  by another set 
of savage rules1 which1 whatever their  
origin1 prohibit  marriage within the   
generation4 ,that set of rules1 noted   
specially  in ,australia and ,north     
,america1 is part of what is usually    
styled #8,the  ,class ,system4'         
,footnote #a3 ,dr4 ,munro1 ,archological
 ,journal1 vol4 lix4 no4 #bcd1 pp4      
#aji-adc3 7,tire  part1 p4 #a47 ,see    
also later1 ,hypothetical ,early        
,groups4    ,footnote #b3 ,to this      
point1 hostility1 ,i return later4      
,footnote #c3 ,dr4 ,munro1 ,archological
 ,journal1 vol4 lix4 no4 #bcd4          
,footnote #d3 ,munro1 ,archological     
,journal1 vol4 lix4 no4 #bcd1 p4 #bb4   
,footnote #e3 ,ibid4 p4 #cb4            
,footnote #f3 ,ibid4 p4 #ah4            

,footnote #g3 ,ibid4 p4 #bj4            
,footnote #h3 ,ibid4 p4 #bb4            
,footnote #i3 ,l',anthropologie1        
,mars-,avril1 #aijb4 ,for a brief       
bibliography of the bull-roarer see ,mr4
 ,frazer1 ,the ,golden ,bough1  iii4 pp4
 #dbc-d1 note #a4    ,footnote #aj3     
,journal and ,proceedings ,royal        
,society ,n4,s4,w41 vol4  xxviii4 p4    
#cje4 ,see also ,roth1 ,ethnological    
,studies1 pp4 #acb-ach4  #ahig4         
,footnote #aa3 ,ancient ,law p4 #acb4   
,footnote #ab3 ,major ,kennedy's        
portrait of #agej-agfj represents him in
  ,macdonnell tartan4 ,he was an agent  
of ,prince ,charles4    ,footnote #ac3  
,early ,history of ,institutions1 pp4   
#caj1 #caa4    ,footnote #ad3           
,westermarck1 ,history of ,human        
,marriage1 pp4 #ec-eg4    ,footnote #ae3
 ,mr4 ,john ,mathew declares that       
#8jealousy is a powerful  passion with  
most aboriginal husbands' in ,australia4
 ,messrs4 ,spencer  and ,gillen1 on the 
other hand1 represent the aboriginal    

husband as  one of the most complacent  
of his species1 jealousy being regarded 
as #8churlish4' ,messrs4 ,spencer and   
,gillen are decidedly the better        
authorities4 ,mathew1 ,jour4 ,roy4 ,soc4
 ,n4,s4,w41 xxiii4 #djd4 ,westermarck1  
p4 #eg4 ,native ,tribes of ,central     
,australia1 p4 #ii4    ,footnote #af3   
,studies in ,ancient ,history1 #ahgf1 p4
 #da4    ,footnote #ag3 ,the late ,major
 ,powell1 of the ,american ,bureau of   
,ethnology1 used gens of a totem kin    
with descent in the male line1  clan of 
such a kin with descent in the female   
line1 and his school  follows him4 ,mr4 
,howitt1 on the other hand1 uses        
#8horde' for a local  community with    
female1 #8clan' for a local community   
with male descent4    ,footnote #ah3    
#8,the ,seri ,indians1' by ,w4 ,j4      
,mc,gee4 ,report of ,bureau of          
,american ,ethnology1 ,washington1      
#ahih4    ,footnote #ai3 #8,siouan      
,sociology1' ,report of ,american       
,ethnological  ,bureau1 #ahig1 p4 #bac4 

,footnote #bj3 ,studies in ,ancient     
,history1 second series1 p4 #bfe4       
,footnote #ba3 ,studies in ,ancient     
,history1 second series1 p4 #df4 ,in an 
appendix to ,mr4 ,morgan's ,ancient     
,society1 ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's terms are   
severely criticised4    ,footnote #bb3  
,i shall call each set indicated by a   
totem name a #8totem  group1' if the    
members live together2 a #8totem kin1'  
if they are  scattered through the      
tribe4    ,footnote #bc3 ,the           
,patriarchal ,theory1 pp4 #f1 #g1 #ahhe4
    ,footnote #bd3 ,meaning by ,exogamy1
 not a mere tendency to marry out of    
the group1 but a customary law with a   
religious sanction4    ,footnote #be3   
,here the unusual case of the ,arunta   
offers an exception  to the rule2 a     
point to be discussed later4            
,footnote #bf3 ,spencer and ,gillen1 pp4
 #h-aj4    ,footnote #bg3 ,ibid4 pp4    
#h-i4    ,footnote #bh3 #8,remarks on   
,totemism1' ,jour4 ,anthrop4 ,inst41    
,august1  ,november1 #ahih4    ,footnote

 #bi3 ,kinship in ,early ,arabia1 p4    
#ahg4    ,footnote #cj3 ,but1 as ,dr4   
,durkheim says1 man and wife might soon 
abandon each other1 if familiarity      
breeds contempt4    ,footnote #ca3      
,journal of the ,anthropological        
,institute1 ,may1 #ahie1 p4  #ddd4      
,footnote #cb3 ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1  
p4 #acb4 #ahhj4    ,footnote #cc3       
,spencer and ,gillen1 p4 #gj4 ,frazer1  
,fortnightly ,review1  ,april1 ,may1    
#ahii4    ,footnote #cd3 ,the ,mystic   
,rose1 p4 #dfj4    ,footnote #ce3       
,history of ,human ,marriage1 pp4       
#aje-aac4    ,footnote #cf3 ,tylor1 ,j4 
,a4 ,i4 xviii4 #c1 #bed4    ,footnote   
#cg3 ,the practice however1 is          
attributed to tame canary birds4        
,footnote #ch3 ,studies in ,ancient     
,history1 second series1 pp4 #eg-fe4    
,footnote #ci3 ,cf4 ,custom and ,myth   
7,a4 ,l471 p4 #beh4    ,footnote #dj3   
,mystic ,rose1 p4 #ca4    ,footnote #da3
 ,spencer and ,gillen1 pp4 #ib-ic4      
,footnote #db3 ,lord ,avebury's view    

that the #8rite' implies compensation   
to the other males of the community will
 be considered later4    ,footnote #dc3 
,westermarck1 p4 #ac4 ,citing ,brehm1   
#8,thierleben1' i4 #ig1  ,proceedings   
,r4,g4,s4 xvi4 #agg4    ,footnote #dd3  
,mystic ,rose1 p4 #ddc4    ,footnote    
#de3 ,westermarck1 p4 #bib4    ,footnote
 #df3 ,mystic ,rose1 p4 #bbb4           
,footnote #dg3 ,kinship and ,marriage in
 ,early ,arabia1 p4 #agj4    ,footnote  
#dh3 ,proc4 ,roy4 ,soc4 ,n4,s4,w4 xxxi4 
#aff4    ,footnote #di3 ,kamilaroi and  
,kurnai1 pp4 #db1df1 #dg1 #aae4         
,footnote #ej3 ,mystic ,rose1 p4 #ddc4  
,footnote #ea3 ,see ,studies in ,ancient
 ,history1 pp4 #ahc-ahf4    ,footnote   
#eb3 ,this is the view of ,dr4          
,durkheim1 who explains the blood       
superstition4 ,cf4 ,reinach1            
,l',anthropologie1 x4 #feb4    ,footnote
 #ec3 ,history of ,human ,marriage1 p4  
#ceb4    ,footnote #ed3 ,compare ,mr4   
,crawley1 ,mystic ,rose1 pp4 #ddd-ddf4  
,,chapter ,,ii    ,,the ,,class ,,system

      ,under this name appear to be     
blended1 7#a7 the prohibition to marry  
within a division1 which1 in its        
simplest form1 is said to cut the  tribe
 into two #8classes' or #8phratries1' or
 #8groups2'#a 7#b7 the  prohibition to  
marry within the totem name2 7#c7 the   
prohibition to  marry within the        
generation1 and within certain          
recognised degrees  7#8classes1'        
#8sections'7 of real or inferred        
kinship--#8too near flesh1'  too close  
consanguinity1 which1 in their present  
condition1 many  ,australian tribes     
undoubtedly regard as a bar to          
matrimony4 ,but it does  not follow that
 they originally held this opinion4     
,we shall first examine what authorities
 who differ from me1 call the  great    
#8bisection' of the tribe1 into1 say1   
,matthurie and ,kirarawa1  members of   
which must intermarry1 the totem        
prohibition also remaining  in force4   
,it will here be suggested1 in          
accordance with what has  already been  

said1 but contrary to general opinion1  
that the totemic  prohibition is earlier
 than the prohibition of marriage       
between persons  of the same segment of 
the #8bisection4' ,the opinions of most 
students  appear1 at present1 to be     
divided thus4 ,we hear that3    #a4 ,the
 exogamous division into two moieties1  
or #8phratries1' is  earlier than the   
division of each into numerous totem    
kins4 ,the totem  kins are regarded as  
later #8subdivisions' of1 or additions  
to1 the two  #8original' moieties4      
#b4 ,totem groups are earlier than the  
#8bisection' 7though somehow1  according
 to the same authors1 the two moieties  
of the bisection bore  totem names71    
but1 before the #8bisection1' these     
totem groups were  not exogamous4 ,they 
only became exogamous when six of them1 
say1 were  arranged in one of the two   
moieties 7phratries71 now forbidden to  
marry1 and another six in the other4    
,i venture to prefer1 as already        
indicated1 the system 7#c7 that totem   

groups not only existed1 but were       
already exogamous1 before the great     
#8bisection' producing the #8phratries' 
came into existence1 though ,i  argue   
that #8bisection' is a misleading term1 
and that the apparent  division was     
really the result of an amalgamation of 
two separate and  independent local     
totem groups4    ,this theory 7presently
 to be more fully set forth7 is original
 on my  part1 at least as far as my     
supraliminal consciousness is concerned4
 ,i  mean that ,i conceived myself to   
have hit on the idea in ,july #aijb4    
,but  something very like my notion 7,i 
later discovered7 had been printed by   
,dr4 ,durkheim1 and something not unlike
 it was propounded by ,herr ,cunow      
7#ahid74 ,mr4 ,daniel ,mc,lennan had    
also suggested it3 and ,i find that the 
,rev4 ,john ,mathew had stated a form of
 it in his ,eagle-,hawk and ,crow       
7#ahii71 7pp4 #aibb1 #ic-aab74 ,mr4     
,mathew's hypothesis1 however1 involves 
a theory of contending and alien races  

in ,australia4 ,this theory does  not   
seem well based1 but1 however that may  
be1 ,i recognise that ,mr4  ,mathew's   
hypothesis of the origin of exogamy 7p4 
#ih71 and of the origin  of the         
#8phratries' or #8primary classes1' in  
many respects anticipates  my own4 ,he  
opposes ,mr4 ,howitt's conclusions1 and 
,i may be allowed to  say that ,i would 
prefer ,mr4 ,howitt1 owing to his       
unrivalled knowledge1  as an ally4 ,on  
the other hand1 the undesigned          
coincidence of ,dr4  ,durkheim's1 ,mr4  
,daniel ,mc,lennan's1 ,mr4 ,mathew's1   
and ,herr ,cunow's ideas  with my own1  
raises a presumption that mine may not  
be untenable4      ,,the ,,class        
,,system ,,in ,,australia    ,though the
 existence of what are called exogamous 
#8phratries' 7two  to each tribe7 was   
made known1 as regards the ,north       
,american tribes1  by ,mr4 ,lewis       
,morgan 7to whose work we return7 in the
 middle of the  nineteenth century1     
almost our earliest hint of its         

existence in  ,australia came from the  
,rev4 ,w4 ,ridley1 a learned missionary1
 in  #ahec-ee4 ,in ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's    
,studies in ,ancient ,history#b will be 
found an account of ,mr4 ,ridley's      
facts1 as they gradually swelled  in    
volume1 altered in character1 and were  
added to1 and critically  constructed1  
by the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,fison1 and ,mr4 ,a4  
,w4 ,howitt4 ,these  gentlemen were     
regarded by ,mr4 ,mc,lennan as the      
allies of ,mr4 ,morgan1  in a           
controversy then being waged with some  
acerbity4 ,he1 therefore1  criticised   
the evidence from ,australia rather     
keenly4 ,it is probable  that ,mr4      
,morgan and ,mr4 ,mc,lennan both had    
some right on their  parts--seeing each 
a different side of the shield--though a
 few points  in the discussion are still
 undecided4 ,but it seems certain that  
the  continued researches of ,messrs4   
,fison and ,howitt1 reinforced by the   
studies of ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen
 in ,central ,australia1 have           

invalidated some of ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's   
opinions as to matters of fact4    ,much
 trouble and confusion will be saved if 
we remember that1 as has  been said1    
under the #8classificatory system1'     
three sets of rules  applying to        
marriage exist4 ,the totem rule exists1 
rules as to marriage  in relation to    
generations and so-called degrees of    
kindred 7real or  #8tribal'7 exist      
7#8classes'71 and1 thirdly1 there are   
the rules relative  to #8phratries1' the
 phratries1 being1 ,i think1 in origin  
themselves  totemic4 ,we shall mainly   
consider here the so-called #8bisection'
  of a tribe into two exogamous and     
intermarrying #8phratries1' while       
remembering ,herr ,cunow's opinion that 
a #8class' is one thing1 a  #8phratry'  
quite another4#c      ,,the ,,varieties 
,,of ,,marriage ,,divisions ,,in        
,,australia    ,perhaps the most recent1
 lucid1 and well-informed writer on the 
various  divisions which regulate the   
marriages of the ,australian tribes is  

,mr4  ,r4 ,h4 ,mathews4#d ,in some      
regions1 the system of two intermarrying
  phratries exists1 without further     
subdivision 7except in regard to  totem 
kins74 ,sometimes each phratry is       
divided into two #8sections'  7or       
#8classes'71 making four for the tribe4 
,again1 each phratry may  have four     
#8subsections' or #8classes1' making    
eight for the tribe4 ,each  phratry1    
like each #8class1' #8has an independent
 name by which its  members are easily  
recognised4'    ,obviously we need1 of  
all tilings1 to know the actual meanings
 of these  names1 but we do not usually 
know them4 ,as we shall see1 where a    
tribe  has two #8phratries' and no      
subordinate #8classes1' the names of    
these  #8phratries1' when they can be   
translated1 are usually names of        
animals4  ,in a few cases1 as will later
 appear1 when there are #8classes' under
  and in the #8phratries' their names   
seem to indicate distinctions of  #8old'
 and #8young4' ,but ,mr4 ,mathews       

nowhere1 as far as ,i have studied  him1
 gives the meanings of the #8class'     
names1 some of which are of  recent     
adoption4 ,mr4 ,mathews usually gives   
only #8,phratry ,a' and  #8,phratry ,b4'
 ,we now cite his tables of the simple  
#8phratry' system1 of  the #8phratry'   
plus two classes system1 and of the     
#8phratry' plus four  classes system2   
making four1 or eight1 such divisions   
for the tribe4    #8,in describing the  
social structure of a native ,australian
 community1  the first matter calling   
for attention is the classification of  
the  people into two primary divisions1 
called phratries1 or groups--the men  of
 each phratry intermarrying with the    
women of the opposite one1 in           
accordance with prescribed laws4'       
,mr4 ,mathews then mentions that some   
tribes have 7#a7 this simple  division  
only 7of course1 as a rule1 plus totem  
kins74 7#b7 ,elsewhere  each phratry is 
composed of two #8sections' 7called by  
us #8classes'74  7#c7 ,elsewhere1 again1

 each phratry has four sections 7we need
 not  discuss here the tribes where none
 of these things exist74    ,mr4        
,mathews now gives tables representing  
the working of the system in  each of   
the three cases4#e                      
#a                ,father        ,mother
       ,son        ,daughter  ,phratry  
,a     ,kirraroo      ,matturrin        
,matturri   ,matturrin  ,phratry ,b     
,matturri      ,kirrarooan   ,kirraroo  
,kirrarooan                          #b 
,father        ,mother       ,son       
,daughter               ,murri          
,buta         ,ippai      ,ippatha      
,phratry ,a    ,kubbi         ,ippatha  
,kumbo      ,butha  ,phratry ,b         
,kumbo         ,matha        ,kubbi     
,kubbithai               ,ippai         
,kubbitha     ,murri      ,matha        
#c                  ,father             
,mother       ,son        ,daughter     
,choolum       ,ningulum     ,palyarin  
,palyareenya  ,phratry ,a    ,cheenum   
,nooralum     ,bungarin   ,bungareenya  

,jamerum       ,palyareenya  ,chooralum 
,nooralum               ,yacomary       
,bungareeny   ,chingulum  ,ningulum     
,father        ,mother       ,son       
,daughter               ,chingalum      
,noolum       ,yacomary   ,yacomareenya 
,phratry ,b    ,chooralum     ,neenum   
,jamerum    ,neomarum                   
,bungarin      ,yacomareenya ,cheenum   
,neenum               ,palyarin         
,neomarum     ,choolum    ,noolum       
,it will be seen that1 under the simple 
phratry system1 children of the  female 
,matturrin are always ,matturri and     
,matturrin1 children of the  female     
,kirrarooan are always ,kirraroo and    
,kirrarooan4 ,on the phratry  plus two  
classes system1 female ,butha is mother 
of ,ippatha and  ,ippatha of ,butha for 
ever4 ,on the phratry plus four classes 
system1  female ,ningulum has a         
,palyareena daughter1 who has a         
,nooralum daughter1  who has a          
,bungareenya daughter1 whose daughter   
reverts to the original  ,ningulum      

class1 and so on1 ad infinitum4 ,the    
women remain constant to  their         
#8phratry1' and marry always the men of 
the opposite phratry4    ,it is to be   
observed that1 by customary law1        
brothers and sisters  actual 7and not   
#8tribal'7 may never intermarry4#f ,in  
short1  consanguinity is now fully      
understood by the natives1 and too close
  unions are forbidden on the ground of 
consanguinity4 ,it also seems  that1    
though the blacks are all on the same   
level of material culture1  yet         
reflection on marriage rules1 and       
modification of these rules  by         
additional restrictions and alterations1
 have been carried much  further by some
 tribes than by others4 ,i by no means  
deny1 but rather  affirm1 that          
consanguinity is now understood1 and    
that rules have  in some tribes been    
consciously made1 and altered1 to avoid 
certain  marriages as of #8too near     
flesh4' ,but ,i do not think that1 at   
the  beginning1 the objection to        

consanguineous marriages1 as such1 can  
have been entertained1 and ,i am not of 
opinion that1 for the purpose of        
preventing such marriages1 in the       
beginning1 a horde was bisected into    
two phratries1 and each phratry split up
 into totem groups4 ,rather1 ,i         
conceive1 certain primitive conditions  
of life led to the evolution  of certain
 rules1 independent of any theory about 
the noxiousness or  immorality of       
marriages of near kin2 and then         
reflection on those  primal rules helped
 to beget moral ideas1 and improvements 
on the rules  themselves4 ,in the       
original restrictions1 morality1 in our 
sense1 was  only implicitly or          
potentially present1 though now it has  
risen into  explicit consciousness4 ,the
 tribes came to think certain marriages 
morally wrong1 or physically noxious1   
because they were forbidden2  such      
unions were not1 in the first instance1 
forbidden because they  were deemed     
physically injurious1 or morally wrong4 

,these ideas have1  by this time1 been  
evolved2 but it does not follow that    
they were  present at the beginning4    
,i took the liberty of laying a brief   
sketch of my own theory before ,mr4     
,howitt1 who1 after considering it1 was 
unable to accept it4 ,he was kind       
enough to send me a summary account of  
many varieties of institutions1  which1 
as we have seen1 prevail--from tribes   
with totems and the simple  phratry and 
female descent1 up to tribes which have 
lost their classes  and totems1 count   
descent in the male line1 and permit    
marriage only  between persons dwelling 
in certain localities1 or not of #8too  
near  flesh4' ,all sorts of varieties of
 custom1 in fact1 prevail4 ,again1 the  
most backward tribes1 in ,mr4 ,howitt's 
opinion1 have group-marriage2#g  the    
more advanced have individual marriage1 
with rare reversions on  special        
occasions4 ,each advance1 from mere     
phratry to phratry plus  eight          
#8classes1' reduced the number of       

persons who might intermarry1  and      
extended the range of exogamy 7except   
where1 as among the ,arunta1  the totem 
prohibition has ceased to exist74 ,the  
marked tendency of the  developing rules
 is to prevent marriage between persons 
#8too near in  flesh1' or #8of the same 
flesh4' ,mr4 ,howitt argues that1 if the
 later  stages of prohibition are the   
result of deliberate intention to       
prevent  too near marriage1 we may infer
 that the original #8bisection' of the  
#8undivided commune' was also           
consciously designed to prevent unions  
of  persons of too near flesh4    ,to   
this ,i would reply1 that the           
circumstances were different4 ,the      
savages of recent centuries have been   
trained in the totem and phratry        
systems1 and have now1 like ,mr4        
,howitt1 excogitated the theory that    
these were originally designed for the  
purpose of preventing marriages  of     
#8too near flesh1' wherefore all such   
marriages 7even if permitted by  the    

totem law7 must be morally or materially
 evil4 ,this is the theory  expressed in
 the myths of the ,dieri1 ,woeworung1   
and others2 and it is  the theory of    
many scientific writers4 ,in brief1 it  
is the hypothesis  of men already       
trained to think near marriages morally 
wrong1 or  physically injurious4 ,but   
how could this idea occur to members of 
#8an  undivided commune1' who had never 
known anything better8    ,that is the  
difficulty2 and we get rid of it by     
disbelieving in a  primeval undivided   
commune2 and by supposing a long past of
 forbidden  unions1 the prohibition then
 resting on no moral ideas1 but on the  
interest of the strongest1 the jealousy 
of the adult sire4 ,these  prohibitions 
later evolved into conscious morality2  
and were at last  susceptible of        
improvement by deliberate design4 ,i    
shall now examine  more in detail the   
ideas which do not win my assent4       
,,mr4 ,,fison ,,on ,,the ,,great        
,,bisection    ,in #ahhj1 in ,kamilaroi 

and ,kurnai1#h ,mr4 ,fison1 a learned   
missionary  and anthropologist1 gave his
 account of the organisation of certain 
,australian tribes4 ,he speaks of 7#a7  
,the division of a tribe1 or  community1
 into two exogamous intermarrying       
classes4#i 7#b7 #8,the  subdivision'    
7mark the phrase7 #8of these classes    
into four4' 7#c7  #8,their subdivision  
into gentes1 distinguished by totems1   
which are  generally1 though not        
invariably1 the names of animals4'      
,now totems we know1 and we have cited  
,mr4 ,mathews for the other  divisions4 
,take 7#a7 #8the two exogamous          
intermarrying classes4' ,examples  are  
,male1 ,kumite2 female1 ,kumitegor 7one 
#8class1' which ,i call #8phratry'74    
,male1 ,kroki2 female1 ,krokigor 7the   
other #8class1' #8phratry'74    ,again4 
,male1 ,yungaru 7opossum72 female1      
,yungaruan4  ,male1 ,wutaru 7kangaroo72 
female1 ,wutaruan4    ,what are these   
two #8primary' exogamous divisions8 ,and
 why call them  #8primary'8             

#8,,primary ,,classes8'    ,my object1  
as has been said1 is now1 contrary to   
general opinion1  to repeat that the    
great dichotomous #8division' of a tribe
 into two  exogamous1 intermarrying1    
#8classes' or #8phratries1' is not      
#8primary'  at all1 but is secondary to 
groups at once totemic and exogamous1   
and  is not1 in origin1 a bisection1 but
 a combination4 ,if ,i am right1 the    
consequences will be of some curiosity4 
,first1 it will appear that the         
#8primary divisions' are themselves     
totemic in origin1 thus implying the    
pre-existence of ,totemism4 ,next it    
will be made to appear probable that    
the pre-existing totems were already    
exogamous before the phratries  arose1  
and that exogamy does not date1 as the  
best authorities hold1  from the making 
of the great dichotomous divisions or   
#8phratries4' ,for  no such dichotomous 
division1 ,i suggest1 was ever made4    
,,the #8,,primary ,,divisions' ,,are    
,,themselves ,,totemic ,,and ,,exogamous

    ,we see that1 of the two            
#8phratries' ,yungaru and ,wutaru1      
,yungaru is  #8opossum' 7according to   
,mr4 ,chatfield7 or #8alligator'        
7according to ,mr4  ,bridgman72 while   
,wutaru is #8kangaroo4' ,these two      
primary #8phratries1'  therefore1 have  
totemic names1 and 7in my opinion7 were 
originally two  local totem groups1 each
 containing members of various totems   
derived  from alien mothers4 ,the same  
thing may be true when the meanings of  
the  #8primary class names'             
7#8phratries'7 can no longer be         
discovered4 ,if  so1 the #8primary      
divisions' are1 in origin1 mere totem   
distinctions1  involving1 ,i think1 the 
pre-existence of the rule of exogamy1   
which  is also involved in the rules of 
the #8primary divisions4' ,mr4 ,fison   
writes 7what is obvious7 #8in some      
places the primary divisions are        
distinguished by totem names at the     
present day4'#aj    #8,probably they    
were so distinguished everywhere1 in    

ancient times1' he  adds1 and this is   
certainly the case in ,north ,america1  
as we shall see  later4 ,mr4 ,fison's   
opinion is my own so far1 and1 if it is 
right1 if  the #8primary class          
divisions' 7#8phratries'71 within which 
marriage is  now forbidden1 were        
originally two totem divisions1 then    
,totemism is  earlier than the #8primary
 divisions4' ,on this point ,messrs4    
,fison and  ,howitt say that the        
divisions on which marriage regulations 
are based  #8are denoted by class names 
or by totems--frequently by both class  
names and totems4' ,in a note they add1 
#8,class names1 so called by us  solely 
for the sake of convenience1 and because
 they cannot always be  positively      
asserted to be totems1 though the strong
 probability is that  they are always   
totems4'#aa    ,by #8class names' the   
authors1 ,i think1 here mean the names  
of the  #8primary exogamous divisions'  
or #8phratries4' ,these are often1 if   
not  always1 known by totem names4 ,but 

the #8classes1' as distinguished from   
the #8phratries1' are not known by      
totemic names1 as far as ,i am aware4   
,herr ,cunow1 we shall see1 asserts that
 in some cases they denote mere         
seniority1 #8big' and #8little1'        
#8young' and #8old4' ,unless they can be
  proved to be totemic1 we must1 ,i     
repeat1 carefully avoid confusing  the  
#8classes1' four or eight1 with the     
#8phratries1' in which they are         
included4 ,the confusion is general and 
very misleading4    ,totemism1 according
 to ,mr4 ,mc,lennan1 preceded exogamy1  
and made exogamy  possible4 ,thus totem 
distinctions1 with exogamy1 may be older
 than the  #8two primary class exogamous
 divisions1' in which1 according to most
  authorities1 exogamy began4 ,mr4      
,tylor is cautious3 #8the dual form of  
exogamy' 7the #8phratries1' or #8two    
primary divisions'7 #8may be the        
original form1' or at least that view is
 tenable4#ab ,the origin of  exogamy is1
 however1 unknown1 in ,mr4 ,tylor's     

opinion1 which commits him  to nothing4 
,mr4 ,howitt1 if ,i do not misinterpret 
him1 also regards the two  divisions1   
#8phratries1' as primary1 but at the    
same time agrees with  me1 and ,mr4     
,fison1 that the two #8phratry'         
divisions were themselves in  origin    
totemic4    ,,the ,,totem ,,difficulty  
,at this point ,i lose ,messrs4 ,fison  
and ,howitt4 ,i do not know what  they  
mean1 and1 unless ,i misconstrue them1  
they unconsciously hold  different      
opinions at different moments4 ,they    
start with an #8undivided  commune4'    
,mr4 ,fison1 however1 is not certain on 
this point4 ,to prevent  near marriages 
7previously universal71 the commune is  
split into two  exogamous intermarrying 
phratries4 ,the names of these phratries
 are  totemic1 and each phratry has its 
totem4 ,such is their theory4 ,how and  
why8    ,did totemic divisions already  
exist in #8the undivided commune'8 ,if  
so1 the commune was not undivided6 ,or  
were totem names given1 nobody  knows   

why1 to the two phratries at the time   
when the #8bisection' of  the commune   
was made8 ,did the legislator send half 
the horde to the  right1 crying1 #8,you 
are sheep1' and half to the left1       
saying1 #8,you  are goats1'--or rather1 
say1 ,emus and ,kangaroos8 ,this is not 
easily  thinkable4 ,but1 if this was    
done1 whence came the other totem kins1 
often numerous1 within each phratry8    
,mr4 ,fison says that the totem kins 7or
 #8gentes'7 #8arose out of two  primary 
divisions1 by an orderly process of     
evolution1 such as might  be expected   
from the forces at work1' and #8we have 
seen how' the  phratries subdivided     
#8into other subdivisions1 distinguished
 by  totems4'#ac ,but1 alas1 ,i have    
seen nothing of the sort6 ,mr4 ,fison   
has merely asserted the fact4 #8,the    
totems affect the intersexual           
regulations 444 by narrowing the range  
of matrimonial selection4'#ad  ,here    
would be a reason for the evolution of  
these totem kins4 ,but this  added      

restriction is exactly what 7given      
phratries7 the totems do not  effect4   
,there are so many totems in each       
phratry1 but as the same  totem 7except 
among the ,arunta and similarly         
disorganised tribes7 never  occurs in   
both phratries1 the range of sexual     
selection is thus not  more restricted  
by the totem than by the phratry4 ,the  
members of each  phratry may not        
intermarry1 and all persons of their    
totem are in their  phratry and so are  
not marriageable to them4 ,they would   
all be exactly  as exogamous as they    
are1 if there were no totem rules1      
nothing but  phratry rules4 ,thus the   
totems cannot be later deliberate       
segmentations  of the phratry1 for      
additional exogamous purposes1 because  
they serve  no such purpose1 except     
where1 among the ,kamilaroi1 a man may  
marry in  his phratry1 if he marries out
 of his totem4 ,but that is a           
peculiarity4    ,mr4 ,mathews writes1   
#8,under the group' 7phratry7 #8laws it 

is impossible  for a ,dilbi or          
,kupathin' 7phratry names of the        
,kamilaroi7 #8to marry a  woman bearing 
the same totem name as himself1 for the 
reason that such  a totem does not exist
 in the division' 7phratry7 #8from which
 he is  bound to select his wife4 ,but  
when persons of the same group'         
7phratry7  #8were permitted to marry    
each other1 it became necessary to      
promulgate  a law prohibiting marriage  
between persons of the same totem4'#ae  
,but  there were totems before that     
novelty of marriage within the phratry1 
and why were they there8 ,moreover1     
under phratry laws it was already  the  
rule that no man could marry a woman of 
his own totem4 ,obviously  we are not   
told how the totem kins arose out of the
 phratries1 #8by an  orderly process of 
evolution such as might be expected from
 the forces  at work4' ,one sees no     
reason at all for the rise of totem kins
 within  the phratry1 itself1 by ,mr4   
,fison's theory1 originally totemic4    

,totem kins are called #8subdivisions'  
by ,mr4 ,howitt1 but why were the       
phratries subdivided into totem kins1   
and why were there totem groups  in     
#8the undivided commune' before the     
bisection1 the phratries 7the  result of
 the bisection7 being themselves1 in    
,mr4 ,howitt's hypothesis1  totem       
groups8 ,i quote a statement of the case
 by ,mr4 ,howitt 7#ahhi73  #8,the       
fundamental principle of aboriginal     
society in ,australia is the  division  
of the community into two exogamous     
intermarrying moieties4  ,out of this   
division into two groups1 and out of the
 relations thus  created between the    
contemporary members of them and their  
descendants1  the terms of relationship 
must have grown4 ,as the two primary    
divisions  7classes7' 7#8phratries'7    
#8have become again divided in the      
process of  social development1 and as  
the groups of numerous totems have been 
added1' c4#af    ,here the totem kins   
are not orderly evolved out of the      

phratries1 nor  subdivided out of them1 
but are #8added4' ,where were they      
picked up1  whence did they arise1 why  
were they #8added'8    ,may we not      
conclude that no clear account1 or      
theory1 of the origin and  purpose of   
totems and totem kins has been laid     
before us8    ,mr4 ,howitt elsewhere    
writes1 #8,if the supposition is correct
 that1  in the primary divisions1 we may
 recognise the oldest forms1 and  in the
 subdivisions somewhat newer forms of   
,totemism' 7newer names  of totems871   
#8it should be found that these earlier 
divisions show  signs of antiquity as   
compared to the totems which are1       
according to  this hypothesis1 the      
nearest to the present time4 ,this1 ,i  
think1 is  the case4' ,thus1 in fact1   
some of the ,australian names for the   
two  divisions are no longer to be      
translated1#ag perhaps owing to their   
antiquity1 and sometimes the names are  
lost1 as1 elsewhere1 in ,banks  ,island4
 ,when translatable1 the phratry names  

are totemic4    ,but this hardly amounts
 to proof that the #8primary divisions' 
are  really older than totemic          
divisions1 plus exogamy4 ,the existing  
names of the #8primary divisions' may be
 older than existing totem  names1 in   
some cases4 ,but that may be because the
 two #8primary  divisions' endure1      
unchanged1 while a local totem group may
 become  extinct4#ah ,its place1        
perhaps1 may be filled up by a totem    
group of  relatively recent name1 or1   
perhaps1 in a great trek into a land of 
novel fauna and flora1 old totem names  
might be exchanged for new ones4        
#8,munki' 7sheep7 is said to have been  
recently adopted4#ai ,mr4 ,fison  here  
corroborates my suggestion4 #8,if a     
tribe migrate to a country in  which    
their totem is not found1 they will1 in 
all probability1 take as  their totem   
some other animal which is a native of  
the place4'#bj    ,mr4 ,howitt1 then1   
believes that #8the primary class       
divisions' were  originally totemic1 and

 also that the #8class system' as a rule
 has been  developed through the        
subdivision of the earlier and simpler  
forms by  #8deliberate arrangement4'#ba 
,this appears to mean that savages began
 by making two divisions1  bearing totem
 names1 and established them as primary 
exogamous  divisions4 ,later they cut   
them up into slices1 each slice with a  
newer totem name4 ,or the totem         
divisions are evolved within the        
phratry1 somehow or other1 as in one of 
,mr4 ,fison's views4 ,or they are       
#8added'--for what purpose8 ,thus every 
tribesman has now a #8class name'       
7phratry name7--an old totem name 7say  
either ,eagle-,hawk or ,crow71  and no  
,crow may marry an ,eagle-,hawk4 ,but1  
later1 they split ,crows up  into1 say1 
bats1 rats1 cats1 and kangaroos1 while  
they split ,eagle-,hawk  up into1 say1  
grubs1 emus1 mice1 and frogs4 ,now each 
person1 under this  arrangement1 has two
 totem names4 ,he is ,eagle-,hawk 7old7 
and 7new7  grub1 emu1 mouse1 or frog3 or

 he is ,crow 7old7 and 7new7 bat1 cat1  
rat1  or kangaroo4 ,if cat1 he may not  
only not marry a ,crow1 but also he may 
not marry a cat4 ,what could be the     
reason for this new subdivision  of     
,eagle-,hawk and ,crow1 and for this    
multiplication of marriage              
prohibitions1 which1 given the          
phratries1 prohibit nothing8#bb ,i      
shall try to show1 and have already     
suggested1 that1 from a period          
infinitely remote1 each member of the   
,eagle-,hawk and ,crow local  groups may
 also have been1 or rather must have    
been1 a grub1 emu1  mouse1 or frog1 bat1
 rat1 cat1 or kangaroo1 by inheritance  
and birth4  ,so understood1 the         
#8primary divisions' 7,eagle-,hawk and  
,crow7 were not  deliberately subdivided
 7as ,i conceive them to have been on   
,mr4 ,ho wit  ,vs system7 into the other
 numerous new totem groups1 nor were the
 totem  kins added to the phratries1 nor
 were they orderly evolved out of the   
phratries1 but1 from the dawn of        

,totemism with exogamy1 they contained  
these totem groups within themselves2 a 
fact which early man came to  perceive4 
,mr4 ,howitt adds1 #8,if the two first  
intermarrying groups' 7#8phratries'7    
#8had distinguished names1 they were    
probably those of animals1 and  their   
totems1 and1 if so1 the origin of       
,totemism would be so far back  in the  
mist of ages1 as to be beyond my        
vision4' ,in the chapter on  the        
#8,origin of ,totemism1' we try to      
penetrate #8the mist of ages1'  and to  
see beyond the range of vision of ,mr4  
,howitt4 ,but the #8,origin  of         
,totemism' cannot be beyond ,mr4        
,howitt's range of vision1 if he  agrees
 with ,mr4 ,fison that the totem kins   
were orderly evolved within  the        
phratry1 or were segmented out of the   
phratry1 or split off1 as  colonies1    
from the phratry 7,dr4 ,durkheim's      
theory71 or were added to  the phratry1 
for some reason4    ,it seems1 then1    
that he does not commit himself to any  

of these four  theories4 ,he appears to 
confess to having no theory of the      
origin of  ,totemism1 which1 in his     
opinion1 gave the names to the          
phratries1  these being the result of   
the primary bisection4 ,probably his    
best  plan would be to say #8the horde  
was bisected into two moieties1 for     
exogamous purposes1 and animal names1   
for the sake of distinction1 were       
arbitrarily imposed on the phratry      
divisions4' ,but1 then1 what about  the 
many totem kins within the phratry8 ,we 
receive no solid theory  about them4    
,they were certainly not arbitrarily    
marked out later1  within the phratry1  
for exogamous purposes which they do not
 fulfil4 ,if  they were picked up       
elsewhere1 and added into the phratry1  
where did  they come from8 ,crowds of   
totems were not going about1 ,mr4       
,howitt seems  to think1 before the     
bisection1 because1 if so1 we saw hordes
 were not  #8undivided1' before the     
bisection1 but were already divided into

 totem  kins4    ,or shall we say that  
the undivided communes had already      
organised  distinct co-operative magical
 totem groups1 to do magic for the good 
of  the food supply1 plants and animals1
 but that these totem groups were  not  
exogamous before the bisection8 ,after  
the bisection two of these  magical     
totem groups1 say ,eagle-,hawk and      
,crow1 were selected1 shall we  guess1  
to give names to the two moieties or    
phratries8 ,the other totem  groups     
fell1 or were meted out1 some into      
,crow1 some into ,eagle-,hawk4  ,this is
 a thinkable hypothesis1 but it is fatal
 to the theory of  subdivision1 or of   
segmentation1 or of evolution1 as causes
 of totem  kins within the phratries2   
and it is not suggested by ,messrs4     
,fison and  ,howitt4    ,thus we must   
construct for ourselves1 later1 a theory
 of the ,origin of  ,totemism4 ,we are  
actually constrained to make this       
effort1 because it  will probably be    
admitted that1 having no theory1 or     

hesitating between  three or four       
theories1 of the origin of totems and of
 totem kins1  ,messrs4 ,fison and       
,howitt produce an hypothesis of the    
evolution of  ,australian society which 
cannot be construed by us into an       
intelligible  form4    ,mr4 ,howitt     
elsewhere writes1 #8,the existence of   
the two exogamous  intermarrying groups'
 7#8phratries'7 #8seems to me almost to 
require the  previous existence of an   
undivided commune1 from the segmentation
 of  which they arose4'#bc ,but they1   
the phratries1 were totemic1 and why8   
,once again1 why was the undivided      
commune divided8 ,we know not the       
motive for1 much less the means of      
effecting1 such a great change #8in  the
 beginning4'    ,in #ahhe1 ,messrs4     
,howitt and ,fison were aware of1 and   
expressed  their sense of this          
difficulty 7that of dividing people out 
into  arbitrary groups7 in the case of  
ancient ,attica4 ,speaking of the  1 or 
clan1 in ,attica1 they combat the       

opinion  of ,harpocration1 that the     
people were #8arbitrarily drafted into  
the  4#bd ,our authors remark1          
#8,ancient society--the  more           
ancient--does not thus regulate itself4 
,nascitur non fit4 ,one  can understand 
a ,kleisthenes redistributing into demes
 a civilised  community which has grown 
into a ,state1 but the notion of any    
such  arbitrary distribution of men into
 2 in the beginning of things  cannot be
 entertained for a moment4'#be    ,this 
being so1 how can our authors maintain  
that1 #8in the beginning of  things1'   
given an #8undivided commune1' all its  
members were #8drafted'  into one or    
other of two divisions1 and again into  
totem groups4  ,a subdivision of the    
#8phratries' into totem groups1 by      
deliberate  arrangement1 is clearly as  
artificial and arbitrary as the scheme  
suggested by ,harpocration1 #8which     
cannot be entertained for a moment4'    
,we are speaking of #8the beginning of  
things1' not of the present state  of   

things1 in which we know that           
modifications of the rules1 e4g4 the    
division into eight #8classes1' are     
being deliberately adopted4#bf  ,in     
#8the beginning of things1' as ,messrs4 
,howitt and ,fison1 in #ahhe1           
maintained1 society nascitur non fit4   
,our effort is to show the  process of  
the birth of society before conscious   
and deliberate  modifications were made 
to prevent marriages1 of #8too near     
flesh4' ,our  criticism of ,messrs4     
,fison and ,howitt's theories may       
perhaps indicate  that they are         
insufficient1 or but dubiously          
intelligible4 ,something  clear and     
consistent is required4      ,footnote  
#a3 ,apparently1 among the ,kamilaroi1  
members of the same  phratry may        
intermarry1 avoiding unions in their own
 totems4 ,mathews  7,proc4 ,roy4 ,soc4  
,n4,s4,w4 xxxi4 #afa1 #afb74 ,mr4       
,mathews calls a  #8phratry' a #8group4'
    ,footnote #b3 ,second series1 pp4   
#bhi-caj4    ,footnote #c3 ,i shall1 for

 my own part1 use #8phratry' for the two
  #8primary exogamous divisions' of a   
tribe1 and #8class' for the divisions   
within the #8phratry' which do not      
appear to be of totemic origin4 ,mr4    
,fison applies #8class' to both the     
primary divisions and those contained   
in each of them1 observing that #8the   
,greek 8phratria0 would be the most     
correct term4' ,he is aware1 of course1 
that this employment of phratria  is    
arbitrary1 but it is convenient4 ,while 
he applies #8class' both to  #8the      
primary divisions of a community1 and   
their first subdivisions1'  to the      
latter ,i restrict #8classes1' using    
phratry for the former  7,kamilaroi and 
,kurnai1 p4 #bd74    ,footnote #d3      
,jour4 and ,proc4 of the ,roy4 ,soc4    
,n4,s4,w41 xxviii1 xxxii1  xxxiv4       
,footnote #e3 ,proc4 ,roy4 ,soc4        
,n4,s4,w4 xxxiv4 #abj-abb4    ,footnote 
#f3 ,prov4 ,jour4 ,roy4 ,soc4 ,n4,s4,w41
 xxxiv4 #abg4 ,mr4 ,fison  makes an     
exception for some ,kamilaroi4          

,footnote #g3 ,this view is discussed   
later4    ,footnote #h3 ,p4 #bg et seq4 
,footnote #i3 ,there is a tradition of  
an aboriginal ,adam1 who had two  wives1
 ,kilpara and ,mukwara1 these being the 
names of two phratries4 ,on  this       
showing brothers married paternal       
half-sisters 7,kamilaroi and  ,kurnai1  
p4 #cc74    ,footnote #aj3 ,kamilaroi   
and ,kurnai1 p4 #dj4    ,footnote #aa3  
,j4 ,a4 ,i4 xiv4 #adb4    ,footnote #ab3
 ,journal of the ,anthropological       
,institute1 xviii4 #bfd4    ,footnote   
#ac3 ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1 p4 #ajg4   
,footnote #ad3 ,op4 cit4 p4 #da4        
,footnote #ae3 ,proc4 ,roy4 ,soc4       
,n4,s4,w4 xxxi4 #afb4    ,footnote #af3 
,on the ,organisation of ,australian    
,tribes1 p4 #abi2  ,transactions of     
,royal ,society of ,victoria1 #ahhi4    
,footnote #ag3 ,the natives retain      
sacred songs to ,daramulun1 but cannot  
7or will not87 translate them4 ,proc4   
,roy4 ,soc4 ,n4,s4,w4 xxxiv4 #bhj4      
,footnote #ah3 ,spencer and ,gillen1 p4 

#aeb4    ,footnote #ai3 ,howitt1 ,j4 ,a4
 ,i4 xviii4 #cg-ci4    ,footnote #bj3   
,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1 p4 #bce1 note4  
,footnote #ba3 ,op4 cit4 pp4 #ei1 #fb1  
#fc1 #ff4    ,footnote #bb3 ,new        
marriage prohibitions may have been1    
and1 ,i believe1  were added1 but the   
divisions thus made were not1 ,i think1 
totemistic4    ,footnote #bc3           
,organisation of ,australian ,tribes1 p4
 #acf4    ,footnote #bd3 ,harpocration  
s4v4 4    ,footnote #be3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4    
xiv4 #afj4    ,footnote #bf3 ,spencer   
and ,gillen1 pp4 #gb1 #dbj4             
,,chapter ,,iii    ,,totems ,,within    
,,the ,,phratries      ,,american       
,,support ,,of ,,the ,,author',s        
,,hypothesis      ,the system which ,i  
advocate here1 as to the smallness of   
the original  human groups1 and their   
later combination into larger unions1   
seems  to have1 as regards ,america1 the
 support of the late ,major ,powell1    
the ,director of the ,bureau of         
,ethnology1 and of ,mr4 ,mc,gee of the  

same department4 ,this gentleman writes1
 #8,two postulates concerning  primitive
 society1 adopted by various ethnologic 
students of other  countries1 have been 
erroneously applied to the ,american    
aborigines 444  ,the first postulate is 
that primitive men were originally      
assembled  in chaotic hordes1 and that  
organised society was developed out of  
the chaotic mass by the segregation of  
groups 444' ,this appears to  be ,mr4   
,hewitt's doctrine4 ,in fact1 ,mr4      
,mc,gee says1 ,american research        
points1 not to a primal horde1          
#8bisected' and #8subdivided' into an   
organised community1 but to an early    
condition #8directly antithetic  to the 
postulated horde1 in which the scant    
population was segregated  in small     
discrete bodies1 probably family        
groups4444' ,the process of  advance was
 one of #8progressive combination rather
 than of continued  differentiation4444 
,it would appear that the original      
definitely  organised groups            

occasionally coalesced with other       
groups1 both simple  and compound1      
whereby they were elaborated in         
structure4444' ,mr4 ,mc,gee  adds1      
#8always with some loss in definiteness 
and permanence4' ,as far as  concerns   
,australia1 ,i do not feel sure that the
 last remark applies1  but1 on the      
whole1 ,mr4 ,mc,gee's observations1     
couched in abstract  terms1 appear to   
fit what ,i have written1 in concrete   
terms1 about the  probable evolution of 
,australian tribal society4#a    ,the   
theory thus suggested makes little      
demand on deliberate  legislation1 as we
 shall see later4      ,,deliberate     
,,arrangement    ,this ,i take to be    
important4 ,it seems well to avoid1 as  
far as  possible1 the hypothesis of     
deliberate legislation in times         
primeval1  involving so sweeping a      
change as the legal establishment of    
exogamy  through a decree based on      
common consent by an exogamous          
#8,bisection'  consciously made4        

,exogamy must have been gradually       
evolved4 ,but1 if  we begin with ,mr4   
,howitt's original undivided commune1   
and suppose a  deliberate bisection of  
it into two exogamous phratries1 each   
somehow  containing different totems2 or
 if we suppose a tribe of only two      
totems1 and imagine that the tribe      
deliberately made these totems          
exogamous1 which they had not been      
before1 and then subdivided them  into  
many other totem groups1 we see1 indeed1
 why persons of the  same totem may not 
intermarry4 ,they now1 after the decree1
 belong to  the same exogamous          
#8phratry' within which marriage is     
deliberately  forbidden4 ,but1 on this  
theory1 ,i find no escape from the      
conclusion  that the #8bisection' into  
#8phratries' was the result of a        
deliberate  decree1 intended to produce 
exogamy--for the bisection has not1 and 
apparently cannot have1 any other       
effect4 ,now ,i can neither imagine  a  
motive for such a decree1 nor any mode1 

in such early times1 of  procuring for  
it common consent4 ,at this point we    
have laboured1 and  to it we shall      
return1 observing that our hypothesis   
makes much less  appeal to such early   
and deliberate legislation4             
,,totems ,,all ,,the ,,way    ,in any   
case1 by ,mr4 ,fison's and ,mr4         
,howitt's theory and our own1 we  have  
totems almost all the way3 totems in the
 so-called #8primary  divisions'        
7phratries72 totems in the so-called    
gentes1 and all these  divisions        
7setting the ,arunta apart7 are strictly
 exogamous4 ,the four  or eight         
#8classes1' on the other hand1 are      
apparently not of totemic  origin4      
,however much the systems may be        
complicated and inter-twisted1  the     
basis of the whole1 except of the four  
or eight #8classes1' is1 ,i  think1 the 
totem exogamous prohibition4 ,there are 
many examples of the  type2 thus the    
,urabunna #8are divided into two        
exogamous intermarrying  classes1 which 

are respectively called ,matthurie and  
,kirarawa1 and the  members of these    
again are divided into a series of      
totemic groups1  for which the native   
name is ,thunthunnie4 ,a ,matthurie man 
must marry  a ,kirarawa women' 7as in   
the system of the ,kamil-speaking       
tribes1 or  ,kamilaroi1 reported on by  
,mr4 ,fison7--#8and not only this1 but a
 man of  one totem must marry a woman of
 another totem4' ,this is precisely what
  ,i should expect4 ,it works out thus3 
,old ,local ,totem ,group  ,matthurie4  
,new #8,phratry'                  ,old  
,local ,totem ,group  ,kirarawa4        
,new #8,phratry'             ,each of   
these #8phratries' has five totems1 not 
found in the other  class1 and how this 
occurred1 if not by actual deliberate   
arrangement1  ,i do not know4 ,one thing
 is clear3 totem and phratry are prior  
to  #8class' divisions4 ,they occur     
where #8class' divisions do not4 ,but my
  theory does not involve the deliberate
 introduction of exogamy1 by an         

exogamous bisection of groups not       
hitherto exogamous1 or by making two    
pre-existing totem groups exogamous4 ,i 
take the groups to have been  exogamous 
already1 before the blending in         
connubium of two local  totem groups    
7now #8phratries'71 each including      
numbers of already  exogamous totem     
kindreds4 ,they were exogamous before   
the #8phratries'  existed1 and after    
their falling into the two phratries1   
exogamous they  remained4               
,,distribution ,,of ,,totems ,,in ,,the 
#8,,phratries'    ,mr4 ,mc,lennan1 ere  
he had the information now before us1   
wrote1 in #ahfe1  #8,most probably      
contiguous groups would be composed of  
exactly the same  stocks' 7we can now1  
for #8stocks1' read #8totem             
kins'7--#8would contain  gentes of      
precisely the same names4'#b ,this is   
obvious1 for ,emu1  ,kangaroo1 ,wild    
,duck1 ,opossum1 ,snake1 and ,lizard1   
living in the same  region1 would raid  
each other 7by the hypothesis7 for      

wives1 and each  foreign wife would     
bring her own totem name into each      
group4 ,yet we  find that the two       
#8primary classes' 7phratries7 of the   
,urabunna 7which1  on my theory1        
represent two primitive totem local     
groups1 say ,emu and  ,kangaroo1 each   
with its representatives of all other   
totem groups  within raiding distance7  
never contain the same totems4    ,it is
 mathematically impossible that this    
exclusiveness should be the  result of  
accident4 ,on a first consideration1    
therefore1 ,i took it to  be the result 
of deliberate legislative design1 at the
 moment when on  my hypothesis two local
 totem groups1 containing members of    
several  totems of descent1 united in   
connubium4 ,the totem names1 ,i at first
  conceived1 with reluctance1 must have 
been consciously and deliberately  meted
 out between the two local totem groups1
 now become phratries4  ,this idea did  
not involve so stringent and useless a  
measure as that  of segmenting the two  

phratries into minor totem groups3      
however the  idea was still too much    
akin to that of ,harpocration as regards
 the  arbitrary drafting of the ,attic  
population into 4  ,but1 on further     
reflection1 ,i conceived that my first  
theory was  superfluous4 ,given the     
existence of local groups1 as such      
totemic1 and  of totem kins of descent  
within the original local totem groups1 
the  actual results1 ,i thought1 arise  
automatically1 as soon as two local     
totem groups agree to intermarry4 ,men  
and women must many out of their  local 
totem group 7now #8phratry'7 and must   
marry out of their totem  of descent4   
,consequently1 no one totem could       
possibly exist in both  phratries4 ,this
 ,i now1 on third thoughts1 #8which are 
a wiser first1'  deem erroneous4 ,the   
automatic arraying of one set of totems 
into one1  or another set into the      
other1 phratry1 would not occur4 ,the   
totems  have been divided between the   
two phratries4#c ,this condition of     

affairs is universal in ,australia1     
except where1 as among the ,arunta  and 
similar tribes1 the same totem comes to 
exist in both phratries1 so  that men   
and women of the same totem1 but of     
opposite phratries1 may  intermarry4    
,that breach of old rule1 we shall try  
to show1 arises from  the peculiar      
animistic philosophy of the ,arunta1 by 
virtue of which  totems are no longer   
totems of descent1 but are otherwise    
obtained4 ,the  ,kamilaroi practice of  
interphratry marriage arises out of     
respect for  totem and neglect of       
phratry law4    ,my conjecture takes for
 granted1 let me repeat1 that1 before   
the  #8bisection1' or the amalgamation1 
which produced the two exogamous        
#8classes1' the totem kindreds were     
already exogamous4 ,my reasons  for this
 opinion have already been given1 in the
 discussion of  ,mr4 ,crawley's theory  
of the origin of exogamy 7supra71 to    
which  the reader may refer4 ,my        
suggestion makes the growth of exogamy  

non-moral1 gradual1 and almost          
unconscious1 till it is clinched and    
stereotyped by the totem tabu4#d ,the   
opposite theory--namely1 the  deliberate
 bisection into exogamous #8classes1' of
 totem groups1 or of  an #8undivided    
commune' not previously exogamous1      
appeals too much1 ,i  repeat1 to        
conscious and--as far as we can         
see--motiveless legislation1  at an     
early stage4 ,the bisection must have   
had a purpose1 and has no  visible      
purpose except the establishment o f    
exogamy1 and why did the  #8undivided   
commune' establish that8      ,,the     
,,ideas ,,of ,,mr4 ,,frazer ,,his       
,,earlier ,,theory    ,it cannot be     
concealed that my conjecture is opposed 
to the mass of  learned opinion1 which  
represents the primary #8phratries' as  
the first  exogamous bodies1 and the    
totems in each as later subdivisions of 
the phratries4 ,the writers who1 like   
,mr4 ,fison1 recognise that the  primary
 subdivisions are themselves1 in origin1

 totem divisions1 do not  7as ,i        
understand7 regard these very ancient   
totem groups as already  exogamous1     
before the institution of #8phratries4' 
,again1 turning from ,australia to      
,north ,america1 we find ,mr4 ,frazer1  
at least in one passage1 on the side of 
the view generally held4 ,of  the       
#8phratry1' in ,america1 he says1 #8the 
evidence goes to show that  in many     
cases it was originally a totem clan    
which has undergone  subdivision4'#e    
,many examples are then given of the    
,north ,american  #8phratries1' which   
include totem groups within them4 #8,the
 ,choctaws  were divided into two       
phratries1 each of which included four  
clans'  7totem kins72 #8marriage was    
prohibited between members of the same  
phratry1 but members of either phratry  
could marry into any clan of  the       
other4' ,among the ,senecas1 one phratry
 included the ,bear1 ,wolf1  ,beaver1   
and ,turtle totems3 the other held the  
,deer1 ,snipe1 ,heron1 and  ,hawk       

totems2 just as in ,australia4 ,among   
the ,thlinkets and ,mohegans1  #8each   
phratry bears a name which is also the  
name of one of the clans'  7totems7     
#8included in it2' ,mr4 ,frazer adds1   
#8it seems probable that  the names of  
the ,raven and ,wolf were the two       
original clans of the  ,thlinkets1 which
 afterwards by subdivision became       
phratries4'#f  ,this is precisely as if 
we were to argue that ,matthurie and    
,kirarawa  were the #8two original      
clans' of the ,urabunna1 #8which        
afterwards by  subdivision' 7into totem 
groups7 #8became phratries1' or         
#8primary  exogamous divisions4'    ,the
 objections to this theory1 as advocated
 by ,australian inquirers1  apply to the
 ,american cases as interpreted here by 
,mr4 ,frazer4 ,in  the first place1 how 
are we to conceive of a large tribe1    
like the  ,thlinkets1 as originally     
containing only two totems1 ,raven and  
,wolf8#g ,if we do take this view1 we   
seem almost driven to suppose  that1 in 

exceedingly early times1 the ,thlinkets 
deliberately bisected  themselves1 for  
some reason1 called one moiety ,ravens1 
the other moiety  ,wolves1 and then made
 the divisions exogamous4 ,or1 perhaps1 
having two  totems and only two1 ,raven 
and ,wolf1 they deliberately decided    
that  members of neither group should   
marry within itself2 but should always  
take wives from the other group4 ,later1
 the two tribes1 ,raven and  ,wolf1     
again deliberately subdivided           
themselves1 or perhaps1 as in ,dr4      
,durkheim's view1 ,wolf threw off       
colonies which became five totem kins1  
and ,raven threw off colonies which     
became five other totem kins4    ,is it 
not more readily credible that1 over a  
large extent of ,thlinket  country1 many
 small local groups came1 by an         
unconscious process 7see  #8,the ,origin
 of ,totemism'71 to bear each a separate
 totem name8 ,the two  most important   
local groups1 ,raven and ,wolf1 would   
inevitably each  contain1 by the working

 of exogamy and female kin1 members of  
all the  other totems which would array 
themselves1 five in each chief group1   
,raven and ,wolf1 as ,i have conjectured
 in speaking of the ,australian         
cases4#h    ,again1 ,i cannot believe   
that a tribe like the ,thlinkets        
originally had  but two totems1 not yet 
exogamous1 then made them exogamous1 and
 then  cut them up1 or let them split   
off1 into many exogamous totem groups4  
,no motive is obvious3 the people1 by   
the theory1 being exogamous  already4   
,,objections ,,to ,,mr4 ,,frazer',s     
,,early ,,theory    ,we shall later see 
that ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen      
appear to advance1  but also to qualify 
out of existence1 a theory of a motive  
for an  exogamous bisection of earlier  
non-exogamous local totem groups4  ,they
 practically explain away their own     
explanation of--the great  bisection1   
but it rests1 while it exists1 on       
certain recently  discovered facts1     
which1 in turn1 are fatal1 perhaps1 to  

any theory  that a tribe had originally 
but two totems1 which became            
#8phratries1'  on being subdivided into 
other totems4 ,the new facts accepted   
and  theorised on by ,mr4 ,frazer and   
,mr4 ,spencer1 would make it seem       
perhaps impossible that a tribe like the
 ,thlinkets should originally  have     
possessed but two #8clans' or totems4   
,the facts1 as stated by ,mr4  ,spencer1
 in #ahii1 are these1 or rather1 this is
 his hypothesis founded  on his facts4  
#8,in our ,australian tribes the        
primary#i function of  a totem group is 
that of ensuring1 by magic means1 a     
supply of the  object which gives its   
name to the totem group4'#aj ,mr4       
,frazer says1  #8in its origin ,totemism
 was1 on our theory1 simply an organised
 and  co-operative system of magic4444  
,each totem group was charged with the  
superintendence and control of the      
particular department of nature from    
which it took its name4444'#aa    ,but  
this is hardly the origin of ,totemism1 

so long as we are not  told how1 or why1
 each totem group took its name from a  
department  of nature4 ,had it the name1
 before it worked magic for its         
eponymous  object1 or did it take the   
name because it worked the magic8       
,again1 there are dozens of such        
departments1#ab which implies the       
existence of dozens of organised and    
co-operative totem groups3 not of  an   
original poor pair of such groups alone4
 ,can we believe that1 on  ,mr4         
,frazer's earlier theory1 the ,thlinkets
 formed but two such groups1  one       
#8charged with' the duty to mollify the 
,wolf1 the other to take  care of the   
interests of the ,raven8 ,manifestly    
this is unlikely4 ,i  elsewhere oppose  
this theory of the magical ,origin of   
,totemism1 made at  first to fit the    
case of the ,arunta and cognate tribes4 
,if organised  co-operation in magic is 
the source of ,totemism1 we may be      
pretty  confident that no tribe began by
 appointing one half of all its members 

to do magic to propagate ravens1 and the
 other half to mollify wolves4  ,this   
would indicate1 in the magical and      
co-operative tribe1 a most  oddly       
limited and feebly capitalised flotation
 of the company--merely  #8,wolf and    
,raven4' ,no tribe would select ravens  
as the article of food  which most      
required careful propagation and        
preservation1 even if the  ,wolf most   
demanded to be propitiated and          
mollified4 ,the new ,australian  facts  
7whatever their interpretation7 are     
fatal to the older idea that  a tribe   
could have had only two original totems3
 an idea which we may  perhaps regard as
 now abandoned1 at least by ,mr4        
,frazer4    ,thus ,mr4 ,spencer himself 
remarks that1 in ,arunta tradition1     
there were  numbers of totem groups     
before the great dichotomous division   
was made4  ,that is my own opinion3     
though ,i do not hold it for ,mr4       
,spencer's  reasons1 or believe in any  
#8bisection4'      ,,mr4 ,,spencer',s   

,,theories ,,of ,,the ,,bisection    ,it
 will be noted that ,mr4 ,spencer's     
original totem groups existed for       
magical purposes only1 and were not     
exogamous4    #8,the traditions of the  
,arunta tribe point to a very definite  
introduction of an exogamic system long 
after the totemic groups were  fully    
developed1 and1 further1 they point very
 clearly to the fact that  the          
introduction was due to the deliberate  
action of certain ancestors4  ,our      
knowledge of the natives leads us to the
 opinion that it is quite  possible that
 this really took place1 that the       
exogamic groups were  deliberately      
introduced so as to regulate marital    
relations4'    ,the ,arunta #8exogamic  
groups' are #8classes1' and             
#8phratries1' the  totem does not now   
regulate marriage among the ,arunta4 ,i 
shall later  try to show1 that1         
originally1 totems did regulate         
marriage1 among  the ,arunta4 ,but here 
we find ,mr4 ,spencer averring that     

possibly #8the  exogamic groups were    
deliberately introduced so as to        
regulate marital  relations' among the  
,arunta4 ,this opinion surprises us1 if 
we hold that  exogamy was1 in its       
original forms1 the result1 not of a    
deliberate  enactment1 but of gradual   
and unconscious processes1 to which1    
later1  conscious modifications have    
been added4 ,mr4 ,spencer1 despite the  
passage cited1 is obviously of the same 
opinion1 for he proceeds to  remark1    
#8,by this we do not mean that the      
regulations had anything  whatever to do
 with the idea of incest1 or of any harm
 accruing from  the union of individuals
 who were regarded as too nearly        
related4444 ,it  can only be said that  
far back in the early history of        
mankind1 there  was felt the need of    
some form of organisation1 and that this
 gradually  resulted in the development 
of exogamous groups4'    ,this statement
 must remind us of what the ancient     
ballad sings about  ,lord ,bateman3     

,he shipped himself all aboard of a     
ship1       ,some foreign country for to
 see4    ,the scholiast 7,thackeray1 ,i 
think7 explains1 #8some foreign country 
he wished to see1 and that was the      
extent of his desire3 any foreign       
country would serve his purpose1 all    
foreign countries were alike to  him4'  
,in the same way1 long ago1 the         
ancestors of the ,australians #8felt    
the need of some form of organisation1' 
and that was the extent of  their       
desire2 any organisation would serve    
their purpose4 ,nevertheless1  ,mr4     
,spencer also says that1 quite possibly1
 #8the exogamic groups  were            
deliberately introduced so as to        
regulate marital relations4'  ,but      
exogamic groups can regulate marital    
arrangements in one way  only--that is1 
by introducing exogamy4 ,yet ,mr4       
,spencer remarks that  #8the development
 of exogamic groups' gradually resulted 
from some  organisation of unknown      
nature4 ,i am unable to reconcile ,mr4  

,spencer's  statements with each other4 
,the #8bisection' of his theory could   
not1 ,i  fear1 be #8gradual4'    ,mr4   
,frazer1 in #ahii1 begins with numerous 
totem groups1 primarily  and originally 
arranged for mere purposes of           
co-operative magic1 in  the social      
interests of a large friendly tribe1    
itself no primitive  institution1 one   
thinks4 ,then he supposes that the      
exogamous bisection  occurred 7and why  
did it occur871 and then #8if the       
existing totem  groups were arranged1 as
 they naturally would be1 some in one of
 the  two new classes1 and the rest in  
the other1 the exogamy of the totem     
groups would follow1 ipso facto4'#ac    
,mr4 ,frazer does not here  pretend to  
guess why the bisection occurred4 ,the  
rest is quite obvious3  but it is       
unavoidably inconsistent with ,mr4      
,frazer's earlier theory1  that a tribe 
begins 7or that the ,thlinkets began7   
with two original  totem groups1 made   
them exogamous1 and then #8subdivided'  

them up 7or  did they merely swarm off87
 into many totem groups4 ,it is against 
that almost universal theory1 in #ahii  
abandoned 7as ,i conceive7 by  ,mr4     
,frazer1 that ,i have so long been      
arguing4 ,there was not first an        
exogamous bisection of a tribe1 or the  
addition of the exogamous rule  to two  
#8original clans1' or totem groups1 and 
then the subdivision of  each of the two
 sections into a number of totems4 ,this
 cannot have  occurred4 ,totems1 ,i     
venture to think1 did not come in that  
way1 but  pre-existing totem kins1      
granting the bisection1 might fall into 
one or  other phratry1 if they had      
always been exogamous4      ,,advantages
 ,,of ,,the ,,system ,,here ,,proposed  
,on my system1 as has been already      
stated1 the origin of exogamy may  have 
been sexual jealousy1 in small primitive
 groups1 perhaps aided  by #8sexual     
tabu1' with the strange superstitions on
 which it is  based1 and these causes   
would be strengthened enormously by the 

totem  superstition1 later4 ,the totem  
name would now be the exogamous limit4  
,the #8phratries' might result1 quite   
naturally1 and even gradually1 now  in  
one region1 now in another1 from the    
interlocking and alliance1 with         
connubium1 of two large friendly local  
totem groups1 an arrangement  of which  
the advantages are so obvious that it   
might spread by way of  imitation and   
accretion4    ,this view of the possible
 origin of what is usually called the   
#8bisection' of #8the undivided commune'
 had already been suggested by  the late
 ,mr4 ,daniel ,mc,lennan4#ad ,writing   
before our information was so  full as  
it now is1 he says1 as to the two       
#8phratries' ,kumite and ,kroki         
7answering to ,matthurie and ,kirarawa71
 #8were it worth while to make          
surmises1 it would not be unreasonable  
to surmise that at ,mount ,gambier  two 
separate local tribes#ae containing     
different totem kindreds had1  through  
the operation of exogamy and female     

kinship1 become welded  into one        
community4' ,mr4 ,daniel ,mc,lennan1    
unluckily1 inherited his  brother's feud
 against ,mr4 ,fison1 and he opposed all
 that gentleman's  doings4 ,later       
research has corroborated many of ,mr4  
,fison's facts1 and  extended the range 
of their influence4 ,on this point1     
however--namely1  that the #8phratries' 
are not the result of a bisection1 but  
of an  amalgamation--,mr4 ,daniel       
,mc,lennan appears to have had a good   
case4 ,he  illustrates his theory1 and  
mine1 by remarks on a tradition of the  
tribes of ,northern ,victoria4#af       
,the exogamous #8phratries' of these    
tribes are ,eagle-,hawk and ,crow4  ,the
 tradition represents these birds as    
hostile creative powers4 ,they  made    
peace on the terms #8that the ,murray   
blacks should be divided into  two      
classes' 7#8phratries'71 #8the          
,makquarra1 or ,eagle-,hawk1 and the    
,kilparra1 or ,crow4444 ,out of the     
enmities' 7of the original ,crow and    

,eagle-,hawk7 #8arose the two classes1  
and thence a law governing marriage     
among these classes4' ,this tradition1  
it will be observed1 espouses the       
theory of a bisection1 deliberately made
 of #8the ,murray blacks1' into  two    
intermarrying and exogamous classes4    
,mr4 ,mc,lennan writes1 #8,but what  the
 tradition suggests is1 not that the    
,crow and ,eagle agreed to divide  one  
tribe into two1 with a view to the      
better regulation of marriage1  but that
 ,crow and ,eagle or ,eagle-,hawk were  
tribes 7and they might have  been       
constituted in the ordinary ,australian 
way7 which long waged war  against each 
other1 and that at length there came    
peace1 and then their  complete         
interfusion by means of friendly        
marriages4' ,the tradition  asserts the 
reverse2 it adopts1 or rather it        
forestalls1 the scientific  theory of a 
#8bisection' of the ,murray blacks1 not 
the amalgamation of  two tribes 7or     
large local totem groups74 ,but ,i agree

 with ,mr4 ,mc,lennan  in prefering1 for
 the reasons given1 the theory of an    
amalgamation4  ,it is rather curious and
 interesting to observe that almost     
every  scientific hypothesis about      
totems and #8classes1' which ,i am      
obliged  to reject1 has1 in fact1 been  
forestalled by the theories which the   
natives themselves express in their     
explanatory myths4 ,myths1 ,i fear1  are
 never in the right4 #8,the aborigines  
themselves1' says ,mr4 ,howitt1         
#8recognise the former existence of the 
undivided commune in their  legends1    
but1' he judiciously adds1 #8,i do not  
rely upon this as having  the force of  
evidence4'#ag    ,we shall presently see
 that other distinguished               
anthropologists  do1 to some extent1    
rely on ,arunta myths1 as #8bearing the 
stamp of  authenticity4' ,the truth is  
that the native thinkers have hit on the
  same hypothesis as their ,european    
critics1 the hypothesis of something    
like deliberate primeval legislation to 

a given end1 the regulation  of         
marriage4 ,far from accepting any such  
native myths1 ,i am rather  inclined to 
hold that1 whatever theory be correct1  
the theory of the  savage myth-makers   
must be wrong4 ,it ought to be said that
 ,mr4 ,fison1  at least1 knows what his 
own theory involves1 and once even      
frankly  accepted the possibility that  
the ,dieri myth 7the foundation of      
exogamy  by divine decree7 may be       
historically true4 #8,all ,i contend for
 is1' he  says1 #8that if the former    
existence of the undivided commune be   
taken  for granted' 7and ,mr4 ,fison1   
unlike ,mr4 ,howitt1 regards the        
undivided  commune as a mere unproved   
hypothesis71 #8its division into        
exogamous  clans must have had precisely
 the effect' 7a consciously reformatory 
effect7 #8which ,mr4 ,morgan's theory   
requires4 ,if such a community ever     
existed1 ,i do not hesitate to say that 
,mr4 ,morgan's 8reformatory  movement0  
appears to me the most likely method by 

which it would begin  its advance to a  
better system of marriage' than         
#8communal marriage4'    ,but what gave 
the impulse to the hypothetical moral   
reformation8  ,contact with a more      
advanced tribe is reckoned improbable by
 ,mr4 ,fison  7for how came the other   
tribe to be more advanced871 and so the 
moral  impulse #8must have been derived 
from a higher power1' from the ,good    
,spirit1 or from ancestral spirits1 as  
in the myths of the ,dieri1 the         
,woeworung1 also of the ,menomini       
,redmen of ,north ,america1 a branch of 
the ,algonquins2 and the ,euahlayi      
tribe4    ,according to the ,menomini1  
there is1 or was1 a ,being who #8made   
the  earth4'#ah ,his name being         
interpreted means #8,the ,great         
,unknown1' but  only extreme believers  
in the theory of religious borrowing    
will say  that he was ,sir ,walter      
,scott1 ,bart4 ,he 7,the ,great         
,unknown7 created  #8manidos or         
spirits1' in the shape of animals1 or   

birds4 ,the chief  birds 7as often in   
,australia7 were ,eagles and ,hawks4    
,the ,bear #8came out  of the ground1'  
and was turned into an ,indian1 by the  
,great ,unknown1  alias #8,the ,good    
,mystery4' ,he and the ,beaver headed   
totem kins now  in #8,the ,big ,thunder 
phratry4' ,other animals came in2 there 
are now  ,bear1 ,eagle1 ,crane1 and     
,moose #8phratries1' each containing a  
number of  totems4 ,all the people of a 
totem name in the ,menomini tribe are   
akin  to persons of the same totem in   
other tribes1 say of the ,sioux4#ai     
,these myths favourably illustrate the  
piety of the ,dieri1 ,woeworung1        
,euahlayi men1 and ,menomini4 ,like ,mr4
 ,fison 7at one time1 and #8under  all  
reserves'7 these tribes leaned to the   
hypothesis of divine or  supernormal    
intervention in matters totemic4 ,the   
,dieri may be right1  but a less        
difficult hypothesis is that there was  
never #8an undivided  commune1' in the  
sense of ,mr4 ,morgan and ,mr4 ,fison1  

and that1  consequently1 it never was   
#8divided into exogamous clans4' ,if so1
 no  miracle is needed3 ,nec ,deus      
intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus4 ,my 
own scheme needs no divine aid1 nor     
deliberate legislation1 #8in the        
beginning4' ,but that such legislation  
has intervened later1 ,i think          
probable1 or certain4    ,messrs4       
,spencer and ,gillen write3 #8,rigidly  
conservative as the native  is1 it is   
yet possible for changes to be          
introduced4444 ,there are  certain men  
who are respected for their ability1    
and1 after watching  large numbers of   
the tribe1 at a time when they were     
assembled together  for months to       
perform certain of their most sacred    
ceremonies1 we have  come to the        
conclusion that1 at a time such as this1
 when the older  and more powerful men  
from various groups are met together1   
and when  day by day1 and night by night
 around their camp fires1 they discuss  
matters of tribal interest1 it is quite 

possible for changes of custom  to be   
introduced4'#bj ,the ,arunta traditions 
allege that such changes  introduced by 
men of weight1 and accepted after       
discussion1 have been  not unusual4#ba  
,this is highly probable1 now1 but not  
in the beginning4    ,the ,arunta       
historical traditions are of little     
value as to historical  facts1#bb but   
the consciousness of the ,central       
,australian tribes  accepts the         
possibility that new customs may now be 
proposed1  debated1 and adopted4 ,if no 
such thing ever occurred1 the belief in 
its possibility could scarcely have     
arisen among the ,arunta4 ,but  the     
possibility has its limits1 and one of  
these is the deliberate  primeval       
introduction of exogamy1 for no         
conceivable reason1 and its  imposition 
on a society already totemic but not yet
 exogamous4 ,perhaps  few critics will  
frankly say that exogamy was thus       
imposed2 they will  try to qualify or   
evade so improbable and antiquated a    

theory4 ,yet they  cannot but slip back 
into it1 while they believe in          
#8segmentations'  of #8an undivided     
commune1' and of later totemic          
#8subdivisions' of the                  
#8segmentations4'    ,in any case these 
,arunta and cognate tribes of similar   
usages1 so  recently discovered1 so     
anomalous1 so odd1 are #8the only       
begetters'  of the latest hypotheses of 
,mr4 ,frazer and ,mr4 ,spencer--namely1 
that totems1 originally1 were           
co-operative industrial groups with  no 
influence on marriage rules4 ,do the    
,arunta1 then1 present a  surviving     
model of primitive ,totemism1 in other  
regions modified  and contaminated2 or  
is their ,totemism not1 like their      
metaphysics  and psychology1 a #8freak1'
 an unique divergence from the normal   
development1 as ,i have from the first  
maintained8#bc ,all these  difficulties 
and confusions1 as to #8phratries' and  
totems1 inevitably  arise from the      
doctrine that the original totem groups 

were not at  first exogamous1 and only  
became exogamous when separate sets of  
them  were scheduled under the two more 
recent exogamous primary divisions1  or 
were segmented out of them4 ,in that    
case it is not easy to see how  we can  
escape from the impossible theory that  
exogamy1 and the primary  divisions1    
were the result1 of direct legislative  
enactment4 ,even if we  could believe   
this1 we see no conceivable motive1     
except ,mr4 ,fison's  divine            
intervention1 an idea which1 it appears1
 he put forward quite  provisionally in 
an argument with ,lord ,avebury4#bd     
,,the ,,arunta    ,the case of these    
,central ,australian tribes1 in regard  
to ,totemism  and marriage prohibitions1
 is so peculiar that it demands         
particular  notice4 ,mr4 ,frazer some   
years ago propounded the hypothesis that
 the  ,arunta tribe1 especially1 are the
 most #8primitive' of living peoples1   
are still in #8the chrysalis stage' of  
humanity1 whence it would follow  that  

their singular kind of ,totemism1 and of
 marriage rules1 is nearest  to the     
beginning1 and best represents the      
original type4#be ,the  ,arunta1        
dwelling in the arid regions of the     
centre1 have certainly been  little     
contaminated by ,european influences4   
,they are naked1 houseless1             
non-agricultural nomads1 like all the   
,australian tribes1 and it is  asserted 
by ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen and    
others that they have not  yet          
discovered the rather obvious facts as  
to the reproduction of the  species4    
,all this has certainly a primitive air4
 ,but ,i have ventured  to reply that   
the ,arunta1 as regards the family1 are 
confessedly  more advanced towards      
individual marriage than their          
neighbours1 the  ,urabunna1 with whom   
they freely intermarry4#bf ,unlike what 
is told  of the ,urabunna1 the ,arunta  
recognise #8individual marriage4' ,they 
deliberately and ingeniously modify     
their system on the occasion of         

intermarriage with the ,urabunna4 ,these
 reckon descent in the female1  the     
,arunta in the male line4#bg ,the office
 of ,alatunja1 or head man  of a local  
group1 among the ,arunta1 is hereditary 
in the male line1  descending to a      
brother of the late ,alatunja1 if he    
leaves no adult  son4#bh    ,moreover1  
the ,arunta1 and cognate tribes1 occupy 
an area of #gej miles1  and their       
meetings and discussions last for       
months4 ,a people truly  primitive      
cannot be conceived as capable of such  
immense local  associations1 and of such
 prolonged and pacific assemblies4      
,again1  ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen1 
rightly or wrongly1 believe that        
#8communal  marriage' is the earlier    
institution1 and that it persists1      
#8slightly  modified' among the         
,urabunna1 but not among the ,arunta4   
,thus1 beyond  all doubt1 the ,arunta   
are more developed1 more advanced1 than 
the  ,urabunna1 and it is hardly safe to
 say that1 where their organisation     

differs from that of the ,urabunna1 and 
other tribes in general1 it  differs    
because it is more #8primitive4' ,it    
must be less primitive1 a  special      
divergence from the type4      ,,arunta 
,,metaphysics    ,again1 as proof that  
they are in no chrysalis stage1 the     
,arunta possess  a reasoned theory of   
things1 so ingenious and complex1 so    
peculiar1 so  extraordinary1 so         
carefully atheistic1 that one could     
scarcely believe  it possible for naked 
savages1 were it not so well attested4  
,the theory  is that of the original    
evolution of types of life into plants  
and  animals1 which1 with the minimum of
 extra-natural aid1 became human4  ,the 
human beings possessed souls1 which on  
the death1 or disappearance  into earth1
 of the original owners1 were           
hereditary1 being reborn into  ,arunta  
children4 ,these souls each of a given  
totem 7the plant or animal  or other    
thing which first became human7 haunt   
certain local centres4  ,one place is   

the centre of ,grub totem souls1 another
 of ,cat totem  souls1 and so forth4    
,each new child is of the totem of the  
haunted  locality where the mother      
supposes that she conceived it2 a totem 
soul  of that locality has become       
incarnate in her1 and from her is born4 
,thus the wife may be of one totem1 the 
child of another2 the husband  may be of
 the wife's totem1 of the child's1 or of
 another4 ,the totem  is thus no bar to 
marriage1 and is not inherited1 all this
 being the  result of the peculiar      
philosophic system of the ,arunta4      
,their totemism  is thus a #8sport1' and
 not the original form of the           
institution4    ,we cannot reverse the  
case1 the philosophy of hereditary      
totemic souls  cannot be the result of  
the present mode of inheriting the totem
 from  the group of souls that haunts   
each locality1 it cannot be a myth      
invented to explain that custom4 ,that  
custom requires the peculiar  ,arunta   
soul-belief as its basis1 and cannot    

exist without the belief4  ,if the child
 received its totem name from the place 
where it is born1  we might say1        
#8,originally the child was called after
 the place of  its birth4' 7,arunta     
children still receive territorial      
personal  names from the place of their 
birth47 #8,later1 ,totemism came in with
  totem local names1 each place having a
 totem title4 ,the local totem  name of 
the place where a child was born was    
then given to each child4  ,still later1
 arose a myth that totem souls haunted  
each place1 and  that the child received
 its totem name because a local totem   
soul was  incarnated in it1 at the place
 where it was born4' ,we cannot maintain
  this theory--which makes the present  
,arunta belief a myth to explain  the   
present ,arunta custom--because that    
custom it does not explain4 ,the  child 
receives its totem name1 not from the   
place where it is born1  but from the   
place where the totem soul entered into 
its mother4 ,nor  can we assume that    

totem names were originally given1 not  
to human  groups1 but to districts of   
territory4 ,thus the present ,arunta    
mode of  obtaining the totem1 in each   
case1 is the direct result of the       
,arunta  philosophic belief4 ,that      
belief is peculiar1 is elsewhere unheard
 of1  is the property of a tribe        
distinctly more advanced in marriage    
rules1  and local solidarity1 than some 
of its neighbours1 and therefore cannot 
be primary4 ,it follows that the ,arunta
 mode of obtaining the totem1  not by   
inheritance1 is not #8primitive1' is not
 the original model from  which the rest
 of savage mankind has diverged4 ,this  
,i state1 because1  as a rule1 a belief 
exists to explain an institution1 and1  
as a rule1  an institution is not the   
result of a belief4      ,,arunta       
,,totem ,,eating ,,and ,,traditions     
,each ,arunta totem kin may now eat1 in 
moderation1 of its own totem1  and each 
kin does magic 7,intichiuma7 for the    
benefit of its totem1  as part of the   

food supply of the tribe in general4    
,the traditions  represent men and women
 of the same totem as1 of old1 usually  
intermarrying 7that is1 as endogamous73 
while they are also said1 as  a rule1 to
 have fed almost exclusively on their   
totems1 being thus  endophagous4    ,all
 these usages1 real or traditional      
7except doing magic for the  benefit of 
the totem71 are at the opposite pole    
from the customary  exogamous and       
exophagous ,totemism of savage tribes   
all over the world1  and even in        
,australia4 ,if1 therefore1 the ,arunta 
and tribes practising  the same usages  
are primitive 7it may be1 and has been  
argued71 their  ,totemism is1 in origin1
 the earliest known case of the division
 of  labour2 each group selecting and   
working 7by magic7 for the benefit  of  
its totem1 as part of the tribal food   
supply4 ,i elsewhere argue  that each   
group must probably have had a          
recognised connection with  its totem1  
before it set out to do magic for the   

propagation of the  creature4#bi ,but ,i
 have also maintained that the ,arunta  
are far from  being #8primitive1' but   
are rather a #8sport1' and that their   
usages  represent a local variation from
 the central stream of ,totemism2 not   
,totemism in its earliest known form4   
,,dr4 ,,durkheim ,,on ,,the ,,arunta    
,i had written on this topic in the     
,fortnightly ,review 7,june1 #ahii71    
and in another chapter of this book     
7#8,the ,origin of ,totemism'71  before 
,i saw the essay of ,professor          
,durkheim1 of ,bordeaux1 ,sur  le       
,totmisme4#cj ,it is encouraging to find
 that ,dr4 ,durkheim1  independently1   
has worked out the same theory--namely1 
that the ,arunta  are not in the        
primitive stage of ,totemism1 but       
represent a very  peculiar divergence   
from the type1 and that their historical
 legends  7more or less accepted by ,mr4
 ,frazer and ,mr4 ,spencer7 are mainly  
myths1  told to account for certain     
facts in their social arrangements4 ,we 

are  not to reason from their single    
case1 says ,dr4 ,durkheim1 as against   
the great mass of our knowledge of      
,totemism and totemistic exogamy and    
exophagy4 #8,in place of being a        
perfectly pure example of the totemistic
  rgime1 is not ,arunta ,totemism a     
later and disfigured 7dnature7          
development8' ,for many reasons1 says   
,dr4 ,durkheim1 #8the ,arunta are  among
 the most advanced of the ,australian   
peoples1'#ca and he gives  his grounds  
for this opinion1 some of which ,i had  
already adduced in  #ahii4 ,entering    
into detail1 ,dr4 ,durkheim readily     
shows that1 though the  ,arunta now     
permit marriage between persons of the  
same totem 7which is  not hereditary on 
either side1 but casual71 they are1 for 
all that1  exogamous1 in a fashion      
resulting from precise ,totemism in     
their past4    ,they may not marry      
within the two primary divisions 7which 
,dr4 ,durkheim  styles #8phratries'74   
,each phratry contains two 7sometimes   

four7 other  #8classes' 7exogamous71 and
 phratries arose in the combination of  
#8two  elementary exogamous totem       
groups'--as ,i have already suggested4  
,now phratries1 we have agreed with ,mr4
 ,howitt and ,mr4 ,fison1 were1  in all 
probability1 themselves originally      
totemic4 ,mr4 ,frazer also  says1 #8,we 
should infer that the objects from which
 the ,australian  phratries take their  
names were originally totems4 ,but there
 seems to  be direct evidence that both 
the phratries and subphratries actually 
retain1 in some tribes1 their           
totems4'#cb ,if the opinion be correct1 
the phratries of the ,arunta1 which     
regulate their marriages1 were          
originally local totem groups4 ,on my   
system1 then1 namely1 that totem  kins  
were originally1 or very early became1  
exogamous1 were exogamous  before       
#8phratries' arose1 and before the      
so-called #8bisection' was  made1 then  
the ,arunta organisation was originally 
that of exogamous  ,totemism4 ,at first1

 though not now1 totems regulated       
,arunta marriages4    ,dr4 ,durkheim1 in
 the passage cited1 says that the two   
exogamous  phratries are composed of    
#8two elementary totem groups1 galement 
exogames4'#cc ,dr4 ,durkheim1 who here  
is of my opinion1 writes1 #8,it  is not 
true that1 among the ,arunta1 the totem 
has always been' 7as it  is now7        
#8without influence on marriages1 nor1  
above all1 is it true  that ,totemism1  
generally1 implied endogamy4' ,yet1     
according to ,arunta  myth1 the         
ancestors of the #8dream-time'          
7,alcheringa7 were endogamous1  as a    
general rule1 and1 as a general rule1   
were endophagous1 ate  their totem      
animals or plants4 ,the ancestors of    
their traditions fed  on their own      
totems1 #8as if by a functional         
necessity1' say ,messrs4  ,spencer and  
,gillen4 ,but this simply cannot be     
true1 for each totem  is not in season1 
7plums1 for instance71 or accessible1   
all the year  through1 and1 if it were1 

it would be exterminated by endophagy4  
,the  traditions1 again1 do not         
represent the men of the totem groups as
  really and religiously endogamous4    
,they exercised marital privileges1  not
 only over the women of their totem     
group1 but over any other woman  they   
could come across4 ,certain totem groups
 are represented in the  legends as     
wandering across the land1 the men      
living with women of  their totem group1
 while #8there is nothing to show       
definitely that  marital relations were 
prohibited between individuals of       
different  totems4' ,the men accepted   
the caresses of such women of other     
totems  as they encountered2 but their  
habitual mates were the women of their  
own totem4#cd ,in the alleged state of  
perpetual trek1 the wives were          
naturally1 in the opinion of the myth   
makers1 of the group4 ,at present  an   
,arunta marries in or out of his totem2 
as he pleases4      ,,the ,,relations   
,,of ,,totems ,,and #8,,phratries'      

,,among ,,the ,,arunta    ,the relations
 of the totem groups to the #8primary   
divisions1' or  #8phratries1' among the 
,arunta and cognate tribes1 are1 as we  
have  already stated1 entirely peculiar4
 ,we have seen that1 in ,north ,america1
  and in ,australia generally1 no       
phratry ever contains the same totems   
as its linked phratry1 and we have seen 
that ,mr4 ,frazer calls this  the       
natural arrangement4#ce ,if so1 the     
present ,arunta arrangement  is not     
natural2 it is a divergence from the    
natural type4 ,among the  ,arunta1 #8no 
totem is confined to either moiety'     
7#8phratry'7 #8of the  tribe4' ,there is
 only #8in each local centre a great    
predominance of one  moiety4'#cf    ,dr4
 ,durkheim regards the present state of 
,arunta affairs 7the totems  not being  
peculiar to either phratry7 as une      
drogation4 ,originally1  he thinks1 as  
among the ,urabunna1 each phratry       
contained only totems  which were not in
 the other phratry2 and he detects      

survivals1  among the ,arunta1 of the   
earlier usage4 ,at present the ,arunta  
totems  show #8a slight tendency to     
skip' 7chevaucher7 #8from one into the  
other phratry1 doubtless because the    
,arunta totem system is no longer       
complete'--and no wonder1 as ,arunta    
totems are now not hereditary1 but      
derived from the totem souls haunting   
each locality4 ,again1 in ,arunta       
legend1 the ancestors #8were divided    
into companies1 the members of  which   
bore the same totem name1 and belonged  
as a rule to the same  moiety'          
7#8phratry'7 #8of the tribe1' as now    
among the ,urabunna1 #8who are  in a    
less developed state than the ,arunta4' 
,so say ,messrs4 ,spencer and  ,gillen1 
and thus ,arunta legend points to a past
 in which ,arunta usage  was1 in this   
matter1 as a rule the same as that of   
the less developed  ,urabunna3 which ,i 
believe it really was4    ,but we can   
hardly accept the legends when they fit1
 and reject them  when they do not fit1 

our theory6 ,i lay no stress on the     
legends4    ,if1 however1 the ,arunta   
#8phratries' originally1 as ,dr4        
,durkheim and ,i  believe1 never        
contained the same totems1 then each    
,arunta totem group  was1 at that time1 
necessarily exogamous4 ,no man or woman 
could then  marry within the totem1 as1 
at present1 the ,arunta can and do4     
,they  were barred by the phratry limit3
 persons of their totem were never in   
the phratry into which alone they could 
marry4 ,so no one then could  marry a   
member of his or her own totem kin4     
#8,it is1 therefore1 untrue  that       
marriage has always been permitted      
between members of a totem1'  says ,dr4 
,durkheim1 though ,arunta legend        
declares for the opposite view4         
,,arunta ,,myths    ,here ,i am apt to  
agree with ,dr4 ,durkheim4 ,the evidence
 of the ,arunta  legends as to the      
customs of the ,alcheringa1 or          
#8dreamtime1' is #8such  stuff as dreams
 are made of4' ,the legends are         

#8statements1 invented  mainly by       
popular fancy1' says ,dr4 ,durkheim1    
#8to explain existing  institutions1 by 
attaching them to some mythical beings  
in the past4  ,they are myths1 in the   
proper sense of the word4' ,they are not
 marked  by authenticity4    ,against   
this idea we have the opinion of ,mr4   
,frazer1 and of ,messrs4  ,spencer and  
,gillen4#cg ,the ,arunta traditions1    
they say1 and ,mr4 ,frazer  agrees with 
them1 do not explain the present system1
 but deal with a  former state of       
organisation and with customs quite     
different from the  present4 ,they do1  
but the ,arunta invented the customs    
described in  their myths1 on purpose to
 explain1 mythically1 how the present   
customs  arose out of deliberate        
modification of the alleged older       
customs4  ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen 
themselves assert this3 #8the traditions
  point to a very definite introduction 
of an exogamic system1 long after  the  
totemic groups were fully developed1    

and1 further1 they point very  clearly  
to the fact that the introduction was   
due to the deliberate  action of certain
 ancestors1' which is the theory of ,mr4
 ,lewis ,morgan6    ,the rest is true1  
but ,i1 like ,dr4 ,durkheim1 conceive   
that all is  7except where we have      
external evidence for deliberate        
modification of  the #8classes'7 merely 
part of the ,arunta tiological or       
explanatory  myth4 ,that myth starts    
from the belief 7,mr4 ,howitt's belief87
 in  primary totemic1 but not exogamous 
groups1 such as are precisely the       
present groups of the ,arunta1 though   
not of their neighbours the  ,urabunna1 
or of totemists in general4 ,this       
exceptional condition of  ,arunta       
affairs needed explanation1 and got it1 
in the myth that the  groups were       
originally totemic1 but not exogamous1  
as ,arunta totem  groups still are4     
,exogamy 7not applying to totem groups1 
but to  #8phratries'7 was brought in1   
the myth says1 by deliberate action1 by 

our old friend1 #8the ,legislator1' ,the
 ,arunta traditions1 therefore1 do      
explain #8the origin of the present     
system1' of the ,arunta1 as far as      
exogamy goes2 and their explanation is  
as much a speculative hypothesis  as    
,mr4 ,morgan's equivalent theory4 ,it is
 one more example of the  coincidence of
 savage myth and scientific hypothesis4 
,,mr4 ,,spencer ,,on ,,arunta ,,legends 
,i understand ,messrs4 ,spencer and     
,gillen to contest this opinion1 in  one
 passage1 and to assert it1 under       
qualifications1 in another4 ,their      
exact words must be given4 #8,if they'  
7,arunta traditions7 #8simply  explained
 the origin of the present system out   
of1 as it were1 no  system1 then we     
might regard them as simply myths       
invented to account  for the former'    
7i4e4 #8the present system'71 #8but when
 we find that  they deal with a gradual 
development1 and with a former state of 
organisation and customs quite different
 from1 and in important  respects at    

variance with1 the organisation and     
customs of the present  day1 we are     
probably right in regarding them as     
actually indicative of  a time when     
these were different from those now in  
force4'#ch    ,now to what do the       
traditions amount1 as regards earlier   
marriage laws  and customs at variance  
with those now in use among the ,arunta8
 ,they  amount to this3 7#a7 ,men of one
 totem had marital relations normally   
with women of the same totem4 ,it is no 
longer the case that ,arunta men  have  
relations1 normally and exclusively1    
with women of the same totem2  a man may
 marry a woman of his own totem1 or not1
 as he pleases4 ,but  so1 in the        
traditions of the primeval trek1 a man  
might1 and did1 take  women of other    
totems as he pleased1 by conquest       
probably2 though these  women seem to   
have lived1 hitherto1 solely with men of
 their own totem4  ,the tradition starts
 from the hypothesis that all members of
 each  mythical wandering totem group   

were originally of the same totem4 ,that
  being so1 the men naturally lived1    
when on trek1 with women of their       
totem1 taking women of other totems as  
they came across them4 ,no longer  on   
trek1 the ,arunta of to-day do the same 
thing1 many women of their  own or any  
other totem4 ,the only shade of         
difference arises from the  nature of   
the mythical theory1 that many totem    
groups were originally  migratory4 ,but 
the present ,arunta system of #8go as   
you please' in  marriage 7as far as     
totems are concerned7 differs from the  
regular  custom of the neighbouring     
,urabunna1 for example4 ,that           
difference1 the  ,arunta probably feel1 
needs explanation4 ,so their myth       
explains it1 #8we  ,arunta always acted 
thus from the beginning4' ,so far the   
#8tradition'  of ,messrs ,spencer and   
,gillen seems to me to be an ordinary   
explanatory  myth4    7#b7 ,at the      
supposed time 7a time when many human   
types were still in  the husk67 men and 

women of what are now #8exogamic groups'
 7#8phratries'  or #8classes'7 had      
marital relations contrary to present   
usage4    ,but did the phratries or     
classes then1 according to tradition1   
exist  at all8 ,the legend says that the
 men of the ,little ,hawk totem had     
these #8phratries' and classes1 ,kumura 
and ,purula and so on 7the names  then  
carrying no known exogamous prohibition1
 as now1 for the legend  does not say   
that these #8classes' were exogamous74  
,the ,little ,hawk  men had arrived at  
the arts of making flint knives1 and    
using them in  circumcision4 ,this they 
taught to less advanced groups1 who     
tooled with  fire sticks4 ,but they only
 let their pupils have #8very rough'    
stone  knives 7,palolithic1 probably71  
at first4 #8,it was these ,little       
,hawks1'  say our authors1 #8who first  
gave to the ,arunta the four 8class0    
names4  ,we may presume that along with 
them there was instituted some system of
  marriage regulations1 but what exactly

 this was there is no evidence  to      
show4' ,either the ,little ,hawks       
introduced exogamy1 or they did not1  a 
valuable result of traditional          
evidence4#ci #8,as yet we have no       
indication of any restrictions with     
regard to marriage as far as either     
totems or classes are concerned1' say   
,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen4 ,then    
why does the legend aver that the class 
names existed8 ,why did they  exist8    
,now the existing restrictions of the   
#8classes' need explanation1  and get   
it1 from the myth2 but1 as there are no 
,arunta totem  restrictions on marriage1
 at present the myth naturally says     
nothing  about them4 ,at this mythic    
period1 #8persons of the ,purula and    
,kumura  classes1 who may not now marry 
one another1 are represented as living  
together4'#dj 7#c7 ,next #8the          
organisation now in vogue was adopted4' 
,but1 in its first shape1 due to the    
wisdom of ,emu men1 it permitted        
marriages1 which are now 7#d7 forbidden 

by the superior intelligence  of men    
dwelling further north1 #8and it was    
decided to adopt the new  system1' that 
is1 the present ,arunta #8class' system4
    ,now the ,arunta are still accepting
 innovations from the ,north1 and  this 
part of the myth need not be mythical4  
,but the whole traditions1 full of stark
 mythical inventions 7including  a myth 
like that of ,isis and the mutilation of
 ,osiris71 amount merely  to this4      
,society was totemic1 but the totems    
were not exogamous2 rather  endogamous  
of the two4 ,society among the ,arunta  
is still totemic1  but not1 as far as   
totems go1 exogamous4 ,in this it       
differs from the  usual rule1 and the   
myth explains why1--#8it was always so4'
 ,but ,arunta  society is exogamous as  
regards the #8phratries' and classes1   
and that  has to be explained by the    
myth4 ,the myth therefore explains by   
saying  that ,emu men introduced a      
deficient1 and northern men an adequate1
  system of exogamy--that which now     

prevails4 ,messrs4 ,spencer and         
,gillen1 however1 appear to deny that   
the #8traditions' #8simply explain  the 
origin of the present system1 out of1 as
 it were1 no system4 ,it  is true that  
the traditions do give stages in the    
arrangement of the  present system2 but 
they also do #8explain the origin of the
 present  system4' ,and ,messrs4        
,spencer and ,gillen not only admit     
this1 but1 as we  saw1 even think the   
explanation #8quite possible4' ,the     
explanation1 ,i  repeat1 is that the    
system #8is due to the deliberate action
 of certain  ancestors1' ,emu men and   
wiser ,northern men4    ,of course1 as  
we tried to show1 that explanation of   
primeval exogamy  is improbable1 but it 
is the explanation given by the ,arunta 
legend4  ,with a grain of fact1 as to   
innovations from the ,north1 the legend 
is a myth1 an tiological myth1 a myth   
explanatory of the origin of  the       
present organisation4 ,history it is    
not4 ,the ,arunta #8traditions'  are not

 historical evidence in favour of the   
new hypothesis that the  ,arunta are    
#8primitive1' are in #8the chrysalis    
stage' of humanity2 7this  they deny73  
that ,totemism1 in origin1 was a magical
 co-operative and  industrial           
association2 that the original totems   
were not exogamous2  and that exogamy   
was superimposed by legislation1 or grew
 out of an  organisation so imposed on a
 society of non-exogamous totem groups4 
,whatever the value of that hypothesis1 
it has no historical support  from the  
,arunta traditions4 ,history is a very  
different thing4    ,the ,arunta still  
marry1 at pleasure1 in or out of the    
totem1 merely  because their totems are 
now scattered about among their         
exogamous  divisions4 ,this is not the  
#8natural arrangement' 7as ,mr4 ,frazer 
assures  us71 is not the inevitable     
original arrangement1 and is not the    
case with their neighbours1 the         
,urabunna1 who are confessedly #8less   
developed than the ,arunta4' ,the       

,urabunna system1 therefore1 is more    
archaic1 ex hypothesi than that of the  
,arunta1 which must be less  archaic4   
,it is1 ,i repeat1 peculiar1 isolated1  
needs explanation1 and  the ,arunta     
traditions give the explanation4 ,the   
ancestors took women in  or out of the  
totem1 as at present the ,arunta do2    
exogamy by classes  was later imposed1  
says the myth4 ,dr4 ,durkheim appears   
here to hold the  more logical position4
 ,there was1 ,i conceive1 with ,dr4     
,durkheim1 and  have stated1 though     
,messrs ,spencer and ,gillen and others 
deny it1 #8a  primary relationship      
between the totemic system and          
exogamy4'#da      ,footnote #a3         
,ethnological ,bureau1 ,annual ,report1 
#ahic-ahid1 pp4 #bjj1  #bja4            
,footnote #b3 ,studies in ,ancient      
,history1 p4 #bba4    ,footnote #c3     
,suppose we take a group ranging in a   
given locality1 and  known to its       
neighbours as the ,emu group4 ,let us   
also take a similar  and similarly      

situated ,kangaroo group4 ,let us       
suppose that each such  group has raided
 for its wives among ,opossum1 ,grub1   
,cat1 and ,dingo  groups4 ,by female    
descent1 both the ,emu and ,kangaroo    
groups will  contain persons of the     
,opossum1 ,grub1 ,cat1 and ,dingo       
groups4 ,this  being so a man of the    
,emu local group1 named ,grub by totem1 
might  marry a woman of the ,emu local  
group1 by totem of descent an ,opossum2 
and similarly in the ,kangaroo group4   
,but1 as ,dr4 ,durkheim remarks in      
another case1 #8the old prohibition'1   
deeply rooted in manners and  customs1  
survives 7,l',anne ,sociologique1 v4    
#ajg1 note74 ,now #8the old             
prohibition' was that a man of the ,emu 
group was not to marry a woman  of the  
,emu group4 ,that rule endures1 though  
the ,emu group now contains  men and    
women of several distinct totem kins4   
,to escape from the  difficulty1 by my  
theory1 ,emu local totem group makes    
connubium with  ,kangaroo local totem   

group4 ,any ,emu man may marry any      
,kangaroo woman  not of his own totem by
 descent4 ,but this does not1           
automatically1  throw ,opossum and ,grub
 into one1 ,cat and ,dingo into another1
 of the  two local totem groups1 ,emu   
and ,kangaroo1 now become phratries1    
with  loss of their local character4    
,for if a man1 by phratry ,emu1 and by  
totem of descent ,cat1 marries a woman1 
by phratry ,kangaroo1 and by  totem of  
descent ,grub1 their children1 by female
 descent1 are ,kangaroo  ,grubs4        
,meanwhile1 if a man1 by phratry        
,kangaroo1 and by totem ,cat1  marries a
 woman1 by phratry ,emu1 and by totem   
,grub1 their children are  ,emu ,grubs4 
,there are thus ,grubs in both          
phratries1 a thing that never  occurs   
7except among the ,arunta74 ,therefore  
the division of the totem  kins1 some   
into one phratry1 others into the other1
 is not automatic4  ,there might be a   
tendency1 by way of making assurance    
doubly sure1 for  the totem kins to be  

assorted into the two phratries1 but    
some kind of  deliberate arrangement    
does seem necessary4 ,the same necessity
 attends  ,dr4 ,durkheim's theory later 
criticised4    ,footnote #d3 ,see again 
,durkheim1 in ,l',anne ,sociologique1 i4
  #dg-eg1 on the superstition as to     
blood1 and the totem as a sacred        
representative of the inviolable blood  
of the kindred4 ,that  superstition     
gives religious sanction to a           
pre-existing exogamous  tendency4       
,footnote #e3 ,totemism1 p4 #fj 7#ahhi74
    ,footnote #f3 ,totemism1 p4 #fb4    
,footnote #g3 ,the people of ,new       
,britain group of islands are divided   
into two exogamous sets4 ,the totems of 
these classes are two insects1  but ,i  
incline to suppose that there are1 or   
may have been1 totem kins  included     
within these totemic classes4 ,our      
informant1 the ,rev4 ,b4  ,danks1       
regrets that he did not pay more        
attention to these matters4 ,j4  ,a4 ,i4
 xviii4 #bha-bid4    ,footnote #h3 ,on  

the other hand1 among the ,mohegans1 ,i 
can admit  that ,little ,turtle1 ,mud   
,turtle1 and ,great ,turtle may be      
deliberate  subdivisions of the ,turtle 
totem1 now a phratry1 but even this need
  not necessarily be the case2 the      
different species of turtles being      
quite capable of giving names to        
different totems4 ,i would not deny  the
 possibility of the occasional          
segmentation of a totem group--far  from
 it--but ,i doubt whether great tribes  
originally 7and1 as it seems1           
deliberately7 first bisected themselves1
 and then cut up the two main           
divisions4    ,footnote #i3 ,my italics4
    ,footnote #aj3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41 ,n4,s4  
i4 #bgh4    ,footnote #aa3 ,ibid4 p4    
#bhb4    ,footnote #ab3 ,mr4 ,mathews   
counts thirty-four totems in the ,dilbi1
 and  as many in the ,rupathin          
#8phratries4' ,proc4 ,ray4 ,soc4        
,n4,s4,w4 xxxi4  #aeg-aeh4    ,footnote 
#ac3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41 ,n4,s4 i4 #bhd-bhe4   
,footnote #ad3 ,studies in ,ancient     

,history1 second series1 p4 #fje4       
,footnote #ae3 ,local totem groups1 in  
my theory4    ,footnote #af3 ,brough    
,smyth1 ,aborigines of ,victoria1 i4    
#dbc-dbd4    ,footnote #ag3 ,on the     
,organisation of ,australian ,tribes1 p4
 #ahf4    ,footnote #ah3 ,i know that   
many students will decline to admit that
  there is such a myth of a ,maker4     
,footnote #ai3 ,report of ,bureau of    
,ethnology1 #ahib-ahic1 pt4 i4 pp4      
#cb-dc4    ,footnote #bj3 ,natives of   
,central ,australia1 pp4 #ab-ae4        
,footnote #ba3 ,ibid4 pp4 #ae1 #dba-dbb1
 also p4 #bgb4    ,footnote #bb3 ,here  
,i dissent from ,mr4 ,frazer and        
,messrs4 ,spencer and  ,gillen2 the     
point is discussed later4    ,footnote  
#bc3 ,fortnightly ,review1 ,june #ahhi4 
,footnote #bd3 ,in #ahie1 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4   
xxiv41 no4 #d1 p4 #cga1 ,mr4 ,fison     
abandons hope of a certain discovery of 
the origin of exogamy4    ,footnote #be3
 ,fortnightly ,review1 ,april1 ,may1    
#ahii4    ,footnote #bf3 ,spencer and   

,gillen1 pp4 #fh1 #fi1 #aba4            
,footnote #bg3 ,ibid4 p4 #gj4           
,footnote #bh3 ,ibid4 p4 #aj4           
,footnote #bi3 ,see #8,the ,origin of   
,totemism1' infra4    ,footnote #cj3    
,l',anne ,sociologique1 #aijj-aija1 pp4 
#hb-aba4    ,footnote #ca3 ,ibid4 v4    
#hi-ij4    ,footnote #cb3 ,totemism1 p4 
#hc4    ,footnote #cc3 ,l',anne         
,sociologique1 v4 #ib4    ,footnote #cd3
 ,spencer and ,gillen1 p4 #dai4         
,footnote #ce3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41 ,n4,s41 i4  
#bhe4    ,footnote #cf3 ,spencer and    
,gillen1 p4 #abj4    ,footnote #cg3 ,j4 
,a4 ,i41 ,n4,s41 i41 nos4 #c1 #d1 p4    
#bgf4    ,footnote #ch3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41    
,n4,s41 i4 #bgf-bgg4    ,footnote #ci3  
,native ,tribes of ,australia1 pp4      
#cif-djb1 #dba4    ,footnote #dj3       
,native ,tribes of ,australia1 p4 #dah4 
,footnote #da3 ,op4 cit4 p #bgi4        
,,chapter ,,iv    ,,arunta ,,phratries  
,,and ,,totems      ,the essential      
question is1 why1 among the more archaic
 ,urabunna1 do  the large exogamous     

divisions never include the same totems1
 whereas1  among the more highly        
developed ,arunta1 they do8 ,if we can  
show how the  ,arunta1 if once organised
 on the ,urabunna and ,north ,american  
model1  came to slip out of it2 while we
 cannot show how the ,urabunna1 and     
most other tribes1 if once on the       
,arunta model1 came to desert it 7as    
they must have done71 then it will seem 
probable that the ,urabunna             
organisation1 the regular universal     
,australian organisation1 is the  older4
    ,the sequence of events1 as         
understood by ,messrs4 ,spencer and     
,gillen1  was this1 or1 at least1 may   
thus be conceived4 ,we take two tribes1 
say ,urabunna and ,arunta4 ,they both   
have many totem groups1 totemic1        
because 7on this theory7 each group had1
 for its #8primary function1'  the      
working of magic for the object which   
was its totem4 ,the totem  had          
primarily1 on this theory1 no relation  
to marriage rules4 ,it is  #8quite      

possible' that certain persons then     
deliberately introduced  exogamous      
divisions4444 #8so as to regulate       
marital relations4' ,the  exact purpose1
 however1 is unknown2 #8it can only be  
said that far back  in the early history
 of mankind1 there was felt the need of 
some form  of organisation1 and that    
this gradually resulted in the          
development  of exogamic groups4' ,this 
position ,i have already criticised2 it 
is  not intelligible to me4             
,however--the exogamous division was    
made1 and  then all the totems might be 
arranged separately in the two          
divisions1  by the ,urabunna1 #8and     
perhaps the majority of ,australian     
tribes'  7and the ,american tribes7 or1 
#8this was not done1' as by the ,arunta4
  ,consequently1 ,messrs4 ,spencer and  
,gillen think1 the rule which prevents  
an ,urabunna man from marrying a woman  
of his own totem1 has nothing1          
primarily1 to do with the totem1 but is 
a mere inevitable consequence  of the   

system which1 among all tribes but the  
,arunta1 excluded each  totem from one  
of the two exogamous divisions1 and     
placed it 7not among  the ,arunta7 in   
the other4 ,my own system--,i need not  
reiterate it--is  the reverse of all    
this4    ,the ,arunta1 ,i contend1      
probably had1 originally1 the usual     
organisation1 but have lost it for      
obvious reasons1 so that now the  same  
totem may occur in both of the large    
exogamous divisions1 and  persons of the
 same totem may now intermarry4    ,the 
traditions of the ,arunta represent the 
exogamous #8phratries' as  later than   
the totemic 7but not yet exogamous7     
division4 ,dr4 ,durkheim  thinks this   
improbable or impossible4 ,it is true   
that the #8phratries'  or #8classes' are
 now much more important1 among the     
,arunta1 than the  totems1 on which ,dr4
 ,durkheim insists4 ,they need not1     
therefore1 be  earlier4      ,,views    
,,of ,,dr4 ,,durkheim    ,the theory of 
,dr4 ,durkheim is not1 perhaps1         

expressed with his usual  lucidity2 at  
least ,i have found some difficulty in  
understanding it4  ,the following       
summary1 however1 seems to be correct4  
#8,the phratry1'  he says1 #8began by   
being a clan' 7in my terminology an     
exogamous  local totem group74 #8,there 
is no reason why this general idea      
should  not apply to the ,arunta4       
,consequently1 since there are actually 
two  exogamous phratries1 we have reason
 to admit that this society was         
originally formed by two primary clans1 
or1 if any one prefers the  phrase1 by  
two elementary totem groups1 both       
exogamous 7galement  exogames71 for     
under this form the two phratries must  
have begun to  exist4 ,now in that case 
there was at least a moment when        
marriage was  forbidden between members 
of the same totem1' though now among the
  ,arunta this rule no longer obtains4#a
    ,so far ,dr4 ,durkheim and ,i hold  
identical views2 we differ on a point   
of detail4 ,what are1 and whence came1  

the totems within the phratries8  ,dr4  
,durkheim conceives the case thus3      
,originally there was a #8clan'  7local 
totem group7 which was exogamous1 and   
married out into one  other equally     
exogamous clan4 ,the members of each    
such exogamous totem  group 7#8clan'7   
then multiplied and #8swarmed off1' in  
colonies1 and  all such colonies took a 
new totem1 while retaining #8the        
sentiment of  their primary solidarity' 
with the original totem group4 ,these   
are  the #8secondary' totem kins4 ,but  
why should they take new totem names    
and new totems8#b ,i know not1 but the  
original group from which they  swarmed 
off now became their #8phratry4' ,this  
phratry1 in many cases1  still has a    
totem name1 #8which is the proof that it
 is1 or has been a  clan1' that is an   
exogamous totem group4#c ,therefore     
exogamous totem  groups were #8primary1'
 the existing totem kins are            
#8secondary1' they  have split off from 
the original groups4 ,as far as ,i am   

able to follow  ,dr4 ,durkheim's        
reasoning1 he and ,i differ on this one 
point4 ,we both  regard the two         
#8phratries' as having been originally  
local exogamous  totem groups1 which    
united in connubium4 ,but in each       
#8phratria' there  exist several totem  
kinships4 ,dr4 ,durkheim regards these  
as #8secondary'  branches which split   
off from the two original local totem   
groups1 and  which1 in each case1 took  
new totem names1 while retaining        
membership  in their original totem     
groups1 now #8phratries4' ,they are     
totemic  colonies of a totemic          
metropolis4 ,i1 on the other hand1 as   
has been  explained1 conceive that each 
of the two local totem groups which     
became phratries 7say ,emu and          
,kangaroo7 already1 by the action of    
exogamy in a region where there were    
many totem groups1 and by virtue  of    
female descent1 contained within it     
persons who were of various  totem      
kindreds4 ,dr4 ,durkheim1 on the        

contrary1 seems to think of the         
existence of but two primal exogamous   
clans in a given region4 ,groups        
emigrating from these took new totem    
names1 while retaining the phratry  name
 and connection with their mother clans1
 now phratries4    ,why the clans were  
totemic at all does not appear4 ,i      
understand that  they were exogamous out
 of respect for the blood of their      
totems1 the  totem tabu 7p4 #eg1 note   
,i74    ,against the hypothesis it may  
be urged 7#a7 that we do not know that  
emigrants from a local centre ever      
select new totem names--unless1  indeed1
 they reach a region where their old    
totem does not exist4 ,this  cannot have
 occurred constantly4 ,again 7#b71 ,dr4 
,durkheim's theory  involves the same   
difficulty as my own4 ,how did the      
colonies from the  ,kangaroo group      
happen never to select the same totem as
 colonies from  the ,emu group1 so that 
the same totem never occurs in both     
phratries8  ,this implies deliberate    

arrangement4 ,if however1 totem names   
were given  from without1 by neighbours 
7as ,i shall argue71 the case could not 
occur at all1 and the same totem would  
appear in both phratries4    ,if we     
adopt the hypothesis that two friendly  
#8families1' or #8fire  circles1' of a  
cousinly character1 set the first       
example of exogamous                    
intermarriage--exclusively with each    
other--and then got totem names1  they  
might become phratries1 but whence arose
 the totem kins within the  phratries8  
,shall we say that other such           
#8families1' increasing in size1  and   
receiving totem names1 came in1 two by  
two1 to ,emu and ,kangaroo1  each of the
 new linked adherents taking opposite   
sides1 ,opossum going  to the ,kangaroo1
 ,bandicoot to the ,emu phratry8 ,this  
would give the  totems within the       
phratries1 by a constant accession of   
other pairs of  phratries1 which        
subordinated themselves1 one to ,emu1   
one to ,kangaroo4  ,either this         

hypothesis1 or ,dr4 ,durkheim's1 or my  
own1 accounts for  the phratry plus     
totem kins arrangement1 without         
supposing the  deliberate bisection of a
 hitherto undivided commune4 ,that      
hypothesis1  if any one1 of the other   
three1 ,dr4 ,durkheim's1 my own1 or the 
theory  of accessions to the pair of    
exogamous intermarrying families1 be    
accepted1 is therefore not forced upon  
us in defect of a better4    ,,how ,,did
 ,,the ,,arunta ,,anomaly ,,arise8      
,at all events1 the ,arunta #8clan'     
7totem kin7 is now no longer  exogamous1
 and two ,arunta phratries can now      
contain members of the  same totems1    
contrary to ,kamilaroi1 ,dieri and      
,urabunna and ,american  custom4 ,how   
did this anomaly arise8 ,dr4 ,durkheim  
supposes that the  change began when    
,arunta kinship came to desert the      
female and to be  reckoned in the male  
line4 ,this appears to ,dr4 ,durkheim to
 be indicated  by the complicated and   
ingenious arrangements made when an     

,urabunna  7who reckons by the female   
line7 intermarries with an ,arunta1 who 
reckons by the male line4#d ,these      
arrangements1 he thinks1 are no  novelty
 devised for the occasion3 the ,arunta  
merely revert to their old  way of      
reckoning by the spindle side4 ,when the
 ,arunta changed their  system1 and     
reckoned in the male1 not1 as of old1 in
 the female line1  the children now     
belonged to the #8phratries1' not of    
their mothers1  as previously1 but of   
their fathers4 ,each #8phratry' then    
bartered a  sub-class of its own for a  
sub-class of its partner4 ,each bartered
  sub-class thus brought its totems into
 the other #8phratry1' and  there was no
 longer a totem group entirely peculiar 
to one or other  #8phratry4'            
,consequently1 a member of the ,kangaroo
 totem could marry a  woman of the same1
 if she were in the opposite #8phratry' 
to his own4    ,might not the same      
results follow from the mere fact1 that1
 among the  ,arunta1 the totem is now   

inherited neither from father nor       
mother1  but is derived simply from the 
totem souls that haunt the particular   
glen or hill where the child was        
conceived8 ,by this means a totem soul  
can get into a child of the #8phratry'  
to which that totem did not  originally 
belong1 and thus the totems #8skip' from
 one #8phratry' to  another1 contrary to
 general rule in ,australia and ,north  
,america4 ,this  is the explanation of  
the ,arunta anomaly which ,messrs4      
,spencer and  ,gillen accept4 #8,the    
spirit child' 7of the ,lizard totem7    
#8deliberately1  the natives say1 chose 
to go into a ,kumura' 7class7 #8woman1  
instead of  a ,bulthara woman4444       
,though the class was changed1 the totem
 could not  possibly be4444 ,owing to   
the system according to which totem     
names are  acquired1 it is always       
possible for a man to be1 say1 a        
,purula' 7class7  #8or a ,kumura'       
7class7 #8and yet a ,witchetty2 or1 on  
the other hand1 a  ,bulthara' 7class7   

#8or a ,panunga' 7class7 #8and yet an   
,emu' 7totem74 ,but1  if he is thus born
 to a totem which was not originally 7on
 my theory7  a totem of his phratry1 a  
man loses the chance of being an        
,alatunja1  or head man of a local      
group4#e ,thus the ,arunta anomaly      
arises merely  and necessarily from the 
,arunta philosophy of souls4 ,that      
philosophy is  an isolated freak1 and it
 has upset and revolutionised ,arunta   
,totemism1  which1 therefore1 is the    
reverse of the #8primitive' model4      
,footnote #a3 ,l',anne ,sociologique1 v4
 #ia1 #ib4    ,footnote #b3 ,this idea  
we shall find again later1 in another   
part of  ,dr4 ,durkheim's system4       
,footnote #c3 ,l',anne ,sociologique1 i4
 #f1 #g4    ,footnote #d3 ,l',ann4 ,soc4
 v4 #ajd-ajg2 ,spencer and ,gillen1 pp4 
#fh-fi4    ,footnote #e3 ,spencer and   
,gillen1 pp4 #abe1 #abf4 ,the reader is 
recommended to study ,dr4 ,durkheim's   
passage cited in the last note1 the     
topic being difficult4                  

,,chapter ,v    ,,other ,,bars ,,to     
,,marriages      ,the prohibitions on   
marriage1 with which we have hitherto   
been  concerned1 are based on what      
savages regard--while we do not--as     
relations of kindred4 ,men and women of 
the same #8phratry' or #8primary        
division' may not intermarry 7where such
 divisions exist71 nor may  men and     
women of the same totem name4 ,civilised
 society1 at least in  ,europe1 now     
recognises no such things as the        
#8phratry' or the totem  kin4 ,when ,mr4
 ,george ,osborne1 in ,vanity ,fair1 was
 asked whether he  was akin to the ducal
 ,house of ,leeds1 he replied that he   
bore the same  arms--these having been  
conferred on his father by a            
coach-builder4 ,in  savage society1     
,captain ,osborne's answer would have   
been satisfactory4  ,he would really    
have reckoned as a kinsman of all other 
,emus1 if his  totem and badge 7coat of 
arms7 was an ,emu4 ,in ,scotland the    
,campbell  name used to be regarded as  

implying at least a chance that the     
bearer  was of the blood of the ,black  
,knight of ,loch ,awe1 and had a right  
to the ,campbell tartan1 and badge1 the 
gale1 or bog-myrtle4 ,but1 of  course1  
as a rule1 in modern society1 a common  
surname is no proof of  kinship1 and    
coats of arms are usually home by the   
middle classes1 and  peers of recent    
creation1 without much inquiry4    ,so  
far1 then1 the totemic rules which      
prohibit certain marriages1  have no    
resemblance to our own definite         
#8forbidden degrees1' based on  nearness
 of blood4 ,the savage rules1 as they   
stand1 include our notions  of kindred1 
but these notions1 as far as they are   
recognised1 are not  conterminous with  
ours4 ,but the #8phratry' prohibitions1 
and the totem  prohibitions1 are not the
 only bars to marriage among such       
peoples as  the ,australians4    ,the   
other bars are lucidly described by     
,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen4#a        
#8,there are still further restrictions 

to marriage 444 and it is here  that we 
are brought into contact with the terms 
of relationship4'  ,we find that a woman
 may belong to a totem kin 7and phratry7
 into  which a man may lawfully marry1  
#8yet there is a further restriction    
preventing marriage in this particular  
case4' ,thus a male ,dingo 7among  the  
,urabunna7 may marry a female ,water    
,hen1 as far as #8phratry' and  totem   
are concerned4 ,but he may not marry a  
woman of the ,water ,hen  totem if she  
reckons 7#a7 as his father's sister     
7i4e4 of his father's  generation71 7#b7
 if she is his child1 or his brother's  
child 7of the  next generation71 7#c7 if
 she be one of his mother's younger     
brother's  daughters3 but he may marry  
her if she 7#d7 be one of his mother's  
elder brother's daughters4 ,all women of
 that category 7#d7 are ,nupa1 or       
nubile1 as far as this man goes4 ,in    
category ,i1 the women 7including       
#8paternal aunts1' as we reckon7 are of 
an older generation than the  man2 in   

category #b they are of a younger       
generation 7including our  #8children'  
and #8nieces'72 in category #c the women
 include our cousins  on the maternal   
side1 by uncles younger than our        
mothers1 and1 in  category #d1 they     
include our cousins on the maternal     
side1 by uncles  older than our mothers4
 ,we ,europeans1 being males1 may not   
marry into  categories #a and #b1 but if
 not ,catholics1 we may marry into      
categories  #c and #d2 if ,catholics1 we
 may--if we can get a dispensation4     
,in the ,australian system the oddest   
thing is that a male may marry into     
what1 in our phrase1 includes his       
younger maternal uncle's daughter1  but 
not his elder maternal uncle's daughter4
 ,but we here use the  words #8uncle1'  
#8aunt1' and #8cousin1' only by way of  
illustration4 ,the  ,urabunna1 and      
tribes of their level generally1 have no
 such words4  ,all children 7category   
,i7 #8of men who are at the same level  
in the  generation1 and belong to the   

same class and totem1 are regarded as   
the common children of these men1' or1  
perhaps we should rather say1  are      
called by the same name1 ,biaka1 as a   
man's own children are styled4  ,a man  
knows very well which children he       
reckons his own1 though1 as  will be    
seen1 he has little ground for his      
confidence4 ,in the same  way a child1  
though he calls all men of his father's 
class1 totem1  and level in the         
generation1 ,nia 7fathers71 knows well  
enough which  ,nia feeds him1 pets him1 
thrashes him for his good1 and1         
generally1  plays the paternal part4    
,for example1 a man informs you that    
this or  that native1 by personal name  
,oriaka1 is his ,okilia1 #8and you      
cannot  possibly tell without further   
inquiry whether he is the speaker's own 
or tribal brother1 that is the son of   
his own father1 or of some man          
belonging to the same particular group' 
7by #8phratry1' totem1 and  seniority7  
#8as his father4'#b ,but you can learn  

#8by further inquiry3'  the actual      
relationship1 in our sense of the word1 
is recognised4    #8,,group ,,marriage' 
,these facts necessarily lead to the    
question1 are all men of one class1     
totem1 and seniority1 actual husbands of
 all women of the opposite  class1      
different totem1 and equivalent         
seniority8 7,group ,marriage74  ,or1 if 
this is no longer the case1 was it once 
the case8 and are these  sweeping uses  
of names which include our #8father1'   
#8mother1' #8brother1'  #8child1'       
survivals of such a stage1 called       
#8,group ,marriage'8 ,this  question is 
still undecided2 good authorities take  
opposite views of  the question1 which  
has bred1 in the past1 much angry       
controversy4    ,,mr4 ,,morgan ,,and    
,,the ,,class ,,system    ,the          
arrangement by #8classes1' #8the        
classificatory system1' was first       
brought into scientific prominence by   
the late ,mr4 ,lewis ,morgan1 an        
,american gentleman affiliated to the   

,iroquois tribe1 in his very  original  
studies of the names for degrees of     
kinship4#c ,a great deal  may be said1  
and has been said1 especially by ,mr4   
,mc,lennan and ,dr4  ,westermarck1      
against ,mr4 ,morgan's ideas and        
methods1 but his large and  careful     
collection of facts is of high          
importance4 ,on what he called  #8the   
,malayan system1' one name denoting kin 
includes all my brothers1  sisters1 and 
cousins4 ,another name includes my      
father1 mother1 my  uncles1 aunts1 and  
all the cousins of my father1 mother1   
aunts1  and uncles4 ,the generation of  
my grandparents and their relations  is 
included in a third name2 a fourth      
covers my children and their  cousins1  
and the grandchildren of my brothers and
 sisters1 with their  children1 bear the
 same name1 for me1 as my own           
grandchildren4 ,from  the names ,mr4    
,morgan inferred the existence of       
certain facts in the  evolution of      
systems of kindred4 ,everybody of the   

same generation  lived together1 once1  
on his theory1 in #8communal marriage1' 
brothers1  sisters1 and cousins4 ,there 
was promiscuity between all men and     
women  in the same generation4 ,of      
course this involves the converse of    
,mr4  ,atkinson's ,primal ,law1 as ,mr4 
,atkinson observes in his eighth        
chapter4  ,in place of the prohibition  
of brother and sister union being the   
earliest of prohibitions 7as in ,mr4    
,atkinson's system71 the rule that  they
 must unite1 caused1 in ,mr4 ,morgan's  
opinion1 the earliest form of  the human
 family4    ,,difficulties ,,of ,,mr4   
,,morgan',s ,,theory    ,mr4 ,morgan's  
theory1 it must be observed1 landed him 
at once in the  fallacy of supposing    
that prohibitions of marriage of        
kinsfolk were  originally the result of 
#8a reformatory movement4'#d ,we have   
seen  that1 granting1 for the sake of   
argument1 ,mr4 ,morgan's premise of  an 
original #8undivided commune1' ,mr4     
,fison is also deposited in the  same   

difficulty1 and was once even inclined  
to regard a theory of  intervention #8by
 a higher power' 7the ,dieri myth7 as   
not necessarily  out of the question1 if
 marriage was once communal4 ,to reform 
such  marriage relations1 he says1      
#8would be a step in advance so         
difficult  for men in that utter depth  
of savagery to take1 that they would not
  be able to take it1 unless they had   
help from without4 ,this might be  given
 by contact with a more advanced tribe2 
but if all the tribes  started from the 
same level1 that impulse would be       
impossible in the  first instance1 and  
must have been derived from a higher    
power4'#e ,mr4  ,fison1 as we saw1 has  
since expressed the opinion that the    
origin of  exogamy is probably          
indiscoverable1 but ,i cite again his   
early remark  to prove his sense of the 
insuperable difficulty of ,mr4 ,morgan's
 theory4    ,how were men in his        
hypothetical condition to know that     
there was  anything to reform8 ,it      

needed a divine revelation6    ,mr4     
,morgan was himself aware of this       
difficulty1 and tried to get out  of it1
 by using ,darwinian phrases about      
#8natural selection'--#8blessed  words1'
 but here unavailing4 ,he was in the    
posture of ,mr4 ,spencer1  between      
direct legislation to introduce exogamy1
 and gradual  evolution of exogamy1 as  
the slow result of the felt need of     
#8some  organisation1'--its nature and  
purpose unknown4 ,thus ,mr4 ,morgan1    
speaking of communal marriage1 and its  
results1 says that #8emancipation  from 
them was slowly accomplished through    
movements which resulted in  unconscious
 reformation4' ,these movements were1   
first1 the #8class'  system1 then the   
#8gens' 7totem system71 #8worked out    
unconsciously  through natural          
selection4'#f ,this means1 if it means  
anything1 that1  by a freak or sport1   
some people did not marry in and in1    
that they  unconsciously evolved the    
totem system1 that they therefore       

throve1  while others who married in and
 in1 and did not evolve the totem       
system1 perished1 and so we have the    
results of #8natural selection4'  ,but  
why did some people avoid the habit of  
marriages of near kin which  was so     
general8 ,the position is that of ,dr4  
,westermarck1 who adds an  #8instinct1' 
developed by natural selection1#g an    
idea which involves  arguing in a       
circle4    ,again1 that peoples marrying
 in the communal way would die out has  
to  be proved3 science has no certainty 
in the matter4    ,in any case1 ,mr4    
,morgan presently deserts his opinion   
about slow  unconscious reformation1 and
 his natural selection4 #8,the          
organisation  into classes seems to have
 been directed to the single object of  
breaking up the intermarriage of        
brothers and sisters1 which affords  a  
probable explanation of the origin of   
the system4 ,but since it does  not look
 beyond this particular abomination it  
retained a conjugal  system nearly as   

objectionable4444'#h ,the reader sees   
that ,mr4  ,morgan cannot keep on the   
high ,darwinian level4 ,he relapses on a
  supposed moral reform with a single   
object of things #8abominable'--to      
us--and #8objectionable'--to us4 ,but   
how did the pristine savages  find out  
that such things were #8abominable'8    
,presently the totem  prohibition 7#8the
 gens'7 #8originates probably in the    
ingenuity  of a small band of savages1' 
for the purpose of modifying marriage   
law1 and the daring novelty #8must soon 
have proved its utility in  the         
production of superior men4'#i ,here we 
have the legislation  due to human      
#8ingenuity1' and natural selection     
comes in to aid and  diffuse the system4
 ,later #8the evils of the first form of
 marriage  came to be perceived' 7what  
were they87 and this led #8if not to its
  direct abolition1 to a preference for 
wives beyond this degree4 ,among  the   
,australians it was abolished by the    
organisation into classes1  and more    

widely among the ,turanian tribes by the
 organisation into  gentes4' ,the       
,australians have #8gentes' 7totem      
groups7 quite as much  as the           
#8,turanians' or #8,ganowanians1' and we
 have tried to show that  totems are    
prior to #8classes4'#aj ,but the        
,australians #8abolished'  a form of    
marriage by an #8organisation1' which   
implies deliberate  legislation4 ,from  
this difficulty of legislation1 so early
 and so  moral1 no advocate of the      
#8bisection' of an undivided commune and
 of  its #8subdivision' into totem      
#8phratries' and kins1 can escape1      
however  he may make a push at #8natural
 selection1' and gradual evolution4     
,,mr4 ,,morgan ,,on ,,terms ,,of        
,,relationship    ,these perplexities do
 not predispose us in favour of ,mr4    
,morgan's  theory of the terms of       
#8,relationship1' which we have         
illustrated by the  case of the         
,urabunna4 ,he himself takes the        
,hawaiian terms1 which are to  the same 

effect4 ,in brief1 all the men and women
 of a generation are'  brothers and     
sisters1' all those of the prior        
generation are #8fathers  and mothers1' 
all those of the following generation   
are #8children4'  ,now1 if ever all the 
men and women of a generation married   
#8all through  other1' promiscuously1   
these terms of #8relationship' would be 
in place4  ,first1 we are told1 brothers
 and sisters in a family intermarried1  
and the process #8gradually enfolded the
 collateral brothers and  sisters1 as   
the range of the conjugal system        
widened4' ,and then #8the  evils came to
 be perceived1' what evils1 how         
perceived1 we do not  know1 and         
,reformation set in4 ,it definitely     
began with the ,australian              
#8,bisection1' #8the organisation into  
classes' 7really into #8phratries'71    
and about the difficulties of that      
theory enough has been said4    ,the    
reader will naturally ask1 ,what is the 
original meaning of the  words now used 

by ,hawaiians1 and ,urabunna1 and       
others1 for the  relations in which our 
#8father1' #8son1' #8wife1' #8husband1' 
#8mother4'  #8daughter1' #8brother1'    
#8sister1' are included8 ,do the words  
embracing  our terms #8brother' and     
#8sister' in ,hawaii1 or elsewhere1     
imply  procreation1 and issue 7as in    
,greek71 #8from the same womb'8 ,among  
the  ,arunta they cannot mean           
procreation1 if they do not even know   
7as  ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen tell 
us71 that there is any such thing as    
procreation4 #8,a spirit child enters a 
woman1' that is all4 ,in the times  of  
this primeval ignorance1 words for      
relationships could not imply  bearing  
and begetting2 they must have meant     
something else4 ,say that  they meant   
relationships in point of seniority3    
#8my male elder1' #8my  female elder1'  
#8my male junior1' #8my female junior1' 
#8my male coeval  or friend1' #8my      
female coeval or friend1' #8the man ,i  
may marry1' #8the  woman ,i may marry1' 

#8the woman or man ,i may not marry4'   
,if low savage names for relationships  
meant that 7no doubt they do not1  or   
not often7 then they would undeniably   
prove nothing as to a system  of        
communal marriage4 ,a baby points to any
 man or woman and says #8pa'  or #8ma1' 
without any theory of communal marriage4
 ,thus philologists  must first         
interpret for us the original           
significance of these savage  names of  
relationships4 ,once given1 they would  
last1 whatever they  originally implied4
 ,dr4 ,westermarck has urged this       
point4#aa ,in the  terms themselves     
there is1 generally1 nothing which      
indicates that  they imply an idea of   
consanguinity4' #8,pa1 papa' 7father71  
ma1 mama  7mother71 and scores of       
others1 #8are formed from the earliest  
sounds  a child can produce1' and #8have
 no intrinsic meaning whatever4' ,dr4   
,westermarck gives a long list of such  
words1 applied to #8fathers1  and all   
the tribe brothers of fathers1' and the 

same for mothers1  concluding #8that we 
must not1 from these designations1 infer
 anything  as to early marriage         
customs4' ,he does not deny that other  
terms of  relationship have roots of    
independent meaning1 #8but the number of
  those that imply an idea of           
consanguinity does not seem to be very  
great4' ,in ,lifu 7,melanesia71 the word
 for #8father' means #8root2' for       
#8mother1' #8foundation' or #8vessel2'  
for #8sister1' #8not to be touched2'    
for #8elder and younger brother1'       
#8ruler' and #8ruled4'#ab ,the terms for
  father and mother denote              
consanguinity2 the others1 customary    
law1 and  status4    ,if we only knew   
the meanings1 say1 of the ,urabunna     
words for  relationships1 we should     
learn much4 ,but the truly amusing fact 
is that  ,mr4 ,fison1 for example1 did  
not know the language of the natives1   
and  thought that probably not six white
 men in ,australia had an adequate      
knowledge1 and an adequate access to the

 notions1 of the tribesmen4 ,of  these  
one had been initiated1 and1 like a     
gentleman1 declined to break  the oath  
of secresy4#ac ,this was in #ahhj4      
,things may have improved4  ,but unless 
our authorities know the languages1     
where are we8 ,we do know  that         
seniority is indicated3 ,father's elder 
brothers are ,gampatcha ,kuka           
7,warramunga tribe74    ,mr4 ,mc,lennan 
thought that all these terms were       
#8terms of address1'  used to avoid the 
employment of personal names1 and ,dr4  
,westermarck  holds that #8there can    
scarcely be any doubt that the terms for
  relationship are1 in their origin1    
terms of address4' ,messrs4 ,spencer    
and ,gillen1 after impartial            
consideration1 cannot accept this view1 
for ,australia2 where the terms are very
 numerous1 and stand for  relations very
 complicated1 connected with the        
intermarrying groups1  and with social  
duties4 ,in addressing a person1 his or 
her individual  name 7our ,christian    

name7 is freely used4#ad ,they believe  
that the  terms can only be explained   
#8on the theory of the former existence 
of  group marriage1 and further1 that   
this has of necessity given rise  to the
 terms of relationship used by the      
,australian natives4' ,these  opinions  
are shared by ,messrs4 ,fison and       
,howitt4 ,the former says1 #8,it  must1 
,i think1 be allowed that the           
classificatory terms point to group     
marriage1' and though ,bastian denies   
this1 ,mr4 ,fison supports his  theory  
by the ,dieri custom of allotting       
paramours 7pinauru7 to men and  women1  
out of the sets which may intermarry4#ae
    ,to this problem we return2         
meanwhile it may seem impertinent in    
mere  ethnologists of the study to hint 
a doubt as to the conclusions of        
observers on the spot4 ,mr4 ,crawley1   
however1 has no hesitations4 ,the  use  
of the terms of relationship1 he thinks1
 does not testify to a past  of #8,group
 ,marriage1' or to a remoter past of    

promiscuity1 but is #8the  regular      
result of the primitive theory of       
relationship2 the system  codifies a    
combination of relation and             
relationship1 8address10 and  age4' ,the
 terms in use #8do not in themselves    
necessarily point to a  previous        
promiscuity1 or even to a present group 
marriage1' as ,messrs4  ,spencer and    
,gillen believe4    ,the point is one on
 which ,i almost hesitate to venture a  
decided  opinion4 ,much seems to depend 
on the original sense of the various    
terms1 and on that point1 in the case of
 ,urabunna1 and many other  tribes1 we  
have no light4 ,but often the terms do  
not express  consanguinity at all4      
,there seems to be no word for          
#8daughter' as  distinct from #8son1'   
#8nephew1' and #8niece4' ,the           
grandfather maternal  is ,thunthie1 and 
,thunthunnie is ,urabunna for totem1 so 
that it  is tempting to guess that      
,thunthie means #8a sire of the maternal
  totem4'#af ,kadnini1 again 7,i        

speaking71 means grandfather paternal1  
grandmother maternal1 and               
grandchildren4#ag ,these relationships  
imply duties and services4 #8,one       
individual has to do certain things  for
 another 444 and any breach of these    
customs is severely punished4'  ,an     
,arunta of the ,panunga class calls all 
,kumura men #8fathers-in-law4'  ,he     
gashes his flesh if any one of his      
#8fathers-in-law' dies1 and he  drops   
his dead game if he meets any one of    
them4 ,they all have that  advantage    
over him4#ah ,thus these terms of       
relationship--communal in               
appearance--really involve certain      
duties1 rather than relations of  blood 
and affinity4 ,but emphatically the     
terms are more than mere terms  of      
address1 as in ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's theory4
    ,but these are usages of the system 
as it stands to-day4 ,is there behind   
it an #8undivided commune1' as ,mr4     
,morgan held2 is there actual #8group   
marriage'8 ,i am not apt to believe that

 there is4 ,language shows1 in  the     
terms of relationship1 a group of       
#8,mothers' for each child2 but1 as     
,mr4 ,darwin remarks1 #8it seems almost 
incredible that the relationship  of the
 child to its mother should ever have   
been completely ignored1  especially as 
the women in most savage tribes nurse   
their infants for  a long time4' ,a     
man's mother is one1 and must be known1 
though he  calls many women by the same 
name as he gives to his mother4 ,she is 
lumped1 in the terms of relationship1 in
 one term with all the women  whom the  
father might legally have married1 but  
did not4 ,the son1 in  addressing or    
speaking of his mother1 overlooks the   
#8one love which  needs no winning1' and
 his term has reference only to the     
present  marriage law of his tribe4     
,that law #8codifies' the terms1 they   
result  from that law1 and that law1    
again1 is based1 if ,i am right1 on     
totem  prohibitions1 on the desire to   
keep marriage between people of the     

same generation1 and on the rights and  
duties of the generations4  ,these      
prohibitions1 of phratry1 #8class1'     
totem1 and age1 leave only a  certain   
set of women marriageable to a certain  
set of men4 ,the name of  this set of   
women is ,nupa to their coevals1 ,luka  
to the succeeding  generation4 ,there is
 no name for #8wife1' no name for       
#8mother2' there  are only names        
expressive of customary legal status1   
itself the result  of the existing      
rules4 ,whatever their original sense1  
they all now  connote seniority and     
customary legal status1 with its        
reciprocal  duties1 rights and          
avoidances4 #8,it is the system1 and not
 group  marriage1 which has given rise  
to these terms of relationship1' says   
,mr4 ,crawley4#ai    ,but what gave rise
 to the system8 ,mr4 ,fison has told us4
 #a4 #8,the  division of a tribe        
7community7 into two exogamous          
intermarrying  classes4444' #b4 #8,the  
subdivision of these two classes into   

four1' or1  he suggests1 the            
amalgamation of two tribes4 #c4 #8,their
 subdivision into  gentes distinguished 
by totems4'#bj    ,but all of this      
theory we have already declined to      
accept for reasons  given1 and mainly   
because it involves 7as ,i try to show7 
deliberate  primeval reformatory        
legislation--without any conceivable    
motive4  ,again1 we cannot accept ,mr4  
,fison's system because it involves the 
hypothesis that a tribe1 or             
#8community1' large enough to feel the  
necessity of bisecting itself for social
 and moral purposes1 existed  at a      
period when the difficulties of         
commissariat1 of food supply1  and of   
hostility1 could seldom1 if ever1 permit
 its existence4 ,a tribe  is1 ,i repeat1
 a local aggregate of small groups      
become friendly3 it is  not a primeval  
horde which keeps on subdividing itself1
 legislatively1  for reformatory        
purposes4 ,what social cement kept such 
a primeval  horde1 such an #8undivided  

commune1' together2 and how did the     
animal  jealousy of men so near to the  
brutal stage fail to rend it into       
pieces8 ,how was it fed8 ,how can we    
imagine a human herd--how supplied  with
 food1 who knows8--wherein each male    
sees each other male approach  what     
female he pleases1 perhaps his own      
preferred girl1 without  internecine    
jealousy8 ,i cannot imagine this        
indifference to love in  such a         
primitive ,agapemone2 ,i cannot         
understand its economics2 any  more than
 ,i can guess why such a state of       
affairs ever seemed--to its             
members--#8abominable' and              
#8objectionable1' and a thing to be     
reformed2  yet they #8bisected' it1 and 
#8subdivided' the segments1 all in the  
interests of morality--such is the      
theory4    ,as for the good-humoured    
laxity which enables all men and women  
to  live together matrimonially at      
random1 ,mr4 ,morgan found an example1  
as  he thought1 in the ,punalua of the  

,hawaiians4 ,the word ,punalua1 when    
observed 7#ahfj7 by ,judge ,andrews1    
meant #8dear friend1' or #8intimate     
companion4' ,a man called his sister's  
husband 7our #8brother-in-law7 his      
#8dear friend1' and a woman styled the  
wife of her husband's brother  7her     
sister-in-law71 her #8dear friend1' or  
,punalua4 ,this shows that              
relations-in-law were not               
#8,foes-in-law1' or1 at least1 that this
 was  not the official view of the case4
 ,it really does not follow that all    
the wives #8shared their remaining      
husbands in common4' ,judge ,andrews    
thought that this happy family #8were   
inclined to possess each other  in      
common4' ,that was only the ,judge's    
theory1 also the theory of the  ,rev4   
,artemus ,bishop4 ,probably there was a 
great deal of genial license  and       
indifference among loose luxurious      
barbaric people1 living in  #8summer    
isles of ,eden1' where food and         
necessaries were ready made by          

benignant ,nature4#ba        ,each      
shepherd clasped1 with unconcealed      
delight1      ,his yielding fair1 within
 the ,captain's sight2      ,each       
yielding fair1 as chance or fancy led1  
,preferred new lovers to her sylvan     
bed4#bb    ,this is vastly well1 and the
 poet adds1 in a liberal spirit1        
,what ,otaheite is1 let ,england be6    
,it is very well1 but it by no means    
represents1 probably1 the manners  of   
primitive man4    #8,we may conclude1'  
says ,mr4 ,darwin1 #8from what we know  
of the jealousy  of all male            
quadrupeds1444 that promiscuous         
intercourse1 in a state  of nature1 is  
extremely improbable4444 ,the most      
probable view is that  primeval man     
aboriginally lived in small communities1
 each with as many  wives as he could   
support and obtain1 whom he would have  
jealously  guarded against all other    
men4 ,or he may have lived with several 
wives  by himself1 like the ,gorilla1   
for all the natives agree that but one  

adult male is seen in a band2 when the  
young male grows up a struggle  takes   
place for mastery1 and the strongest1 by
 killing and driving  out the others1   
establishes himself as the head of the  
community4 ,the  younger males1 being   
thus expelled and wandering about1      
would1 when at  last successful in      
finding a partner1 prevent too close    
interbreeding  within the limits of the 
same family1' just as the other male    
did4#bc    ,this second view of ,mr4    
,darwin's is much like the theory of    
,mr4  ,atkinson1 and is very unlike ,mr4
 ,morgan's theory of a human horde1     
living in communal marriage1 or group   
marriage4 ,mr4 ,darwin's idea1          
moreover1 the primitive groups being    
small1 does not encounter the  economic 
difficulties raised by the hypothesis of
 the #8undivided  commune4' ,the        
strongest male practically enforced     
exogamy1 as far as  he was able1 and    
maybe conceived to have entertained no  
scruples as to  connection with his     

daughters4 ,mr4 ,darwin admitted that   
#8the indirect  evidence' for communal  
marriage1 and fraternal incest1 was     
#8extremely  strong1' but then #8it     
rests chiefly on the terms of           
relationship which  are employed between
 members of the same tribe1 implying a  
connection  with the tribe alone1 and   
not with either parent4' ,if1 however1  
we  have successfully explained these   
terms of relationship as not usually    
meaning degrees of consanguinity1 but of
 customary legal status1 under  the     
prevalent customary law1 the evidence   
which these terms yield for             
promiscuity1 or group marriage1 is      
extremely weak1 or is nil1 above all  if
 our theory of how the legal status     
arose is accepted4 ,and1 if it is  not  
accepted1 back we come to primeval      
#8reformatory movements4'    ,in ,lifu1 
the word for #8sister' means #8not to be
 touched1' land this is  a mere         
expression of customary law4 ,a man     
#8must not touch' any one of  the women 

of his generation whom the totem tabu   
and the rule of the  exogamous          
#8phratry' 7in origin1 we suggest1      
totemic7 forbid him to  touch4 ,all such
 women1 in a particular grade1 are his  
sisters4 ,many  women1 besides his      
actual sisters1 stand to him in the     
degree thus  prohibited4 ,all bear the  
same name of status as a man's actual   
sisters  bear1 but the name does not    
mean #8sisters' at all1 in our sense of 
that word3 namely1 daughters of the     
man's real father and mother4 ,it  means
 tabued women of a generation4 ,if the  
#8classificatory' terms which  include  
our #8fathers1' #8sisters1' #8wives1'   
and the rest meant what our  #8fathers1'
 #8sisters1' #8wives1' and so on mean1  
then the evidence from  the terms1 for  
communal or group marriage1 would really
 be #8extremely  strong4' ,but1 as      
,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen say1      
#8unless all ideas of  terms of         
relationship as counted among ourselves 
be abandoned1 it is  useless to try and 

7sic7 understand the native terms4'#bd  
,yet the  whole force of the argument   
for communal marriage derived from      
savage  terms of relationship rests     
precisely on our not #8abandoning' 7as  
we  are warned to abandon7 #8all ideas  
of terms of relationship as counted     
among ourselves4'    ,the friends of    
group and communal marriage1 it seems to
 me1 keep  forgetting that our ideas of 
sister1 brother1 father1 mother1 and so 
on1 have nothing to do 7as they tell us 
at certain points of their  argument7   
with the native terms which include1    
indeed1 but do not  denote these        
relationships1 as understood by us4 ,an 
,urabunna calls a  crowd of men of his  
father's status by the same term as he  
calls his  father4 ,this need not point 
to an age when1 by reason of            
promiscuity1  no man knew his father4   
,were this so1 a man of the generation  
prior  to his father might be the actual
 parent of the speaker1 and all men     
under eighty ought to be called         

#8father' by him--which they are not4   
,the facts may merely mean that the     
,urabunna styles his father by the  name
 denoting a status which his father     
shares with many other men2 a  status in
 seniority1 #8phratry1' and totem4 ,we  
really cannot first argue  that our     
ideas have no relation to the terms     
employed by savages1 and  then1 when we 
want to prove a past of communal        
marriage1 turn round and  reason as if  
our terms and the savage terms were     
practically identical4  ,we cannot say  
#8our word 8son0 must not be thought of 
when we try to  understand the native   
term of relationship which includes sons
 in our  sense1' and next aver that     
#8sons in our sense1 are regarded as    
real  sons of the group1 not of the     
individual--because of a past stage of  
promiscuity making paternity            
indiscoverable4'    ,as ,messrs4        
,spencer and ,gillen say1 we must #8lay 
aside all preconceived  ideas of        
relationship1' when we study the        

,urabunna or other  classificatory terms
 of relationships4#be ,let us do so1 and
 the  evidence borne by these terms to a
 past of communal marriage vanishes  at 
once4 ,that the terms often denote      
status in customary law is              
demonstrated4 #8,there are certain      
customs which are enforced by long      
usage and according to which men and    
women of particular degrees of          
relationship may alone have marital     
relations1 or may not speak to one      
another1 or according to which one      
individual has to do certain things  for
 another1 such as providing the latter  
with food1 or with hair1 as  the case   
may be1 and any breach of these customs 
is severely punished4  ,the elder men of
 each group very carefully keep alive   
these customs1  many of which are of    
considerable value to themselves4444'#bf
    ,thus1 you have speared a fish1 or  
an opossum1 but if you meet any man  of 
your father-in-law's set1 you must drop 
your spoil and make off4  ,consequently1

 ,i venture to take it1 the terms of    
relationship in no way  answer to our   
ideas of kin1 but merely denote legal   
status4      ,,how ,,the ,,terms ,,of   
,,relationship ,,originally ,,arose     
,we cannot1 as a rule1 recover 7or      
,australian students have not           
recovered7 the original sense and       
etymology of terms like ,biaka1 ,nia1   
,nupa1 and so forth4 ,we are thus left  
to choose between two competing         
theories of their nature and diffusion4 
,if we advocate the hypothesis  of      
consanguine marriage and group marriage1
 we must suppose that the  members of   
the #8undivided commune' of the theory1 
had once names  absolutely identical in 
sense with our #8father1' #8mother1'    
#8sister1'  #8brother1' #8son1'         
#8daughter1' and so forth4 ,but the     
speakers1 in each  case1 were obliged to
 apply these words with the utmost      
laxity1 because  who knew who ,a's      
father might be1 and whether ,c's sister
 were really  his sister or not1 while  

every girl was the wife of every male of
 her  generation1 not barred by other   
laws1 and so on8 ,the promiscuity of    
living1 then1 made this lax use of words
 for relationships inevitable4    ,this 
is the usual hypothesis1 and the        
sweeping scope of savage words  for     
human relationships is accepted as proof
 that consanguine and  group marriage   
once existed and left their marks in    
language4 ,on the  other hand1 if       
communal marriage prevailed1 the people 
who lived in  that condition could not  
possibly have had ideas equivalent to   
our  father1 son1 daughter1 brother1    
wife1 and so on4 ,our ideas of these    
relationships could not enter the human 
mind1 at the hypothetical  stage of     
culture when nobody knew #8who is who'  
and the hypothesis is  wrecked on that  
fact4    ,therefore either the names now
 used under the #8class system' are of  
unknown original sense2 or1 human       
marriage was1 from the first1 so  far1  
#8individual' that our ideas of father1 

mother1 brother1 sister1  son1 daughter1
 could arise and could find expression  
in terms that  still survive1 say1 among
 the ,urabunna or other ,australians4   
,but while  tribal customary laws as to 
classes1 totems1 generations1 marriage  
rules1 and many other social duties were
 being evolved2 some of the  ancient    
names for father1 son1 brother1 sister1 
were perhaps taken up  and applied to   
each of the large sets of persons whose 
customary legal  status was now 7as     
groups coalesced into large tribes7 on  
the level  of actual fathers1 sons1     
brothers1 sisters1 and the rest4        
,obviously1  in a primitive group of a  
male senior1 his female mates and       
children1  there could not exist 7other 
groups being1 on my theory1 strange or  
hostile7 large sets of persons occupying
 a common legal status1 as in  modern   
tribes4 ,the existence of such sets of  
persons is the result of  the later and 
tribal society1 of society in which many
 groups are  reconciled and united in a 

local tribe4 ,only in such a tribe1     
which  cannot be primitive1 is the      
classificatory system of naming sets  of
 people necessary4 ,it is only in tribal
 law that the grades of  customary      
status answering to all the many terms  
can exist1 and tribes  with their laws  
cannot be primitive4 ,most names for the
 various grades1  therefore1 are later  
than ,mr4 ,darwin's hypothetical stage  
of small and  perhaps hostile groups2   
they were1 in a few cases1 perhaps      
originally  names for such relationships
 as our own father1 mother1 son1        
brother1  c41 but in the evolution of   
tribal customary law1 such names have   
been  extended out of their family1 or  
fire-circle1 into their tribal          
significance1 out of recognised kinship1
 or close contiguity1 into  terms       
including all who have the same status1 
rights1 and duties4      ,,supposed     
,,survivals ,,of ,,group ,,marriage     
,if our suggestion as to the origin and 
significance of the  #8classificatory   

terms of relationship' be plausible1    
then the theory  of a pristine past of  
#8communal' or of #8group marriage' will
 lose what  ,mr4 ,darwin deemed the     
chief evidence in its favour1 the       
evidence from  terms of relationship4   
,but there remains the evidence from    
#8survivals1'  in institutions4 ,for    
example1 among the ,urabunna1 women of a
 certain  seniority1 totem and          
#8phratry' are ,nupa to men of the      
relative status  among males4 ,they are 
the men's potential wives4 ,in actual   
practice  each individual man has one or
 perhaps two of these ,nupa women who   
are specially attached to himself1 and  
live in his camp4 ,they are his  wives4 
,but each man has also1 or many men     
have1 other women of the  ,nupa set1 who
 by an allotment1 which the elders      
arrange1 are his  ,piraungaru1 ,he is1  
that is to say1 their #8second master1' 
after their  husbands4 ,this is a kind  
of ,cicisbeism1 recognised and regulated
 by  customary law1 and sanctioned by a 

definite ceremony4 ,messrs4 ,spencer    
and ,gillen therefore say #8individual  
marriage does not exist1 either  in name
 or in practice1 among the ,urabunna    
tribe4' ,their idea appears  to be that 
once every man was the husband of every 
,nupa woman who  was accessible1 and    
that the ,piraungaru arrangement is a   
nascent  restriction upon1 or survival  
of1 this communal marriage4 ,it is      
admitted that a man may now try to      
prevent his wife from having sexual     
relations with her ,piraungaru man1 just
 as an ,italian of the eighteenth       
century might have done in the case of  
his wife's ,cicisbeo4 #8,but this  leads
 to a fight1 and the husband is looked  
upon as churlish4' ,the  ,italian       
husband would have undergone the same   
reproach1 yet he lived  in a society    
which in theory1 and as ,christian1     
insisted on individual  marriage4       
,the question arises1 is the ,piraungaru
 arrangement a modified  survival of    
communal marriage1 or is it a mere      

chartered libertinism in  customary     
practice1 and not a #8rudimentary       
survival'8 ,it is certainly  found among
 the tribes most tenacious of archaic   
institutions4 ,mr4  ,crawley thinks1    
however1 and1 under correction1 ,i agree
 with him1 that  the ,piraungaru system 
is no survival1 and that it #8has never 
been  more fully developed than it is   
now4'#bg    ,,piraungaru ,,and ,,piraura
    ,as to this ,piraungaru affair1 as  
usual we need1 and do not get1 the  help
 of philology4 ,what does the word      
#8,piraungaru' literally mean8  ,among  
the ,dieri the ,piraungaru custom       
prevails1 and the persons  affected by  
it are called ,piraura--the resemblance 
to ,piraungaru is  striking4 ,now ,mr4  
,howitt tells us that the ,headman of   
the ,dieri is  called ,pinaru1 from     
pina1 #8great1' but he also calls these 
,headmen  ,piraurus1 the same title as  
he gives to the men and women allotted  
to  each other on the system of native  
,cicisbeism4#bh    ,clearly there is    

here either a misprint1 or a curious    
fact4 ,either  the ,headmen are         
,pinarus1 not ,piraurus1 or ,headmen and
 supplementary  wives and husbands have 
one and the same title6 ,one great      
,headman was  ,jalina ,pira murana4 ,is 
#8great' pina or pira8 ,if ,australia   
does  not produce an adequate           
philologist in the native tongues1 who  
will  specially study these matters1 it 
will be a heavy blow to the research    
into native institutions4    ,it is     
worth observing that the ,dieri ,piraura
 are #8permitted new marital  privileges
 at the ceremony of circumcision4' ,now 
license amidst the  large assemblies    
brought together from all quarters on   
such occasions  7in some places even    
transgressing the sacred rules of totem1
 phratry1  and close relationship in our
 sense7 is merely part of that          
periodical  general #8burst' which      
survived in the ,persian ,saca and      
,roman  ,saturnalia4 ,many examples may 
be found in ,mr4 ,frazer's #8,golden    

,bough4'  ,every kind of law is1 at     
these #8bursts1' deliberately violated4 
,perhaps1 then1 the due selection of    
,piraura1 by the ,dieri seniors1 is     
really rather a restriction of          
,saturnalian license than a relaxation  
of  marriage laws1 or a survival of     
communal marriage4 ,that the license of 
the ,saturnalia was a return to         
primitive ways was a ,roman theory4 ,for
  ,australia it is the theory of the    
,arunta themselves4#bi ,the adjacent    
,urabunna have the same ,piraura usages1
 and what looks very like a form  of the
 same word1 ,piraura1 ,piraungaru4 ,the 
relations thereby indicated  exist1 when
 occasion serves1 after the season of   
license4    ,a wife1 at marriage1 is    
subjected to a disgraceful ordeal       
7modern  ideas will break in71 which ,i 
take1 as ,mr4 ,crawley does1 to be a    
mere initiation 7due to a well-defined  
superstition7 into the life             
matrimonial4#cj ,meanwhile1 though a    
definite and disgusting set of          

proceedings forms the ,urabunna marriage
 ceremonial1 ,i am not aware  that the  
same doings precede and sanction the    
establishment of the  ,piraungaru or    
,piraura relation1 which1 if not1 is no 
marriage at all4  ,thus1 so far as our  
information goes1 and with all deference
 to the  great ,australian authorities1 
,i do not see that the evidence for a   
past stage of communal or of group      
marriage is such as compels our  assent4
 ,on the other hand1 as has been shown1 
the theory of communal  marriage forces 
all its advocates1 unwillingly or       
unconsciously1 into  the other theory of
 a primeval moral and social reformatory
 movement1  deliberately undertaken1    
perhaps under direct divine inspiration1
  for what other motive could exist8    
,the economical and biological          
difficulties which also beset that      
hypothesis have been sufficiently       
explained1 and ,mr4 ,darwin has dwelt on
 the psychological difficulty1  the     
sexual jealousy of the primitive male4  

,these objections1 at least1  do not    
hamper the hypothesis or conjecture1    
which we have ventured to  submit as an 
alternative system4 ,as a proof of      
survival of communal  or group marriage1
 ,mr4 ,fison quotes ,mr4 ,lance3 #8,if a
 ,kubbi meets a  strange ,ippatha'      
7female71 #8they address each other as  
spouse4' 7,they  belong to intermarrying
 phratries47 #8,a ,kubbi thus meeting an
 ,ippatha1  though she were of another  
tribe1 would treat her as his wife1 and 
his right to do so would be recognised  
by her tribe4' ,his right1  as far as   
phratry prohibitions go1 would certainly
 be recognised1  but how her husband1 if
 she had one1 would view the transaction
 is  another question4 ,the morality is 
that of the ,scottish ballads1 in  which
 such bonnes fortunes are frequent1 and 
the frail pair only  ask                
questions--afterwards4 ,in the ballad of
 ,the ,bonny ,hind1 in the  ,kalewala1  
and elsewhere1 the answers prove that   
the pair are brother  and sister4       

,suicide follows1 but it does not follow
 that communal or  group marriage       
prevailed in ,scotland1 or in ,finland4 
,,growth ,,of ,,social ,,rules ,,in     
,,the ,,tribe    ,it is probable that   
the rules now defining the privileges1  
prohibitions1 and duties of sets of     
people1 rules interwoven now with  those
 of #8class' and totem1 have been       
gradually evolved in the wear and  tear 
of ages4 ,tribes which hold such large  
and protracted assemblies1  or palavers1
 as the ,arunta of to-day1 discuss and  
debate common affairs  with all the     
diffuseness of our ,parliament at       
,westminster4 ,it is not  to be supposed
 that tribal peace existed over hundreds
 of square miles  of country1 and that  
the group representatives1 so to speak1 
flocked  in from far-off regions1 to    
parliament1 in the ages when the        
pristine  rules of exogamy were evolved4
 ,we might as wisely imagine that1 in   
the beginning of ,totemism1 groups      
travelled to a tribal folk-mote1  and   

arranged the details of a kind of       
magical co-operative society  to        
preserve and increase the foodstuffs of 
the tribe4 ,in ages really  pristine the
 tribal peace and union cannot have     
arisen2 deliberate  legislation for a   
vast scattered tribal community could   
not have  entered into men's dreams4 ,no
 such community could have existed4 ,but
  the tribes of to-day1 and notably the 
,arunta1 being remote from truly        
primitive conditions1 do hold prolonged 
assemblies1 and work at public          
problems1 so very remote from the       
primitive are they4    ,the ,arunta1 in 
their pseudo-historic legends1 throw    
back upon the past  the reflection of   
their actual estate1 and ascribe the    
rule which  practically limits marriage 
within the generation to a leader of the
  ,thurathwerta group1 living near what 
is called1 by ,europeans1 ,glen  ,helen1
 in the ,macdonnell range4 ,he was      
backed by the ,emu people of  four      
widely separated localities4#ca ,one is 

not1 however1 to suppose  that1 at some 
witan of the tribes1 names indicative of
 generations1  and of their respective  
rights1 were suddenly invented and dealt
 out  by #8the legislator1' any more    
than that totems were thus invented and 
dealt out4 ,as ,mr4 ,atkinson remarks   
7,chapter ,,viii473 #8,gradually each   
generation 444 would1 qua generation1   
come to be a distinctly defined  class1 
with certain separate rights and        
obligations4 ,in this simple            
classification of the connected persons1
 we see the origin of the               
classificatory system itself' 7as far as
 generations are concerned71  #8as an   
institution4444 ,the classificatory     
system evolves itself merely  as the    
result of a desire to define certain    
rights1 and the division by  generations
 was the most natural and feasible for  
the purpose4444 ,thus  we find a desire 
for distinction1 as regards rights in   
sexual union1 to  be the genetic cause  
of the classificatory system1 both as   

concerns the  generation and its        
component members4'    ,the marriage    
rules prevalent1 with many variations1  
among the people  least advanced in     
material culture1 the ,australians1 are 
thus seen1  on the whole1 to be based   
7#a7 on totem rules 7in which1 with ,dr4
  ,durkheim1 we include the #8primary   
classes' or #8phratries'71 and 7#b7  on 
the distinction of generations4 ,it is  
clear1 from the case of the  ,arunta and
 other tribes1 that the rule of counting
 on the spindle side  may break down1   
male descent being substituted1 in times
 excessively  rude2 while again1 as in  
the ,pictish ,royal ,house1 it may      
elsewhere  last into a stage relatively 
civilised4 ,all manners of conditions   
and  superstitions may affect and alter 
the course of social development in     
various places4    ,,group ,,marriage   
,,and ,,mr4 ,,tylor's ,,statistics      
,in #ahii1 ,mr4 ,tylor published a      
sketch of #8,a ,method of ,investigating
  the ,development of ,institutions1    

applied to ,laws of ,marriage and       
,descent4'#cb ,he had catalogued the    
usages of #cej peoples1 and examined    
7#a7 the rule of avoidance between      
husbands and wives' relations1 and  vice
 versa4 7#b7 ,the naming of husband 7or 
wife7 after their children2  as         
,odysseus says1 #8,may ,i no longer be  
called the father of ,telemachus4'  7#c7
 ,the nature of inheritance in widows4  
7#d7 ,the ,couvade in which the  husband
 pretends to lie in1 while his wife is  
really doing so4 7#e7 ,the  custom of   
capture4 7#f7 ,exogamy and the          
classificatory system4 ,mr4 ,tylor  was 
led to believe that1 so far as the      
statistical evidence goes1 the  husband 
first lived with the wife's family 7,a72
 next1 after a residence  with the      
wife's family1 went back to his own home
 7,b72 last1 7,c7 took  the wife at once
 to his own home4 7,husband to ,wife4   
,removal4 ,wife to  ,husband47    ,now  
statistics are rather vague evidence    
without full knowledge of the  social   

concomitants in each case4 ,in what     
exact stage of culture1 in  each        
instance1 does the husband go to live   
with the wife's relations8  ,we have not
 this information4 ,but if this be      
really the earliest stage1  how is it   
compatible with group marriage8 ,if a   
man is husband to #8a  thousand miles of
 wives1' how can he go and live with the
 relations  of all his wives8 ,even     
within his actual region of wandering1  
how can  he do this8 ,nor1 perhaps1 can 
he bring all his wives to live with the 
relations of each of them in turn8      
,either there was no group marriage1 or 
it did not exist when1 on the           
hypothesis1 the husband1 in the earliest
 stage1 habitually resided with  his    
wife's relations4 ,again1 take the      
maternal and paternal systems1  the     
reckoning in the female or male line1   
the female line1 as we hold  with ,mr4  
,tylor1 being the earlier4 ,if so1 on   
,mr4 ,tylor's hypothesis1  it ought to  
arise in his first epoch1 when husband  

goes to live with  wife's people4 #8,the
 lines' 7of a diagram7 #8show the       
institutions of  female descent1        
avuncular authority1 c4 arising in the  
stage of  residence on the female side1 
and extending into the stages of removal
  and residence on the male side4'      
,now we have tried to explain the       
reckoning in the female line1 by the    
differentiation1 in the supposed        
original local totem group1 of the      
captive women1 each retaining1 and      
handing on to her children1 the name  of
 her own totem group1 this bequest of   
the totem name continuing into  the     
tribal state of peaceful betrothals4    
,but ,mr4 ,tylor's theory of the  first 
stage 7husband goes to live with wife71 
implies a peaceful state1  and groups   
not hostile4 ,for the reasons given1    
early hostility and  sexual jealousy1 ,i
 am unable to hold that1 in the         
beginning1 husbands  always joined their
 wives' groups4 ,it seems1 granting     
hostility and  jealousy1 to be          

impossible4 ,a ,malay example of        
polygamy plus residence  with wives'    
relations1 proves nothing for primitive 
man4 ,therefore we  need to know the    
exact stage of culture of the peoples   
among whom the  husbands go as subdued  
hangers-on1 #8not recognised1' into the 
wife's  family4 ,are these people all   
precisely primitive8 ,the #8husband to  
wife'  stage implies peaceful relations4
 ,these were produced1 on my theory1 by 
the arrangement of the phratries4 ,when 
these are once constituted1 the  husband
 may go to live with the wife's family  
as much as he pleases4  ,but ,i fail to 
see how he could have done so #8in the  
beginning4'  ,moreover ,i am disinclined
 to suppose that exogamy was instituted 
for  the purpose of strengthening a     
group by matrimonial alliances4         
,bella gerant alii1 tu1 felix ,austria1 
nube6    ,exogamy has this effect1 but  
it was not devised purposely to produce 
this effect4    ,i may casually remark  
that ,mr4 ,tylor mentions an ,assineboin

 case  in which the husband enters #8his
 lodge1' where his father and           
mother-in-law #8shirk' or avoid him4    
,but1 in the next page but one1 the     
lodge is described1 not as the          
husband's1 but as that of the father and
  mother-in-law4#cc ,whose lodge was it 
really8 ,was the husband staying  with  
his wife's family1 or were the old      
people on a visit to their  married     
daughter8    ,among several ,australian 
tribes1 a feigned form of capture       
precedes  marriage4#cd ,is this a       
survival of actual capture in the stage 
of  hostility1 the pre-tribal stage8 ,or
 is it the result of girlish modesty  in
 the bride8      ,note3 ,mr4 ,morgan's  
#8,reformatory ,movement'3 ,it is proper
 to note that1  in his preface to       
,kamilaroi and ,kurnai 7p4 #e71 ,mr4    
,morgan wrote1  #8it is not supposable  
that savages design1 consciously1       
reformatory  movements in the strict    
sense4' ,for his theory cannot escape   
the  conclusion that1 in fact1 they did4

      ,footnote #a3 ,op4 cit4 p4 #fa4   
,footnote #b3 ,spencer and ,gillen1 p4  
#eg4    ,footnote #c3 ,systems of       
,consanguinity and ,affinity of the     
,human  ,family 7#ahga72 and ,ancient   
,society 7#ahgg72 earlier in ,the       
,league of  the ,iroquois 7#ahed74      
,footnote #d3 ,so ,mr4 ,fison candidly  
states1 and ,mr4 ,morgan saw his work1  
and wrote an introductory essay4        
,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1 p4 #ii4         
,footnote #e3 ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1   
pp4 #afj-afa4    ,footnote #f3 ,ancient 
,society1 pp4 #di-ej4    ,footnote #g3  
,cf4 ,the ,mystic ,rose1 pp4 #ddd-dde4  
,westermarck1 p4 #ceb4    ,footnote #h3 
,ancient ,society1 p4 #ei4    ,footnote 
#i3 ,ibid4 p4 #gd4    ,footnote #aj3 ,by
 #8classes' ,mr4 ,morgan here seems to  
mean phratries4    ,footnote #aa3       
,westermarck1 pp4 #he1 #if4    ,footnote
 #ab3 ,lord ,avebury1 ,origin of        
,civilisation1 pp4 #ddb-ddi1  #aijb4    
,footnote #ac3 ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1  
p4 #fj4    ,footnote #ad3 ,spencer and  

,gillen1 pp4 #ef1 #eg1 #ei4    ,footnote
 #ae3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41 ,may #ahie1 p4 #cfh4 
,footnote #af3 ,spencer and ,gillen1 p4 
#fj4    ,footnote #ag3 ,ibid4 p4 #ff4   
,footnote #ah3 ,ibid4 p4 #ge4           
,footnote #ai3 ,the ,mystic ,rose1 p4   
#dgf4    ,footnote #bj3 ,kamilaroi and  
,kurnai1 p4 #bg1 cf4 p4 #gj4            
,footnote #ba3 ,ancient ,society1 pp4   
#dbg-dbh4    ,footnote #bb3 ,captain    
,cook1 of ,his ,majesty's ship ,the     
,endeavour4    ,footnote #bc3 ,descent  
of ,man1 ii4 #cfb1 #cfc4 ,dr4 ,savage1  
,boston ,jour4  of ,nat4 ,hist4 v4 #dbc4
    ,footnote #bd3 ,spencer and ,gillen1
 p4 #fe4    ,footnote #be3 ,op4 cit4 p4 
#fg4    ,footnote #bf3 ,spencer and     
,gillen1 pp4 #fg1 #fh4    ,footnote #bg3
 ,spencer and ,gillen1 pp4 #fb-fd4      
,mystic ,rose1 pp4  #dgg-dgh4           
,footnote #bh3 ,on the ,organisation of 
,australian ,tribes1 pp4 #ajg1 #ajh4    
,footnote #bi3 ,spencer and ,gillen1 p4 
#ig4    ,footnote #cj3 ,ibid4 pp4       
#ib-if4 ,the ,mystic ,rose1 pp4 #dgi1   

#dhj4    ,footnote #ca3 ,spencer and    
,gillen1 pp4 #dbj-dba4    ,footnote #cb3
 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4 vol4 xviii41 no4 #c1 pp4   
#bde-bgb4    ,footnote #cc3 ,op4 cit4   
pp4 #bdf-bdh4    ,footnote #cd3 ,howitt1
 ,organisation of ,australian ,tribes4  
,,chapter ,,vi    ,,the ,,change ,,of   
,,class ,,among ,,the ,,new ,,generation
      ,we have hitherto1 for the sake of
 lucidity1 spoken chiefly of two        
#8primary classes' 7#8phratries'71 such 
as the ,kirarawa and ,matthurie of  the 
,urabunna4 ,but among the ,arunta1 and  
many other tribes1 there are  four or   
even eight such #8classes4' ,the reader 
may refer to the extract  from ,mr4     
,mathews's description 7p4 #ci74        
,each of these classes roughly          
corresponds to a different generation of
  the tribe4 ,but1 with female descent1 
each child belongs to the class  to     
which its mother does not belong4 ,the  
classes1 that is1 alter with  each      
generation4 ,what is the cause of this  
curious rule8 ,one generation  is ,a1   

its children are ,b1 its grandchildren  
are ,a again4    ,here we meet the      
explanation of ,herr ,cunow1 which may  
as well be given  in summary4    ,,the  
,,system ,,of ,,herr ,,cunow    ,the    
theory of ,herr ,cunow#a is in the first
 place opposed to the  systems of all   
who regard the #8phratries' as divisions
 made in  an original group1 or horde1  
for purposes of exogamy4 ,i have not    
observed that any of our writers have   
noticed the book of ,herr  ,cunow4 ,in  
his opinion1 as was said earlier1       
authors err in confusing  #8phratries'  
with #8classes3' #8a phratry is not a   
class1 and a class is  not a phratry2   
these two sorts of bodies have been     
developed out of  different antecedents1
 and have different tendencies4 ,the two
 8primary  divisions10 say ,kroki and   
,kumite1 are phratries1 but are not     
classes in  the same sense as the ,ippai
 and ,kumbo1 ,murri and ,kubbi classes  
of the  ,kamilaroi' 7p4 #bd74    ,herr  
,cunow regards the #8classes' as in     

origin earlier#b than the  divisions of 
totem kin1 or the #8phratry' divisions1 
and thinks that  the #8classes' were    
originally non-intermarrying divisions  
based on  seniority4 ,they were devised 
or developed1 not to prevent marriage   
between near kin1 but between persons of
 different generations1  or rather      
degrees of seniority4 ,this is proved1  
he thinks1 by the  etymology of some of 
the names of the classes 7about which we
 need  much fuller information74 ,thus  
the word ,kubbi 7,kamilaroi71 already   
cited as a class name1 is derived1 he   
says1 from ,kubbura1 #8young1  new1' and
 originally designates a youth who has  
passed the initiatory  ceremonies4      
,ridley's vocabulary of the ,kamilaroi  
tongue is the source  for this fact4    
,kumbo1 another class name1 is the      
,kombia or ,kumbia1  of the tribes on   
the ,lower ,murray river1 and means     
#8great1' that is1  #8old4' ,on the     
,lower ,darling1 the word is gumboka1   
,kumbuka2 compare  ,kumba1 ,kumbera1    

#8old woman1' ,kumbeja1 #8father4'      
#8,great' and  #8old1' #8little' and    
#8young1' are equivalent in sense4      
,bonda1 a class  name of the ,kabi1     
means #8new' or #8young1' and the       
class-name ,darawang1  or ,tarawang1 is 
the ,kabi word darami1 #8little1' or    
#8young4' ,obu1 a  class name1 is the   
,queensland jabu1 jobu1 jabbo bobu1     
#8father4'    ,thus the class names1    
,herr ,cunow holds1 originally indicate 
divisions  of youth and age in the      
#8horde1' by which term ,herr ,cunow    
understands a  local set of from forty  
to sixty people1 a local aggregate of   
several  such #8hordes' being a #8tribe'
 7pp4 #be-bh74 ,the fact of ,australian 
attention to degrees of seniority is    
demonstrated by the stages of           
initiation1 and by the various dues1 of 
food gifts and so on1 paid by  the      
juniors to the seniors of the tribe3 by 
the food which persons  of different    
status in seniority may eat1 and so     
forth4 ,indeed ,dr4  ,roth has regarded 

the #8classes' as originally evolved to 
regulate the  distribution of the food  
supply1 and such regulations would1 ,i  
think1  be elements among other         
regulations of matrimonial and other    
rights1  dependent on seniority4 #8,what
 a man may eat at one stage is at       
another  stage forbidden1 and vice      
versa4'#c    ,the #8horde1' then1 in    
,herr ,cunow's opinion1 was primarily   
divided into  non-intermarrying persons 
of three stages of seniority4 ,this is  
the  original organisation1 that of     
totem kindreds being later1 in ,herr    
,cunow's theory1 which is not ours 7pp4 
#cf1 #cg74 ,the word #8father' does     
not1 in the ,australian dialects1 at    
first1 signify what we mean by the      
word1 but merely #8senior2' and         
#8mother' is a term of the same meaning4
  #8,father' and #8mother' with all of  
their seniority are #8the big ones2'    
children are #8the little ones4' ,these 
terms become #8class' names4    ,an     
example is taken from ,mr4 ,bridgman1   

superintendent of the tribes  at ,port  
,mackay4 ,these have two #8phratries1'  
,yungaru and ,wutaru  7totemic names71  
and four #8classes1' ,gurgela1 ,bembia1 
,wungo1 and  ,kubaru4#d ,the terms for  
family relations are not understood in  
our  sense4 ,mr4 ,bridgman had a name   
and status in the tribe4 ,his name was  
,gunurra2 his phratry was ,yungaru1 his 
class was ,bembia1 and his  children1 if
 he had any1 were ,wutaru 7by phratry71 
,kubaru 7by  class74 ,if a girl came by1
 and ,mr4 ,bridgman asked who she was1  
and if  she was ,kubaruan1 he was told  
#8she is your daughter4' ,this          
#8daughter'  is a young woman of the    
class to which ,mr4 ,bridgman's         
daughters1 if he  had any1 would belong4
    ,herr ,cunow's theory1 then1 starts 
from the #8horde1' divided into not     
intermarrying degrees of seniority4     
,that such hordes1 not separate  family 
groups1 were the initial stage of       
society1 he is persuaded4#e  ,he rejects
 ,morgan's theory of communal           

marriage4#f ,next1 he thinks1  arose    
objections to brother and sister and    
other near akin marriages  7why we are  
not told71 and a man would thus be      
driven to seek a wife  out of his own   
horde4 ,why was this8 ,herr ,cunow      
merely refers to the  ,dieri tradition  
already cited2 evils followed on kindred
 marriages1  and were perceived and1 by 
divine decree1 were reformed4#g ,that   
such  evils did arise and were          
perceived1 and being perceived were     
reformed1  by very low savages1 is to   
the highest degree improbable4 ,however 
it  came about 7we suggest by dint of   
reflection on the totem and phratry     
restrictions71 there is now an objection
 to intermarriage between  persons #8of 
the same flesh4' ,how this arose does   
not seem to be a  question that ,herr   
,cunow chooses to dogmatise upon4       
,the horde now developes itself into a  
group of kin1 of which the  members     
regard each other as #8too nearly       
related by blood1' to  intermarry4 #8,as

 a mark of these groups of kin they     
later take different  beast or plant    
names1 usually from such species as     
exist in their  districts4 ,no reverence
 would originally be paid to the totem  
animal2'  the ,narrinyeri eat it without
 scruple1#h like any other2 the totem   
name is originally a name of a          
genossenschaft2 a comradeship1 the      
,narrinyeri word for totem1 #8,ngaitje1'
 is equivalent to #8friend4'    ,all    
this is rather vague4 ,why did groups of
 comrades or of recognised  kin take    
plant and animal names8 ,why did they   
forbid intermarriage8  ,what was the    
origin of the objection to marriage     
between blood kindred8  ,it does not    
arise out of #8moral ideas1' nor out of 
#8wife-capture1'#i  and ,herr ,cunow    
speaks neither of #8sexual taboo1' nor  
of #8sexual  jealousy1' while the theory
 of #8personal totems' become           
hereditary1 or  of magical co-operation 
in totem breeding1 is not mentioned2    
indeed1  when ,herr ,cunow wrote        

7#ahid71 the magical theory was unborn4 
,the  hordes merely developed into      
groups of comrades or of kin1 as such   
not  intermarrying among themselves1 and
 marking themselves for no assigned     
reason1 with plant or animal names3     
reverence of the totem came later4      
#8,still later than the totem           
association the phratry seems to arise1'
  and the phratries are described as    
allied local totem groups4 ,this is  my 
own opinion1 but by #8local totem       
group1' ,i here mean 7as already        
explained71 the original local totem    
group1 with the other totems which  had 
become its elements1 through exogamy1   
and female descent4 ,herr  ,cunow1 if ,i
 follow him1 means on the other hand a  
local totem group of  the kind which now
 results among the ,arunta from         
reckoning descent in  the male line4    
#8,the forbidding of marriage extended  
beyond the local  group1 passing into   
the neighbouring hordes1 till at length 
morality  enjoined the obtaining of     

wives from remoter districts4 ,hence was
  developed a come-and-go of marriage   
between two out of several larger  local
 totems1 and these larger local         
communities are the original types  of  
the ,australian phratries4 ,suppose that
 the hordes of the ,kurnai had          
gradually developed themselves into     
local totem groups like those of  the   
,narrinyeri1 and 444 that it became the 
rule for the ,brataulong to  take their 
wives from their south-western          
neighbours1 the ,kulin1 and  vice versa1
 till the two groups waxed into a great 
community1 and we  have the probable    
development' 7of the #8phratries'7      
#8before us4' ,the  groups              
#8,brataulong' and #8,kulin' would now  
be a great community of two             
intermarrying phratries4    ,all this   
implies1 ,i think1 a more advanced      
society1 and larger  communities1 than  
we can easily conceive to have existed  
in the distant  past when phratries     
arose4 ,moreover ,herr ,cunow1 as we    

shall see1 takes  descent1 even at this 
primitive period1 to have been reckoned 
in the  male line4 ,again1 we have      
observed that phratry names1 when they  
can be  translated1 are usually totemic1
 an opinion expressed by ,mr4 ,fison and
  ,mr4 ,howitt4 ,the same sort of       
totemic names marks ,red ,indian        
phratries4  ,granting male kinship1 the 
phratries of ,herr ,cunow's hypothesis  
might  well have totem names1 but he    
tries to show that phratry names are    
usually local2 he gives seven cases out 
of which only two names of  phratries   
are totemic4#aj ,but he offers no       
authority for his assertion  that the   
other five names are non-totemic        
7,eigennahme7 and ,yungaru  and ,wutaru1
 represented by him as non-totemic1 are 
really totem names4    ,we know that as 
a result of reckoning in the male line  
local or  district names tend to        
supersede totem names1 and large local  
totem  groups thus arise1 a feature of  
the decay1 not of the dawn1 of          

,totemism4 ,my own hypothesis1 on the   
other hand1 shows why phratry names  are
 totemic4 ,herr ,cunow concludes #8the  
phratry is originally nothing  but an   
exogamous local group composed of       
several hordes4' ,like ,mr4  ,daniel    
,mc,lennan1 ,herr ,cunow quotes the     
legend of the wars of ,eagle-,hawk  and 
,crow1 which ended in the establishment 
of the intermarrying  phratries of ,crow
 and ,eagle-,hawk4#aa ,herr ,cunow's    
theory of phratries  appears to me to   
find1 in the remotest past1 the most    
recent  institutions of the             
,australians1 and to confuse the        
primitive local  totem group with the   
local totem-group later developed out of
 reckoning  descent in the male line4   
,he throws back into the distant past   
the  large modern associations1 which   
could not exist in times really         
primitive4 ,he makes the hordes develope
 themselves into totem kins1 in  place  
of being1 originally 7as in my system71 
small associations united  by           

contiguity1 and receiving totem names   
from without4#ab ,he makes  reckoning in
 the female line later than reckoning in
 the male line--the  ,narrinyeri        
reckoning in the male line 7p4          
#hd7--;and perhaps this method1  he     
thinks1 is a result of ignorance of     
fatherhood1 consequent on the           
,piraungaru custom 7p4 #ace74 ,unluckily
 we find reckoning descent in the       
female line among many races1 the ,red  
,indians for example1 where the         
,piraungaru custom is unknown4 ,the     
priority of male to female descent is   
not admitted as a rule1 by ,mr4 ,tylor  
or any other ,english authorities4      
,where ,i can agree with ,herr ,cunow is
 on the point that the two  #8primary   
divisions' are the result1 probably1 of 
amalgamation1 not  of bisection for     
purposes of exogamy4 ,where we differ is
 as to the  character of the communities
 that1 by alliance and connubium1 became
  #8primary divisions' or #8phratries4' 
,on his system the communities were     

large1 holding great districts4 ,on     
mine1 they were ancient local totem     
groups1 whose members1 through exogamy  
and female descent1 were really  of     
various totems4 ,in a note 7p4 #aci7    
,herr ,cunow shows that he might  easily
 have arrived at my conclusion1 but1    
while allowing that alien  brides       
brought the totem names of their own    
kins into each original  totem group1 he
 says that the men of that group still  
#8belonged to  the totem identified with
 that horde4' ,this is the result of his
  belief that reckoning descent in the  
female line is #8an innovation4'  ,his  
#8horde' is originally endogamous2 then1
 we know not well why1 is  exogamous 7p4
 #acg74 ,those who do not believe that  
men originally lived  in #8hordes1' and 
hold that1 through jealousy and other   
causes1 their  little primary sets were1
 or tended to be1 exogamous from the    
first1  cannot agree with ,herr ,cunow4 
,on the other hand1 they may incline  to
 accept his theory that1 as the         

,australian terms of relationship       
indicate often status1 not relationship 
in our sense1 they do not help  to prove
 a past of consanguine and communal     
marriage4    ,,classes ,,again    ,to   
return to the classes1 ,dr4 ,durkheim   
opposes ,herr ,cunow's theory that  they
 indicated originally degrees of        
seniority4 ,he takes no notice1         
however1 of ,herr ,cunow's argument from
 etymology1 and the original  meanings  
of the class names1 #8,young' and       
#8,old4' ,he argues that1 on ,herr      
,cunow's system1 each individual would1 
in lapse of time1 move from  young to   
old1 and so ought to change his class   
name1 and move into  another class4     
,herr ,cunow answers that1 if this      
occurred1 the object of  the class      
names1 practically to prevent young and 
old intermarrying1  would have been     
defeated4 ,but1 as matters exist1 a     
grandfather may  marry a girl who might 
be his grand-daughter4 ,he is ,a1 his   
children are  ,b1 but their children are

 ,a again4 ,he is ,kubbi1 he marries    
,ippatha1 her  children are ,buta1 their
 children are ,ippatha1 and the         
venerable ,kubbi  may marry a very      
juvenile ,ippatha4    ,possibly the     
institution grew up among people who did
 not look so far  forward1 who #8took   
short views4' ,it is certain that1 if   
the object  of the classes was to stop  
marriages between young and old1 it is a
  failure4 #8,the old men marry young   
wives at present1' says ,mr4 ,mathews4  
,if so1 ,herr ,cunow may be right4 ,dr4 
,durkheim offers a theory4 ,but  his    
theory takes for granted1 as we saw1    
that the two #8phratries1'  originally1 
were only two totem groups1 containing  
within them no  members of other totem  
kins4 #8,they were not yet subdivided'  
into  other totem kins4 ,but ,i have    
tried to show that there was no such    
#8subdivision' into #8secondary clans'  
or totem kins4 ,dr4 ,durkheim  regards  
these totem kins as colonies split off  
from the two original  totem groups     

which became phratries4#ac ,my reasons  
against accepting  this position have   
already been given4 ,this being the     
case1 it is  unnecessary to unfold ,dr4 
,durkheim's theory of the origin of the 
classes4 ,probably that of ,herr ,cunow 
comes nearest to the truth4    ,mr4     
,mathews offers another solution of the 
problem4 #8,phratry' ,dilbi1  for       
example1 has #8classes' ,murri and      
,kubbi1 while the linked phratry1       
,kupathin1 has classes ,ippai and       
,kumbo4 #8,it is possible that the group
  ,dilbi was divided into 7female7      
,matha and ,kubbitha to distinguish the 
mothers from the daughters1 and that the
 terms ,murri and ,kubbi were  adopted  
to provide names for the uncles and     
nephews of their respective             
generations4' ,thus we return to        
distinction of generations4 ,in any     
case the #8classes' #8have the effect of
 preventing consanguineous  marriages1  
by furnishing an easy test of           
relationship when the tribe  has become 

so numerous or widespread that kinship  
could not otherwise  be well            
determined4#ad ,later 7p4 #afh7 ,mr4    
,matthews writes1 #8,the  mother of a   
man's wife1 and also his daughters1     
belong to the same  section' 7#8class'71
 #8and therefore his marriage with that 
section is  prohibited4' ,that is1 he   
cannot marry out of his generation above
 or  below1 as indicated by #8class'    
names4 #8,neither can he marry into the 
section to which his mother belongs1    
although a woman might be found in      
either case1 who was in no way connected
 with him4' ,in short1 as far  as the   
names rudely indicate the generation    
above1 and the generation  below a man1 
he cannot marry into these classes4     
,but1 as old men do  marry young wives1 
the apparent intention of the rules is  
to some  extent frustrated4 ,we can say 
no more1 till we are told what the class
  names mean in a literal sense4 ,does  
nobody inquire into this essential      
question8    ,as if to accentuate the   

problems raised by the change of        
#8class' names  in each generation1 ,mr4
 ,matthews has discovered that when a   
man may  marry a woman of his own       
#8phratry1' but out of a set of totems  
not his  own1 the totems of his children
 by her alter as the class names do4    
#8,the children take the totem name1'   
not of their mother1 but of their       
maternal grandmother4 #8,one totem is   
the mother of another totem4'#ae  ,this 
is an unusual phenomenon1 and looks like
 the effort of a desperate  ingenuity4  
,the class system exists among the      
,arunta1 with male descent4 ,one moiety 
of the southern part of the tribe       
consists of ,panunga and ,bulthara1     
linked classes1 calling themselves      
,nakrakia2 the other moiety is of       
,purula and ,kumara1 calling themselves 
,mulganuka4 ,a ,bulthara man of the     
first moiety can only marry a ,kumara   
woman1 of the second moiety3 a  ,purula 
man marries a ,panunga woman only4 ,the 
children of a ,bulthara  man's union    

with a ,kumara woman take neither the   
,bulthara nor ,kumara  name1 but are    
called ,panunga1 while the children of a
 ,purula man and  a ,panunga woman are  
,kumara3 of a ,panunga man and a ,purula
 woman1  ,bulthara2 of a ,kumara man and
 a ,bulthara woman1 ,purula4    ,that is
 to say1 the ,arunta reckoning in the   
male line1 a man's children  do not take
 his #8class' name but the name of the  
#8class' linked to  his1 and forming1   
with his1 one division of the tribe4    
,further each  of these four divisions  
consists of two moieties1 and a ,panunga
 man1  though he can marry a ,purula    
woman1 must choose her out of the proper
  moiety of the ,purula division4 ,these
 moieties of each division1 among  the  
,northern ,arunta1 have names2 ,uknaria1
 ,appungerta1 ,umbitchana1  ,ungalla1   
and the children of each marriage fall  
under these names4    ,this restricts a 
man to only an eighth of the women of   
his generation1  but1 on the other hand1
 among the ,arunta1 the totem           

prohibition no  longer exists3 the      
totems are not restricted to one or     
another class1  but skip among them1 as 
we have shown in the section on the     
,arunta4 ,the  eight class system1      
perhaps the four class system1 may be   
regarded as  later and conscious        
modifications of the old phratry and    
totem rules1  which1 on my hypothesis1  
had no conscious moral origin4          
,footnote #a3 ,die                      
,verwandtschafts-,organisationen der    
,australneger4  ,diek1 ,stuttgart1      
#ahid4    ,footnote #b3 ,this can hardly
 be1 as the most backward tribes have   
phratries and totems1 but no #8classes4'
    ,footnote #c3 ,eyre1 ,journals1 ii4 
#bic-bie4 ,cunow1 p4 #cc1 note #b4      
,bulmer1 in ,brough ,smyth1 i4 #bce4    
,roth1 ,ethnological ,studies1 pp4 #fi1 
#gj1 ,brisbane1 #ahig4    ,footnote #d3 
,brough ,smyth1 i4 #ia4    ,footnote #e3
 ,pp4 #abb-abd1 and note #a1 an argument
 against ,westermarck4    ,footnote #f3 
,pp4 #abg-abh4    ,footnote #g3 ,gason1 

,the ,dicyrie ,tribe 7#ahid71 p4 #ac4   
,kam4 and ,kur4  p4 #be4 ,cunow1 pp4    
#aji-aaj1 #acj-acb4    ,footnote #h3    
,cf4 ,cunow1 p4 #hb4 ,so1 too1 the      
,euahlayi4    ,footnote #i3 ,cunow1 p4  
#acj4    ,footnote #aj3 ,pp4 #acc-acd4  
,footnote #aa3 ,brough ,smyth1 i4 #dbc4 
,cunow1 p4 #acd4 ,studies in ,ancient   
,history1 second series1 ut supra4      
,footnote #ab3 ,see #8,the ,origin of   
,totemism4'    ,footnote #ac3 ,cf4 p4   
#hc4    ,footnote #ad3 ,proc4 ,roy4     
,soc4 ,n4,s4,w4 xxxi4 #afa4    ,footnote
 #ae3 ,op4 cit4 pp4 #agb-age4           
,,chapter ,,vii    ,,theories ,,of      
,,lord ,,avebury      ,the opinions of  
,lord ,avebury 7,sir ,john ,lubbock7 are
 to be collected  from the sixth edition
 7#aijb7 of his ,origin of              
,civilisation4  ,first published in     
#ahgj1 this was a pioneer work of great 
value and  importance4 ,perhaps the vast
 amount of new information and of new   
speculation which has accrued since     
#ahgj might almost make us wish that    

,lord ,avebury had found time to        
re-write his early book4 ,but he #8sees 
no reason to change in any essential    
respects the opinions originally        
expressed1' and merely adds a few       
references to such recent researches  as
 those of ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen4
 ,therefore we must not look  to ,lord  
,avebury for much new light on the      
origin of the ,australian  #8classes' or
 #8primary divisions1' or #8phratries1' 
and on their  relations to the totem    
kindreds within them4    ,,lord         
,,avebury ,,on ,,totemism    ,our author
 7p4 #bag7 regards ,totemism as         
synonymous with ,nature-,worship4  ,he  
speaks of #8,nature-,worship or         
,totemism1 in which natural objects1    
trees1 lakes1 stones1 animals1 c4 are   
worshipped4' ,i am not acquainted       
7unless it be in early ,peru7 with any  
totem kin whose totem is a lake2  and   
totems1 very often1 are not             
#8worshipped' at all4 ,nature-,worship1 
again1 may exist where there is no      

,totemism1 and ,totemism where there  is
 no ,nature-,worship1 indeed where1 as  
among the ,arunta1 there is1  strictly  
speaking1 no worship1 as far as we are  
informed4    ,again 7p4 #cea71          
#8,totemism' 7as opposed to fetichism71 
#8is a  deification of classes4' ,but   
the term #8deification' implies the     
possession1 by the deifiers1 of the     
conception of ,deity2 of gods1 or  of a 
god4 ,the ,australians have totems1 but1
 according to ,lord ,avebury1  have no  
notion of a god or gods4 ,they #8possess
 merely certain vague  ideas as to the  
existence of evil spirits1 and a general
 dread of  witchcraft' 7p4 #cch74 ,it is
 not clear1 then1 how they can #8deify' 
classes of things1 if they have no      
notion of deity4 #8,they do not  believe
 in the existence of a true ,deity'     
7with a capital ,d71 says ,lord         
,avebury1 without defining what #8a true
 ,deity' is3 and1 contrary to  the      
evidence of ,mr4 ,howitt and many       
others1 he denies that #8morality is  in

 any way connected with their religion1 
if such it can be called' 7p4  #cch74   
,the authority cited is of #ahei1a and  
is contradicted1 for example1  by ,mr4  
,howitt 7#ahhj-ahij71 who is not here   
quoted4 ,it is clear that  ,australian  
totems cannot result from the           
#8deification of classes1' if  the      
,australians have no conception of      
,deity1 whether #8true' or not so  true4
    ,lord ,avebury remarks1 #8,true1    
myths do not occur among the lowest     
races'  7p4 #cee71 whereas1 with many   
others1 myths of the origin of ,totemism
 do  notably occur1 as we have shown1   
among perhaps all totemistic races4     
,perhaps we should read1 deleting the   
comma1 #8true myths do not occur  among 
the lowest races1' when the question as 
to what a #8true myth' is  again arises1
 as in the case of #8a true ,deity4'    
,perhaps we must suppose  that by #8a   
true myth1' or a #8true ,deity1' ,lord  
,avebury implies a ,deity  or a myth in 
accordance with his own conception of   

either4    ,,lord ,,avebury ,,on ,,the  
,,origin ,,of ,,totemism    #8,the      
worship of animals1' says our author 7p4
 #bge71 #8is susceptible  of a very     
simple explanation1 and perhaps1 as ,i  
have ventured to  suggest1#b may have   
originated from the practice of naming1 
first  individuals1 and then their      
families1 after particular animals4 ,a  
family1 for instance1 which was called  
after the bear1 would come to  look on  
that animal first with interest1 then   
with respect1 and at  length with a sort
 of awe4' ,if by #8individuals1' male   
individuals  are intended1 this theory  
is open to the objection that ,lord     
,avebury  regards descent in the female 
as earlier than descent in the male line
  7p4 #afd71 while #8families' with     
enduring relations to their founders1   
can hardly yet have been consciously    
envisaged1 by his theory1 at so  very   
rudimentary a stage4 ,moreover1 we try  
to show that totem names  were1         
originally1 group names1 and were not   

derived from the personal  names of     
individuals1 an opinion in which ,mr4   
,haddon concurs4 ,lord  ,avebury's      
theory is1 apparently1 that of ,mr4     
,herbert ,spencer1 minus  the supposed  
worship of the ghost of the male        
ancestor and founder of  the family4    
,,communal ,,marriage    ,lord ,avebury 
assumes1 as a working hypothesis1 that  
#8the communal  marriage system 444     
represents the primitive and earliest   
social  condition of man4444' 7p4 #ajb74
 ,the objections to this hypothesis we  
have stated1 though1 of course1 historic
 certainty cannot be attained4    ,lord 
,avebury1 assuming #8communal marriage' 
as the ,primitive stage1  holds that it 
#8was gradually superseded by individual
 marriage founded  on capture1 and that 
this led firstly to exogamy1 and then to
 female  infanticide2 thus reversing    
,mr4 ,mc,lennan's order of sequence' 7p4
  #ajh74 #8,originally no man could     
appropriate a woman of his own tribe    
exclusively to himself 444 without      

infringing tribal rights1 but1  on the  
other hand1 if a man captured a woman   
belonging to another  tribe1 he thereby 
acquired an individual and peculiar     
right to  her1 and she became his       
exclusively1 no one else having any     
claim or  property in her' 7p4 #aaj74   
7,i here italicise #8tribe' and         
#8tribal4' ,lord  ,avebury intends1 ,i  
think1 a woman of the same              
#8fire-circle' 7p4 #ahh71  not a woman  
of the tribe understood as a large and  
inevitably not  primitive local         
aggregate of friendly groups of         
different totems1 such  as the ,arunta1 
,narrinyeri1 ,pawnees1 and so forth47   
,in brief1 men would desire to          
appropriate to themselves some woman1   
at first from beyond their own #8tribe4'
 ,this they could only do by  capture4  
,their individual right in her would be 
modified by the  disgusting license of  
the bridal night1 which ,lord ,avebury  
regards as  #8compensation' to the other
 males of the #8tribe' 7pp4 #ach1       

#eeg-efj74  ,that license ,i would      
rather explain as ,mr4 ,crawley does3   
the topic does  not need to be insisted 
on at length in this place4 ,lord       
,avebury1 at  all events1 supposes that 
a form of capture finally came to be    
applied1  with results in individual    
marriage1 to women of the same #8tribe' 
7p4  #aaa74 ,but if we have #8complete  
and conclusive evidence that in large   
portions of ,australia every man had the
 privilege of a husband over  every     
woman not belonging to his own gens2    
sharing1 of course1 these  privileges   
with every other man belonging to the   
same class or gens  as himself' 7p4     
#aab71 ,i fail to see that a man gained 
anything by  enduring the trouble and   
risk of capturing a bride all to        
himself4  ,before the capture she had   
been1 it seems1 the common spoil of the 
males of her #8tribe2' when captured she
 was the common spoil of her  captor's  
#8class or gens'--though a #8class' and 
a gens are not1 ,i  think1 identical1   

but much the reverse4    ,the rather    
promiscuous use of terms for different  
kinds of human  communities affected all
 the pioneer works on primitive society1
 and1  indeed1 still perplexes our      
speculations4 ,thus ,lord ,avebury      
suggests  7p4 #aai7 the case of four    
exogamous neighbouring #8tribes1' with  
kinship  traced through women4 #8,after 
a certain time the result would be that 
each tribe would consist of four septs  
or #8clans' 7totem kins871              
#8representing the four original tribes1
 and hence we should find  communities  
in which each tribe is divided into     
clans1 and a man must  always marry a   
woman of a different clan4'    ,we do   
not1 perhaps1 know any exogamous tribes 
in our sense of #8tribe2'  a ,dieri is  
not obliged to marry out of the ,dieri1 
or an ,urabunna out  of the ,urabunna4  
,by #8tribe' here1 it seems probable    
that ,lord ,avebury  intends not a large
 local aggregate1 but #8a very small    
community1' for  he writes #8we have    

seen that1 under the custom of communal 
marriage1  a child was regarded as      
related to the tribe1 but not specially 
to  any particular father or mother4    
,such a #8state of things1 indeed1  is  
only possible in very small             
communities4' ,now a tribe is a very    
large community4 ,the members of such   
communities must have been poor         
observers if they did not discover the  
relation between a child and the  woman 
who bore and1 for several years1 nursed 
it4 ,but such #8tribes'  are not tribes 
in the sense in which ,i use the word2  
they are rather  #8groups of the same   
hearth4' ,now it is easy to see how     
small groups  of the same hearth became 
exogamous1 namely through sexual        
jealousy1  and sexual tabu1 which would 
oblige the young males to wander away1  
or  to get wives by capture1 practices  
resulting1 under the tabu1 in the       
sacred rule of exogamy4 ,this1 however1 
is not ,lord ,avebury's theory of  the  
origin of exogamy4    ,lord ,avebury's  

theory does not become more distinct    
when he says1 #8,in  ,australia1 where  
the same family names' 7totem names87   
#8are common  almost over the whole     
continent1 no man may marry a woman     
whose family  name' 7totem name87 #8is  
the same as his own' 7here the ,arunta  
are an  exception7 #8and who belongs    
therefore to the same tribe' 7p4 #add74 
,but surely1 if the #8family names' are 
#8common almost over the whole          
continent1' a woman may well have the   
same #8family name' 7say ,emu7 as  a    
man1 and yet need not be of his tribe4  
,an ,arunta ,emu man and a ,dieri  ,emu 
woman would have the same #8family name'
 7totem name71 but would  not1          
therefore1 #8belong to the same tribe4' 
,it even appears that ,lord  ,avebury   
regards #8tribe' and #8clan' and        
#8family' as synonymous terms1  for1 in 
proof of the statement that people of   
the same #8family name'  necessarily    
belong to the same #8tribe1' he quotes  
my late uncle1 ,mr4  ,gideon ,scott     

,lang1 #8,no man can marry a woman of   
the same clan1 though  the parties be no
 way related according to our ideas4'#c 
,by #8clan' ,mr4  ,lang here meant totem
 kin1 and if ,lord ,avebury thinks      
#8clan' equivalent  to #8tribe1' a      
#8tribe' must be a totem kin1 which it  
is not2 at least if  we understand      
#8tribe' as a local aggregate of various
 totem kindreds4    ,these perplexities 
are caused by a vague terminology1 and  
occurred  naturally in a book of #ahgj1 
as they do in ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's own     
pioneer works4 ,but in #aijc we must try
 to aim at closer and more  exact       
distinctions and definitions1 though we 
are still retarded and  perplexed by the
 lack of truly scientific nomenclature4 
,as far as ,i can  perceive1 ,lord      
,avebury is apt to use #8family1'       
#8tribe1' #8clan1' and  #8gens' as      
equivalents1 while each of them1 in     
various places1 appears  to be          
understood as denoting a totem kindred4 
,thus 7p4 #aha7 #8under a  system of    

female descent combined with exogamy a  
man must marry out  of his tribe1' where
 #8tribe' seems to mean #8totem kin4'   
,compare p4  #ahg3 #8another general    
rule1 in ,america as elsewhere1 is that 
no one  may marry within his own clan or
 family1' where #8clan or family' like  
#8tribe' seems to mean #8totem kin4'    
,this use of terms makes it difficult   
for me to feel sure that ,i  apprehend  
,lord ,avebury's theory correctly4      
,however ,i take it to be  that1        
originally1'very small communities'     
7#8tribes'7 lived in #8communal         
marriage4' ,nobody knew who was the son 
of what father or of what  mother1      
though1 in a very small community one   
would expect the senior  vigorous male  
or males to prevent son-and-mother1 or  
brother-and-sister  unions1 by force1   
out of natural jealousy4 ,this was not  
done1 but some  males wanted wives to   
themselves in private property1 and got 
them by  capture1 paying #8compensation'
 in the license of the bridal night4    

,but  a man might fall in love with a   
lass in his own #8tribe' 7#8very small  
community'7 and want to keep her to     
himself 7p4 #aaa74 #8,hence would       
naturally arise a desire on the part of 
many to extend the right of  capture1   
which originally had reference only to  
women of a different  tribe1 and to     
apply it to all those belonging to their
 own4' ,is #8tribe'  still used of #8a  
very small community1' or is it here    
employed in the  now more prevalent and 
much wider sense8 ,if not1 is the       
#8capture' now  a mere ceremonial       
formula8 ,apparently #8tribe1' now and  
here1 does mean  7as elsewhere it does  
not7 a large local aggregate1 for we are
 next  told of #8the division of        
,australian tribes into classes or      
gentes'  7though a #8class' is one thing
 and a gens1 if totem kin is meant1 is  
another thing71 and of the #8#a1jjj     
miles of wives1' who1 by the theory1    
are not individual wives of individual  
men4 ,such wives1 special  rights in    

such wives1 were acquired #8originally  
by right of capture4'    ,but1 when men 
possessed marital privileges1 each      
#8over every woman not  belonging to his
 own gens2 sharing1 of course1 these    
privileges with  every other man        
belonging to the same gens or class as  
himself' 7p4  #aab71 where is the       
individual right acquired by capture8   
,it seems that  each man1 besides his   
#8#a1jjj miles of wives' #8has his own  
individual  wife 444 by right of        
capture4' ,now the ,urabunna have no    
such individual  wives1 if1 like ,lord  
,avebury1 we accept the statement of    
,messrs4  ,spencer and ,gillen 7p4 #fc74
 ,but the ,arunta have such individual  
wives4  ,here it seems necessary for    
,lord ,avebury1 if he agrees with these 
authors1 to prove that the ,arunta1     
unlike the ,urabunna1 do demonstrably   
acquire their individual wives by       
capture4 ,but no such demonstration  is 
produced4 ,till proof is offered ,i am  
unable to appreciate the force  of ,lord

 ,avebury's reasoning1 while like ,mr4  
,crawley1 ,i doubt whether  individual  
marriage does not exist among the       
,urabunna1 the ,piraungaru  license not 
being1 ,i conceive1 a true survival of  
communal marriage1  but a peculiar      
institution4    ,,lord ,,avebury ,,on   
,,relationships    ,analysing ,mr4      
,morgan's collection of names for       
relationships1 ,lord  ,avebury 7p4 #ahb7
 says1 #8in fact the idea of            
relationship1 like that  of marriage1   
was founded1 not upon duty1 but upon    
power4' ,we try to  suggest that the    
classificatory names for relationships  
are1 to a great  extent1 expressive of  
status1 seniority1 and mutual duties and
 services  in the community--these      
duties and services themselves being    
gradually  established by power--the    
power of the seniors4 ,yet some terms   
analysed  by ,lord ,avebury have1       
linguistically1 other sources4 #8,wife1'
 in ,cree1  is #8part of myself1'       
dimidium anim me1 these twain are one   

flesh4  ,obviously this pretty term does
 not spring from #8communal marriage4'  
,in ,chocta1 #8husband' is #8he who     
leads me1'--again not communal1 but     
indicating the old-fashioned theory of  
wifely obedience4 7#8,he who kicks  me' 
would suffice1 in some civilised        
quarters47 #8,daughter-in-law1'  in     
,delaware1 is #8my cook1' indicating    
service2 and #8husband' is #8my  aid    
through life1' showing the advanced     
,homeric1 or ,christian1 view  of       
marriage 7pp4 #ahj-aha74 #8,father' and 
#8,mother' in many ,african1  ,european 
and ,asian1 ,non-,aryan1 ,oceanic1      
,australian1 and1 really in  ,aryan     
languages1 also often in ,america1 are  
#8the easiest sounds which  a child can 
pronounce indicating father and mother' 
7pp4 #ddb-ddi74 ,if  babes could        
distinguish father and mother1 these    
relationships1 one  thinks1 could not   
have been unknown to adults4 ,they may  
be1 and are1  extended in usage1 so as  
to embrace what we call uncles and aunts

 and  seniors of the kin1 but this1 ,i  
try to argue1 does not necessarily      
imply that fatherhood and motherhood1   
owing to communal marriage1 were  long  
unknown4    ,the result of ,lord        
,avebury's analysis of ,mr4 ,morgan's   
tables of terms  is to prove progress in
 the discrimination of degrees of kin1  
though  ancient sweeping terms          
occasionally survive among races fairly 
advanced  out of savagery4              
#8,relationship is1 at first1 regarded  
as a matter1 not  of blood1 but of      
tribal organisation' 7p4 #bjh74 ,here ,i
 agree that words  or terms for what we 
call relationship often do seem to      
denote status1  duty1 service1 and      
intermarriageableness in the community4 
,but ,i do not  think that the ties of  
blood are thereby proved to have been   
unknown4  ,maternity could not be       
doubtful1 especially where the mother   
nursed  her child for several years4    
,lord ,avebury adds1 #8the terms for    
what we call relationships are1 among   

the lower races of men1 mere expressions
 for the results of marriage  customs1  
and do not comprise the idea of         
relationship as we understand  it' 7p4  
#baj74    ,for this reason1 ,i think1 we
 must avoid the fallacy of arguing as if
  the terms did denote #8relationship as
 we understand it1' when we  wish to    
prove a past of communal marriage4 ,the 
terms indicate1 in ,lord  ,avebury's    
words1 #8the connection of individuals  
inter se1 their  duties to one another1 
their rights1 and the descent of their  
property4'    ,this is precisely my own 
opinion1 and for this very reason ,i do 
not  hold that these terms arose in     
ignorance as to who was the mother1  or 
even the father1 of a child4 ,all the   
duties and rights1 as ,lord  ,avebury   
says1 #8are regulated more by the       
relation to the tribe than to  the      
family'--in our sense of #8family4' ,but
 this1 in my view1 proves  that the     
terms 7in their present significance7   
are relatively late  and advanced1 for  

the institution of the ,tribe 7as ,i    
understand the  word7 implies the       
friendly combination of many totem kins1
 and of many  #8fire-circles1' into the 
tribe1 the large local aggregate4 ,no   
such  combination can have been truly   
#8primitive4' ,but we have seen that    
,lord ,avebury seems to use #8tribe' in 
various places1 as equivalent  to       
#8family1' #8clan1' gens1 and1          
apparently1 to #8totem kin4' ,quite     
possibly he means that the horde is     
prior to what ,i may call the           
#8fire-circle1' the #8very small        
community1' which1 in places1 he terms  
#8the tribe1' or so ,i understand him4  
,if so1 ,i cannot follow him here1  as  
,i am not inclined to think that truly  
primitive man lived in hordes  of       
considerable numbers3 the difficulties  
of supply1 among other  reasons1 make   
the idea improbable4    ,if ,i have     
failed to understand ,lord ,avebury1    
perhaps his somewhat  indeterminate     
terminology may plead my excuse4        

,footnote #a3 #8,report of the          
,committee of the ,legislative ,council 
on  ,aborigines4' ,victoria1 pp4 #i1    
#fi1 #gg4    ,footnote #b3 ,prehistoric 
,times1 p4 #eih4    ,footnote #c3 ,g4   
,scott ,lang1 ,the ,aborigines of       
,australia1 p4 #aj4          ,,chapter  
,,viii    ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,totem   
,,names ,,and ,,beliefs      ,up to this
 point1 we have treated of totems just  
as we find them in  savage practice4 ,we
 have seen that totem names are the     
titles of  groups of kindred1 real or   
imagined2 they are derived from animals1
  plants1 and other natural objects2    
they appear among tribes who  reckon    
descent either on the sword or spindle  
side1 and the totem  name of each group 
is usually 7but not in the case of the  
,arunta7  one mark of the exogamous     
limit4 ,none may marry a person of the  
same  totem name4 ,but1 in company with 
this prohibition1 is found a body of    
myths1 superstitions1 rites1 magical    
practices1 and artistic uses of  the    

totem4#a ,we have shown 7,chapter ,,ii47
 that we cannot move a step  without a  
clear and consistent hypothesis of the  
origins of ,totemism4  ,this we now try 
to produce4      ,,sacred ,,animals ,,in
 ,,savage ,,society    ,savages1 both in
 their groups of kin1 in their magical  
societies1 or  clubs1 and privately1 as 
individuals1 are apt to regard certain  
beasts1  plants1 and so on1 as the      
guardians of the group1 of the society1 
and of the private person4 ,to these    
animal guardians1 whether of the        
individual1 the society1 or the group of
 kin1 they show a certain  amount of    
reverence and respect4 ,that reverence  
naturally takes much  the same          
forms--the inevitable forms--as of not  
killing or eating the  animal1          
occasionally praying to it1 or of       
burying dead representatives  of the    
species1 as may happen4 ,but ,i am      
unaware that the savage ever  calls his 
personal selected animal or plant1 or   
the guardian animal  of his magical     

society 7except among the ,arunta1 where
 the totem  groups are evolving into    
magical clubs71 by the same term as he  
applies  to the hereditary guardian of  
his group of kindred2 his totem1 as ,i  
use the word4 ,if ,i am right1 this     
distinction has been overlooked1 or     
thought insignificant1 by some modern   
inquirers4 ,major4 ,powell1 the         
,director of the ,ethnological ,bureau  
at ,washington1 appears to apply1  the  
word totem both to the chosen animal    
friend of the individual1  and to that  
of the magical society in ,america1     
which includes men of  various group    
totems4#b ,he also applies it to the    
totem of the kin4    ,mr4 ,frazer1 too1 
writes of 7#a7 ,the ,clan ,totem1 7#b7  
,the ,sex ,totem  7in ,australia71 7#c7 
#8,the ,individual ,totem1 belonging to 
a single  individual1 and not passing to
 his descendants1' and even indicates   
that one savage may have five totems4#c 
,this third rule as to the              
non-hereditable character of #8the      

individual totem' has1 since ,mr4       
,frazer wrote in #ahhg1 been found to   
admit of more exceptions than we  then  
knew4 ,in a few cases and places1 the   
animal selected by1 or for1  the private
 individual1 is found to descend to his 
or her children4  ,in my opinion it is  
better1 for the present at least1 to    
speak of  such protective animals of    
individuals1 by the names which their   
savage protgs give to them in each case3
 nyarongs 7,sarawak7  #8bush-souls1'    
7,calabar7 naguals1 7,central ,america7 
manitus 787 as  among the ,algonquins1  
,yunbeai in some ,australian dialects1  
and so  forth4#d ,i myself here use     
#8totem' only of the object which lends 
its  name1 hereditarily1 to a group of  
kin4    ,,proposed ,,restriction ,,of   
,,the ,,use ,,of ,,the ,,word #8,,totem'
    ,this restriction ,i make1 not for  
the purpose of simplifying the problem  
of totemism by disregarding #8the       
individual totem1' #8the sex totem1'    
and so on1 but because ,i understand    

that savages everywhere use one  word   
for their hereditary kin totem1 and     
other words for the plant or  animal    
protectors of individuals1 of magical   
societies1 and so forth4  ,the true     
totem is a plant or animal or other     
thing1 the hereditary  friend and       
ally--of the kin--but all plant or      
animal allies of  individuals or of     
magical societies are not totems4       
,though the attitude  of a private      
person to his nagual1 or of a magical   
society to its  protective animal1 may  
often closely resemble the attitude of  
the group  to its hereditary totem1     
still1 the origin of this attitude of   
respect  may be different in each case4 
,this is obvious1 for the individual or 
society deliberately adopts an  animal  
protector and friend1 usually suggested 
in a dream1 after a  fast1 whereas we   
can scarcely conceive that the totem was
 deliberately  adopted by the first     
members of the first totem groups4      
,savages look  on animals as            

personalities like themselves1 but more 
powerful1 gifted  with more wakan1 or   
mana1 or cosmic rapport3 each man1      
therefore1  and each organised magical  
society1 looks out for1 and1 for some   
reason  of dream or divination1 adopts1 
a special animal friend4 ,but it is     
hard to believe that the members of a   
primeval human group of unknown         
antiquity1 consciously and deliberately 
made a compact to adopt1 and  for ever  
be faithful to--this or that plant1     
animal1 element1 or the  like--to be    
inherited in the female line4 ,for1 on  
this plan1 the group1  say ,wolves1     
instantly loses the totem it has        
adopted4    ,we cannot prove that it was
 not so1 that a primitive group of      
rudimentary human beings did not make a 
covenant with ,bear1 or ,wolf1  as      
,israel did with ,jehovah1 and as an    
individual savage does with his         
nyarong1 or nagual1 or manitu4 ,this    
covenant1 if made and kept by  each     
group1 would be the ,origin of          

,totemism4 ,but1 with female descent1   
the covenant could not be kept4 ,i am   
not certain that this theory1  involving
 joint and deliberate selection and     
retention of a totem1 by  a primeval    
human group1 has ever been maintained1  
unless it be by ,mr4  ,jevons4 #8,the   
primary object of a totem alliance      
between a human kin and  an animal kind 
is to obtain a supernatural ally against
 supernatural  foes4'#e ,the term       
#8supernatural' seems here out of       
place--both the  animal kind and the    
human kin being natural2 and one has a  
difficulty  in conceiving that very     
early groups of kin would make1 and     
would  adhere to1 such alliances4       
,indeed1 how could they adhere to their 
totems1 when these descended through    
women of alien totem groups8 ,but  there
 seems to be nothing otherwise          
impossible or self-contradictory in     
this theory2 nor can it be disproved1   
for lack of evidence4 ,only such        
theories as are self-contradictory1 or  

inconsistent with the known and         
admitted facts of the case1 are capable 
of absolute disproof4    ,it may1 of    
course1 be objected here that1 though   
totems1 in actual  savage society1      
descend sometimes in the female line1   
still1 descent  in the male line may be 
the original rule2 and that thus a      
group1  like an individual1 could seek1 
make a covenant with1 and cleave to  a  
grub1 or frog1 or lizard1 as a          
supernatural ally4 ,but1 for reasons    
already indicated1 in an earlier part of
 this work1 ,i conceive that1           
originally1 totems descended in the     
female line only4 ,one reason for  this 
opinion is that1 as soon as descent of  
the totem comes by the  male line1 a    
distinct step in the upward movement    
towards civilisation  and a settled life
 is made4 ,it is not very probable that 
the backward  step1 from reckoning by   
male lineage to descent in the female   
line1  has often been taken4 ,on the    
other hand1 tribes which now inherit the

  totem in the male line1 exhibit in    
their institutions many survivals of    
female descent4 ,an instance is that of 
the ,mandans1 as recorded by ,mr4       
,dorsey4#f ,among the ,melanesians1     
where female descent still exists1      
there is at work the most obvious       
tendency towards descent through  males1
 as ,dr4 ,codrington proves in an       
excellent work on that people4  ,dr4    
,durkheim1 too1 has pointed out the     
traces of uterine descent among  the    
,arunta1 who now reckon in the male     
line4#g ,on the other hand1  where we   
find descent in the male line1 ,i am not
 aware that we discover  signs of       
movement in the opposite direction4 ,in 
this opinion that1 as  a general rule1  
descent was reckoned in the female1 not 
the male line1  originally1 ,i have the 
support of ,mr4 ,e4 ,b4 ,tylor4#h ,for  
these reasons  the hypothesis of the    
selection of and covenant with a        
#8supernatural  ally1' plant or animal1 
by the deliberate joint action of an    

early  group1 at a given moment1        
involving staunch adherence to the      
original  resolution1 rather strains    
belief2 and a suggestion perhaps more   
plausible will be offered later4        
,,the ,,word #8,,totem'    ,as to the   
precise original meaning and form of the
 word usually written  #8totem'--whether
 it should be #8totam1' or #8toodaim1'  
or #8dodaim1' or  #8ododam1' or #8ote1' 
philologists may dispute4#i ,they may   
question  whether the word means        
#8mark1' or #8family1' or #8tribe1' or  
clay for  painting the family mark4#aj  
,when we here use the word #8totem' we  
mean1 at all events1 the object which   
gives its name to a group of  savage    
kindred1 who may not marry within this  
hereditary name4 ,in place  of #8totem' 
we might use the equivalent murdu of the
 ,dieri1 or gaura of  the               
,kunundaburi4#aa      ,,the ,,totem     
#8,,cult'    ,the #8cult1' if it        
deserves to be called a #8cult1' of the 
totem1 among  savages1 is not confined  

to abstention from marriage within the  
name4  ,each kin usually abstains from  
killing1 eating1 or in any way using    
its totem 7except in occasional         
ceremonies1 religious or magical71  is  
apt to claim i descent from or kindred  
with it1 or alternations  of            
metamorphosis into or out of it1 and    
sometimes uses its effigy on  memorial  
pillars1 on posts carved with a kind of 
genealogical tree1 or  tattoos or paints
 or scarifies it on the skin--in        
different cases and  places4    ,to what
 extent the blood-feud is taken up by   
all members of the slain  man's totem1  
,i am not fully aware3 it varies in     
different regions4 ,the  eating or      
slaying of the totem1 by a person of the
 totem name1 is in  places believed to  
be punished by disease or death1 a point
 which the  late ,mr4 ,j4 ,j4 ,atkinson 
observed among the natives of ,new      
,caledonia  7,,ms4 penes me74 ,mr4      
,atkinson happened to be conversing with
 some  natives on questions of          

anthropology1 when his servant brought  
in a  lizard which he had killed4 ,on   
this one of the natives exhibited great 
distress1 saying1 #8,why have you killed
 my father8 we were talking of my       
father1 and he came to us' ,the son 7his
 name was ,jericha7 then wrapped  the   
dead lizard up in leaves1 and reverently
 laid the body in the bush4  ,this was  
not a case like that of the ,zulu       
,idhlozi1 the serpents  that haunt      
houses1 and are believed to be the      
vehicles of the souls  of dead kinsfolk4
 ,the other natives present had for     
their #8father1'  one1 a mouse1 the     
other a pigeon1 and so on4 ,if any one  
ate his animal  #8father1' sores broke  
out on him1 and ,mr4 ,atkinson was shown
 a woman  thus afflicted1 for having    
eaten her #8father4' ,but ,i do not     
find1 in  his papers1 that a man with a 
mouse for father might not marry a woman
  of the mouse set1 nor have ,i         
elsewhere been able to ascertain what is
  ,new-,caledonian practice on this     

point4#ab ,when ,mr4 ,atkinson made     
these observations 7#ahgd71 he had only 
heard of totems in the novels of        
,cooper and other romancers4            
#8,,totem ,,gods'    ,this example is   
here cited because1 as far as ,i am     
aware1 no other  anthropologist has     
observed this amount of ,totemism in    
,new ,caledonia4  ,students are divided 
into those who have a bias in favour of 
finding  totemism everywhere2 and those 
who aver1 with unconcealed delight1     
that in this or the other place there   
are no totems4 ,such negative           
statements must always be received with 
caution4 ,an ,european may live  long   
among savages before he really knows    
them2 and1 without possessing  totemism 
in full measure1 many races retain      
obvious fragments of the  institution4  
,mr4 ,tylor has censured the use of the 
terms #8totems' and #8totem clans'  with
 respect to the ,fijians and ,samoans1  
where certain animals1 not  to be eaten1
 are believed to be vehicles or shrines 

of certain gods4  ,it is a very probable
 conjecture 7so probable1 ,i think1 as  
almost to  amount to a certainty71 that 
the creatures which are now the shrines 
of ,fijian or ,samoan gods of the       
family1 or of higher gods1 were once    
totems in an earlier stage of ,samoan   
and ,fijian society and belief4 ,as  ,i 
have said elsewhere1 #8in totemistic    
countries the totem is respected        
himself2 in ,samoa the animal is        
worshipful because a god abides within  
him4 ,this appears to be a theory by    
which the reflective ,samoans have      
explained to themselves what was once   
pure ,totemism4'#ac ,but ,i must  share 
in ,mr4 ,tylor's protest against using  
the name of #8totem' for a  plant or    
animal which is regarded as the shrine  
of a god4 ,such thorough  totemists as  
some of the ,north ,american ,indians1  
or the ,australians1 do  not explain    
their totems as the shrines of gods1 for
 they have no such  gods to serve as    
explanations4 ,that myth appears to be  

the ,samoan or  ,fijian way of          
accounting for the existence of         
worshipful and friendly  plants and     
animals4    ,thus1 at all events1 and   
unluckily1 the phrase #8the totem-god'  
is  introduced into our speculations1   
and the cult of the #8totem-god' is     
confused with the much more limited     
respect paid by savages to actual       
totems4 ,however attractive the theory  
of #8the totem-god' may be1 we  cannot  
speak of #8totems' where a god incarnate
 in a plant or animal is  concerned4    
,such a deity may be a modified survival
 of ,totemism1 but a  totem he is not4  
,moreover1 it is hardly safe to say     
that1 in the ,samoan  case1 the god is  
#8developed from a totem2' we only know 
that the god  has got into suspiciously 
totemistic society4 ,on the whole1 we   
cannot  be too cautious in speaking of  
totems and ,totemism3 and we must be    
specially careful not to exaggerate the 
more or less religious respect  with    
which totems are1 in many cases1        

regarded4 ,the ,australians1 as  far as 
they have the idea of a creative being1 
,baiame1 ,nooreli1 and so  forth1 do not
 regard their totems as shrines or      
incarnations of him4  ,that appears to  
be the speculation of peoples who1      
probably by way of  animism1 and        
ancestor-worship1 are already in the    
stage of polytheism4  ,totems1 in their 
earliest known stage1 have very little  
to do with  religion1 and probably1 in  
origin1 had nothing really religious    
about  them4    ,,savage ,,speculations 
,,as ,,to ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,totemism
    ,peoples who are still in the       
totemistic stage1 as we have seen1 know 
nothing about the beginnings of the     
institution4 ,all that they tell  the   
civilised inquirers is no more than the 
myth handed down by their  own          
tradition4 ,thus the ,dieri or ,dieyrie1
 in ,australia1 say that the  totems    
were appointed by the ancestors1 for the
 purpose of regulating  marriages1 after
 consultation with ,mura ,mura1 or with 

#8the' ,muramura4  ,the ,woeworung1     
according to ,mr4 ,howitt1 have a       
similar legend4#ad  ,it is not necessary
 here to ask whether ,mura ,mura is     
#8the ,supreme  ,being' 7,gason1        
,howitt71 or #8ancestral spirits'       
7,fison74#ae ,the most  common savage   
myth is of the ,darwinian variety1 each 
totem kin is  descended from1 or evolved
 out of1 the plant or animal type which 
supplies its totem4 ,again1 as in fairy 
tales1 a woman gave birth to  animals1  
whence the totem kins derive their      
descent4 ,in ,north-,west  ,america1    
totems are often accounted for by myths 
of ancestral heroes4  #8,the ,tlingit'  
7,thlinket7 #8hold that souls of        
ancestors are reborn in  children1 that 
a man will be reborn as a man1 a wolf as
 a wolf1 a raven  as a raven4'          
,nevertheless1 the totems are regarded  
as #8relatives and  protectors1' and it 
is explained that1 in the past1 a human 
ancestor  had an adventure with this or 
that animal1 whence he assumed his totem

  armorial bearings4#af ,in precisely   
the same way a myth1 a very late  myth1 
was invented1 about the adventure of a  
,stewart with a lion1 to  account for   
the ,lyon of the ,stewarts4#ag ,the     
,haidas and ,thlinkets1  believing as   
they do that human souls are reborn     
human1 cannot hold  that a bestial soul 
animates a man1 say1 of the ,raven      
totem4    ,the ,arunta1 on the other    
hand1 suppose that the souls of animals 
which evolved into human beings1 are    
reincarnated in each child born  to the 
tribe4 #8,two clans of ,western         
,australia1 who are named after a  small
 opossum and a little fish1 think that  
they are so called because  they used to
 live chiefly on these creatures4'#ah   
,this myth has some  support in modern  
opinion3 the kins1 it is argued1        
received their  totem names from the    
animals and plants which mainly formed  
their  food supply2 though now their    
totems are seldom eaten by them4 ,these 
legends1 and others1 are clearly        

tiological myths1 like the ,samoan      
hypothesis that gods are incarnate in   
the totems4 ,the myths merely try  to   
explain the original connection between 
men and totems1 and are  constructed on 
the lines of savage ideas about the     
relations of all  things in the         
universe1 all alike being personal1 and 
rational1 and  capable of interbreeding1
 and of shape-shifting4 ,certain        
,kalamantans  of ,sarawak will not eat a
 species of deer1 because #8an ancestor 
became  a deer of this kind4'#ai ,all   
such fables1 of course1 are valueless as
  history2 and1 in the savage state of  
the intellect1 such myths were          
inevitable4    ,,modern ,,theories      
,mr4 ,mc,lennan himself at first had a  
theory1 which1 as far as ,i heard  him  
speak of it1 was more or less akin to my
 own4 ,but he abandoned  it1 says his   
brother1 ,mr4 ,daniel ,mc,lennan1 for   
reasons that to him  appeared           
conclusive4 ,i ought to mention that    
,mr4 ,a4 ,h4 ,keane informed  me1       

several years ago1 that he had          
independently evolved a theory akin  to 
mine1 of which1 as it then stood1 ,i had
 published some hint4 7,for a  statement
 of ,mr4 ,keane's theory see our        
,preface47 ,in #ahhdbj ,i wrote1        
#8,people united by contiguity1 and by  
the blind sentiment of kinship  not yet 
brought into explicit consciousness1    
might mark themselves by  a badge1 and  
might thence derive a name1 and1 later1 
might invent a  myth of their descent   
from the object which the badge         
represented4' ,but  why should such     
people mark themselves by a badge1 and  
why1 if they  did1 should the mark be1  
not a decorative or symbolic pattern1   
but the  representation of a plant or   
animal8 ,these questions ,i cannot      
answer1  and my present guess is not    
identical with that of #ahhd4           
,meanwhile let us keep one point        
steadily before our minds4 ,totemism1   
at a first glance1 seems a perfectly    
crazy and irrational set of  beliefs1   

and we might think1 with ,dr4 ,johnson1 
that there is no use in  looking for    
reason among the freaks of irrational   
people4 ,but man is  never irrational4  
,his reason for doing this1 or believing
 that1 may  seem a bad reason to us1 but
 a reason he always had for his creeds  
and conduct1 and he had a reason for his
 totem belief1 a reason in  congruity   
with his limited knowledge of facts1 and
 with his theory  of the universe4 ,for 
all things he wanted an explanation4    
,now what  he wanted a reason for1 in   
,totemism1 was the nature and origin of 
the connection between his own and the  
neighbouring groups1 and the  plant or  
animal names which they bore4 ,messrs4  
,spencer and ,gillen  write1 #8what gave
 rise1 in the first instance1 to the    
association of  particular men with     
particular animals and plants1 it is    
impossible  to say4' ,but it is not     
impossible to guess1 with more or less  
of  probability4 ,the connection once   
established1 savages guessed at  its    

origin3 their guesses1 as always1 were  
myths1 and were of every  conceivable   
kind4 ,the myth of descent from or      
kinship with the animal  or plant1 the  
,darwinian myth1 does not stand alone4  
,every sort of myth  was fashioned1 was 
believed1 and influenced conduct4 ,our  
business is to  form our own guess as to
 the original connection between men and
 their  totems3 a guess which shall be  
consistent with human nature4    ,,mr4  
,,max ,m,,ller',s ,,theory    ,many such
 guesses by civilised philosophers      
exist4 ,we need not dwell  long on that 
of ,mr4 ,max ,mller1 akin1 as it is1 to 
my own early  conjecture1 #8a totem is a
 clan mark1 then a clan name1 then the  
name of  the ancestor of the clan1 and  
lastly the name of something worshipped 
by the clan4'#ba ,we need not dwell on  
this1 because the kind of  #8clan mark' 
on a pillar outside of the quarters of  
the clan1 in a  village1 is peculiar to 
,north ,america1 and to people dwelling 
in fixed  settlements4 ,among the       

nomadic ,australians1 we have totemism  
without  the settlements1 without the   
totem pillar1 without the #8clan mark1' 
on  the pillar1 which1 thus1 cannot be  
the first step in ,totemism4 ,again1    
the #8clan name1' or group name1 must be
 earlier than the #8clan mark1'  which  
merely expresses it1 just as my name is 
prior to my visiting  card1 or as the   
name of an inn1 #8,the ,red ,lion1' is  
prior to the sign  representing that    
animal4 ,obviously we have to ask first1
 whence comes  the clan name1 or group  
name8    ,,the ,,theory ,,of ,,mr4      
,,herbert ,,spencer    ,in a passage on 
animal-worship1 ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer  
7unless ,i  misconceive him7 advances a 
theory of the origin of ,totemism4      
,true1 he  does not here speak of       
totems1 but he suggests an hypothesis to
 explain  why certain stocks claim      
descent from animals1 and why these     
animals  are treated by them with more  
or less of religious regard4 ,actual    
men1  in savagery1 are often called by  

#8animal nicknames1' and we cannot be   
surprised if the savage 444 gets the    
idea that an ancestor named #8the       
tiger' was an actual tiger 444          
,inevitably1 then1 he grows up believing
  that his father descended from a      
tiger--thinking of himself as one of    
the tiger stock4#bb    ,it were         
superfluous to dwell on this theory4    
,totem names are group  names2 and1 as  
they occur where group names are derived
 from the  mother1 they cannot have     
originated in the animal nicknames of   
individual dead grandfathers4 ,the names
 of the dead are usually tabued  and    
forgotten2 but that is of no great      
moment4 ,the point is that such  group  
names are derived through mothers1 in   
the first instance1 not  through male   
founders of families4#bc    ,no theory  
which starts from an individual male    
ancestor1 and his name  bequeathed to   
his descendants1 can be correct4 ,that  
,mr4 ,spencer's does  start in this way 
may be inferred from the following text3

 #8commonly  the names of the clans     
which are forbidden to intermarry1 such 
as ,wolf1  ,bear1 ,eagle1 ,whale1 c41   
are names given to men1 implying1 as ,i 
have  before contended 7#agj-agc71      
descent from distinguished male         
ancestors  bearing those names--descent 
which1 notwithstanding the system of    
female kinship1 was remembered when     
there was pride in the connection4'     
,a brief-lived joy in the name of which 
the male ancestor's descendants  were   
proud1 left them1 in the second         
generation1 under exogamy and  female   
kin4 ,thus my father was nicknamed      
#8,tiger4' ,proud of the title1  ,i call
 myself ,tiger4 ,but ,i must marry a    
woman who is ,not-,tiger1 and my        
offspring are ,not-,tigers4 ,my honour  
hath departed6    ,,mr4 ,,frazer',s     
,,theories    ,the hypotheses of ,mr4   
,j4 ,g4 ,frazer are purely provisional4 
,he starts  from the idea1 so common in 
,mrchen1 of the person whose #8soul1'   
#8life1' or #8strength' is secretly     

hidden in an animal1 plant1 or other    
object4 ,the owner of the soul wraps the
 #8soul-box' up in a mystery1  it is the
 central secret of his existence1 for he
 may be slain by  any one who can       
discover and destroy his #8soul-box4'   
,next ,mr4 ,frazer  offers many cases of
 this actual belief and practice among  
savage and  barbarous peoples2 and1 as a
 freak or survival1 the idea is found   
even  among the civilised4 ,we meet the 
superstition in the ,melanesian group   
of islands 7where ,totemism is all but  
extinct71 and perhaps among  the ,zulus1
 with their serpent ,idhlozi1 whose life
 is associated with  their own4 ,mr4    
,atkinson's ,new-,caledonians1 however1 
did not think  that death inflicted on  
their animal #8fathers' involved danger 
to  themselves1 though it distressed    
them1 as an outrage to sentiment4  ,then
 we have the #8bush-souls' 7one soul out
 of four in the possession  of each     
individual71 among the natives of       
,calabar4 ,these souls1 ,miss  ,kingsley

 wrote1 are never in plants1 but always 
in wild beasts1 and  are recognisable   
only by second-sighted men4 ,the        
#8bush-soul' of a man  is often that of 
his sons3 the daughters often inherit   
the mother's  #8bush-soul3' or children 
of both sexes may take the bush-soul of 
either  father or mother4 ,the natives  
will not injure their bush-soul beasts4 
,nothing is known as to prohibition of  
marriage between persons of the  same   
bush-soul4 ,here we have really         
something akin to the totem1 the        
bush-souls being hereditary1 at least   
for one generation4 ,but this is  among 
a house-dwelling1 agricultural people1  
far above the state of  real savagery3  
not among a #8primitive' people4    ,the
 ,zapotecs of ,central ,america1 again1 
choose1 by a method of  divination1 #8a 
tona or second self1' an animal1 for    
each child1 at  its birth4 ,it is1 by   
the nature of the case1 not hereditable4
 ,the  nagual1 usually a beast1 of each 
,indian of ,guatemala is well known2    

and is discovered1 on the monition of a 
dream1 by each individual4  ,therefore  
it cannot be hereditable4 ,the sexes1 in
 ,australia1 have each  a friendly and  
protecting species of animal2 say a ,bat
 for all men1  a ,nightjar for all      
women3 indeed1 in ,australia1 all the   
elements of  nature have their place in 
the cosmic tribe4 ,to injure the animal 
of  either sex1 is to injure one of the 
sex4 ,there is no secret about the      
matter4    ,mr4 ,frazer then argues1    
#8the explanation which holds good of   
the one'  7say #8the sex totem1' or     
#8personal totem'71 #8ought equally to  
hold good  of the other' 7the group     
totem74 #8,therefore1 the reason why a  
tribe'  7,i venture to prefer #8group1' 
or #8kin1' as there are many totems in  
each #8tribe'7 #8revere a particular    
species of animals or plants 444 and    
call themselves after it1 would seem to 
be a belief that the life of  each      
individual of the tribe is bound up with
 some one plant or animal  of the       

species1 and that his or her death would
 be the consequence of  killing that    
particular animal or destroying that    
particular plant4'  ,mr4 ,frazer thinks 
that #8this explanation squares well'   
with ,sir ,george  ,grey's description  
of a ,kobong or totem in ,western       
,australia4 ,there1  a native gives his 
totem #8a fair show' before killing it1 
always  affording it a chance of escape1
 and never killing it in its sleep4  ,he
 only does not shoot his kindred animal 
sitting1 and his plant  he only spares  
#8in certain circumstances1 and at a    
particular period  of the year4' ,mr4   
,frazer writes that as the man does not 
know which  individual of the species of
 plant or animal #8is specially dear to 
him1  he is obliged to spare them all1  
for fear of injuring the dear one4'     
,but the man1 it seems from ,grey's     
account1 does not #8spare' any of  them2
 he kills or plucks them1               
#8reluctantly1' and in a sportsmanlike  
manner1 #8never without affording them a

 chance of escape4' ,in a case of  ,sir 
,george ,grey's1 the killing of a crow  
hastened the death of a man of  the     
,crow totem1 who had been ailing for    
some days4 ,but the ,australians  do not
 think that to kill a man's totem is to 
kill the man4 ,somebody's  totem is     
killed whenever any animal is slain4    
,mr4 ,frazer now finds that  the        
,battas1 for example1 #8do not in set   
terms affirm their external  soul to be 
in their totems1' and ,i am not aware   
that any totemists do  make this        
assertion4 ,they freely offer all other 
sorts of mythical  explanations as to   
what their totems originally were1 as to
 the origin  of their connection with   
their totems1 but never say that their  
totems  are their #8soul-boxes4'    ,mr4
 ,frazer has an answer to this          
objection4 #8,how close must be the     
concealment1 how impenetrable the       
reserve in which he' 7the savage7       
#8hides the inner keep and citadel of   
his being4' ,the ,giant1 in the         

,mrchen1 tries to keep the secret of his
 #8soul-box1' much more  then does #8the
 timid and furtive savage4' #8,no       
inducement that can be  offered is      
likely to tempt him to imperil his soul 
by revealing its  hiding-place to a     
stranger4 ,it is1 therefore1 no matter  
for surprise  that the central mystery  
of the savaged life should so long have 
remained a secret1 and that we should be
 left to piece it together from         
scattered hints and fragments1 and from 
the recollections of it which  linger in
 fairy tales4'    ,on reflection1 we    
cannot but see the flaw in this         
reasoning4 ,no savage  has revealed to  
,european inquirers that his totem is   
his #8soul-box4'  ,but every other      
savage knows his fatal secret4 ,every   
savage1 well  aware that his own totem  
is the hiding-place of his soul1 knows  
that  the totems of his enemies are the 
hiding-places of their souls4  ,he wants
 to kill his enemies1 and he has an easy
 mode of doing so1  to shoot down every 

specimen of their totems4 ,his enemies  
will then  die1 when he is lucky enough 
to destroy their #8soul-boxes4' ,now ,i 
am  not aware1 in the destructive magic 
of savages1 of a single case in  which a
 totem is slain1 or tortured for the    
purpose of slaying or  torturing a man  
of that totem4 ,all other sorts of      
sympathetic magic  are practised1 but   
where is the evidence for that sort1    
which ought to  be of considerable      
diffusion8#bd ,the supposed #8secret' of
 savage life  is no secret to other     
savages4 ,each tells any inquirer what  
his #8clay'  or totem is4 ,he blazons   
his totem proudly4 ,the nearest approach
 to  invidious action1 against a totem1 
with which ,i am acquainted1 is the     
killing by the ,kurnai women1 of the    
men's #8sex totem1' when the young  men 
are backward wooers4 ,the purpose is to 
produce a fight between lads  and       
lasses1 a rude form of flirtation1 after
 which engagements1 or  elopements1 are 
apt to follow4#be    ,mr4 ,frazer       

tentatively suggests another1 a rival or
 a subsidiary  solution of the problem1 
to which reference has already been     
made4  ,among the ,arunta and other     
tribes1 #8the totemic system has a much 
wider  scope1 its aim being to provide  
the community with a supply of food  and
 all other necessaries by means of      
certain magical ceremonies1 the         
performance of which is distributed     
among the various totem groups4'  ,that 
is to say1 these totemic magical        
ceremonies now exist for  the purpose of
 propagating1 as part of the food       
supply1 animals or  vegetables1 which1  
by the former theory1 were the secret   
receptacles of  the lives of the        
tribesmen4 ,to kill and eat these sacred
 receptacles  would endanger the lives  
of the tribesmen1 but to risk that is   
quite  in accordance with the practical 
turn of the ,arunta mind4 ,mr4 ,frazer  
has1 however1 suggested a possible      
method of reconciling his earlier       
hypothesis--that a totem was a          

soul-box--with his later theory1  that  
the primal object of totem groups was to
 breed their totems for  food4#bf       
,mr4 ,frazer observes1 #8,it is not as  
yet clear how far the particular  theory
 of ,totemism suggested by the ,central 
,australian system is of  general       
application1 and 444 in the uncertainty 
which still hangs over  the origin and  
meaning of ,totemism1 it seems scarcely 
worth while to  patch up an old theory  
which the next new facts may perhaps    
entirely  demolish4' ,he then cites the 
,arunta belief that their ancestors of  
#8the dream time' 7who were men evolved 
out of animals or plants1 these  objects
 being their totems7 kept their souls   
7like the ,giant of the  fairy tale7 in 
stone churingas 7a kind of amulets7     
which they hung on  poles when they went
 out hunting4 ,we have thus a           
va-et-vient between  each man1 and the  
spirit of the plant or animal out of    
which he1 or his  human ancestor1 was   
evolved4 ,that spirit 7in origin the    

spirit of an  animal or plant7 is now   
handed down with the stone churinga1 and
 is  reincarnated in each child1 who is 
thus1 an incarnation of the original    
totem4 ,such is the ,arunta theory1 and 
thus each living ,arunta is the  totem's
 soul-box1 while1 to savage reasoners1  
the totem soul may1  perhaps1 seem also 
to tenant simultaneously each plant or  
animal of its  species4    ,this is a   
theory of ,totemism2#bg but1 so far1 we 
only know the facts  on which it is     
based among one extraordinary tribe of  
anomalous  development4 ,we have still  
to ask1 what was the original connection
 of  the men with the plants and        
animals1 which the ,arunta explain by   
their  myth8 ,was that connection       
originally one of magic-working1 by each
  group1 for its totem species1 and1 if 
so1 why or how did the groups  first    
select their plants and animals8 ,mr4   
,haddon's theory1 presently  to be      
criticised1 may elucidate that point of 
departure4      ,,suggestion ,,of ,,mr4 

,n4 ,w4 ,,thomas    ,as ,i am writing1 a
 theory1 or suggestion1 by ,mr4 ,n4 ,w4 
,thomas appears  in ,man 7#aijb1 ,no4   
#he74 ,mr4 ,thomas begins with the      
spirit which dwells  in an ,african     
fetich1 and becomes the servant of its  
owner4 ,the magical  apparatus #8may be 
a bag of skin containing parts of       
various animals4  ,such an animal may be
 the familiar of the owner1 his         
messenger1 or  an evil spirit that      
possesses him2' similar beliefs are held
 about  the wer-wolf4 ,now the          
,american-,indian has his #8medicine    
bag4' #8,the  contents are the skin1    
feathers1 or other part of the totem    
animal4'    ,distinguo3 they are parts1 
not of the #8totem animal1' but of the  
adopted animal of the individual1 often 
called his manitu4 ,if we say  #8the    
totem animal1' we beg the question2 we  
identify the totem with  the manitu of  
the individual4 ,it may be true1 as ,mr4
 ,thomas says1  that #8the basis of     
individual ,totemism seems to be the    

same as that  of fetishism1' but ,i am  
not discussing #8individual ,totemism1' 
but real  group ,totemism4 ,mr4 ,thomas 
also is clear on this point1 but1       
turning to  ,australia1 he says that    
#8the individual totem seems to be      
confined to  the medicine-man4' ,from   
information by ,mrs4 ,langloh ,parker1  
,i doubt the  truth of this idea4 ,a    
confessedly vague reminiscence of ,mr4  
,rusden does  not help us4 ,speaking of 
an extinct tribe on the ,hunter ,river1 
,n4,s4,w41  he says that he #8does not  
recollect all their class divisions1    
,yippai'  7,ippai71 #8and ,kombo'       
7,kumbo74 #8,apropos of the generic     
names' 7whatever  these may be7 #8the   
,geawe-gal had a superstition that every
 one had  within himself an affinity to 
the spirit of some beast1 bird1 or      
reptile4 ,not that he sprang from the   
creature in any way' 7as is a  common   
totemic myth71 #8but that the spirit    
which was in him was akin  to that of   
the creature4' ,this is vague4 ,mr4     

,rusden does not say that  his native   
informant said1 that the #8spirit' was  
the man's totem in  each case4#bh ,but  
,mr4 ,thomas1 on this evidence1 writes3 
#8,this belief  suggests that the       
interpretation suggested for individual 
,totemism  can also be applied to clan  
,totemism1' apparently because1 among   
the  extinct tribe1 not only sorcerers1 
but1 in this case1 every one was the    
receptacle of an animal 7not a plant7   
spirit4 ,but obviously the animal       
spirits of the ,geawe-gal may be the    
spirits--not of their group totems1  if 
they had any--but of their individual   
manitus1 which we do not  know to be    
confined to sorcerers4 ,every one is a  
sorcerer1 better or  worse1 in a society
 where every one works magic4    ,next1 
the wer-wolf has a way of returning #8to
 look at' 7to eat1 ,i  think7 the body  
of his victim4 ,now in ,north           
,queensland1 as in ,scotland1  the body 
of a dead man is surrounded with dust or
 ashes 7flour in  ,scotland71 and the   

dust is inspected1 to find the tracks of
 some bird  or animal4#bi ,from such    
marks1 if any1 #8the totem of the       
malefactor is  inferred4' ,the          
malefactor is the person who1 by the    
usual superstition1  is thought         
magically to have caused the death of   
the tribesman4 #8,these  facts seem best
 interpreted if we suppose that in      
,north ,queensland  the sorcerer is     
believed to return in animal form1 and  
that the form  is that of his totem1 for
 in no other way does it seem possible  
to  identify the man's totem by         
observing the footsteps4'    ,is the    
man's group totem meant8 ,if so1 the    
process could not  identify #8the       
malefactor1' there are hundreds of men  
of his totem4  ,is his manitu or        
#8individual totem' meant8 ,then the    
process might  be successful1 but has no
 concern with the origin of hereditary  
kin-,totemism4 ,indeed ,mr4 ,thomas     
#8leaves the applicability of the theory
  to group ,totemism for subsequent     

consideration4' ,we shall show--indeed1 
in ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's case we have
 shown--the difficulty of deriving      
kin-,totemism from the manitu1 or       
#8obsessing spirit' if ,mr4 ,thomas     
pleases1 of the individual4 ,this point1
 as is said1 ,mr4 ,thomas reserves  for 
later consideration4      ,,dr4         
,,wilken',s ,,theory    ,we now come to 
a theory which exists in many shapes1   
but in all is  vitiated1 ,i think1 by   
the same error of reasoning4 ,mr4       
,tylor1 however1  has lent at least a   
modified approval to the hypothesis as  
mooted by  the late ,dutch              
anthropologist1 ,dr4 ,wilken1 of        
,leyden4 ,mr4 ,tylor writes1  #8if it   
does not completely solve the totem     
problem1 at any rate it  seems to mark  
out its main lines4' ,unluckily the     
hypothesis of ,dr4  ,wilken is perhaps  
the least probable of all4 ,the         
materials are found1  not in a race so  
comparatively early as the ,australians 
or ,adamanese1  but among the settled   

peoples of ,malay1 ,sumatra1 and        
,melanesia4 ,by  them1 in their ,tables 
of ,precedence1 #8the ,crocodile is     
regarded as  equal in rank to the ,dutch
 ,resident4' ,crocodiles are looked on  
as near  kinsmen of men1 who1 when they 
die1 expect to become crocodiles4 ,to   
kill crocodiles is murder4 #8,so it is  
with tigers1 whom the ,sumatrans        
worship and call ancestors4'    ,mr4    
,tylor observes1 #8,wilken sees in this 
transmigration of souls  the link which 
connects ,totemism with                 
ancestor-worship1' and thinks  that ,dr4
 ,codrington's remarks on ,melanesian   
ways add weight to this  opinion4 ,in   
,melanesia1 as ,dr4 ,codrington reports1
 an influential man1  before his death1 
will lay a ban1 or tabu1 on something1  
say a banana1  or a pig4 ,he says that  
he #8will be in' a shark1 a banana1 a   
bird1 a  butterfly1 or what not4 ,dr4   
,codrington's informant1 ,mr4 ,sleigh of
 ,lifu1  says #8that creature would be  
sacred to his family1' they would call  

it #8papa1' and #8offer it a young      
cocoa-nut4' #8,but they did not adopt   
thus the name of a tribe4' ,the children
 of papa1 who chose to be a  butterfly  
7like ,mr4 ,thomas ,haynes ,bailey7 do  
not call themselves #8,the              
,butterflies1' nor does the butterfly   
name mark their exogamous limit4  ,mr4  
,tylor concludes1 #8an ancestor1 having 
lineal descendants among men  and       
sharks1 or men and owls1 is thus the    
founder of a totem family1  which mere  
increase may convert into a totem clan1 
already provided  with its animal name4'
 ,this conclusion is tentative1 and put 
forth with  ,mr4 ,tylor's usual caution4
 ,but1 as a matter of fact1 no totem kin
 is  actually founded thus1 for example1
 in ,melanesia4 ,the institutions  of   
that region1 as we are to show1 really  
illustrate the way out of1  not the way 
into1 ,totemism4 ,moreover the theory1  
as expressed by  ,mr4 ,tylor in the     
words cited1 must be deemed unfortunate 
because it  takes for granted that #8the

 ,patriarchal theory' of the origin of  
the  so-called #8clan1' or totem group1 
is correct4 ,a male ancestor founds  a  
family1 which swells1 #8by natural      
increase1' into a #8clan4' ,the         
ancestor is worshipped under the name of
 ,butterfly1 his descendants1  the clan 
founded by him1 are named ,butterflies4 
,but all this can only  happen where    
male ancestors are remembered1 and are  
worshipped1 where  descent is reckoned  
in the male line1 and where1 as among   
ourselves1 a  remembered male ancestor  
founds a ,house1 as ,tam o' the ,cowgate
 founded  the ,house of ,haddington4 ,in
 short ,dr4 ,wilken has slipped back    
into  the ,patriarchal theory4 ,now1    
among totemists like the ,australians1  
ancestors are not remembered1 their     
names are tabued1 they are not          
worshipped1 they do not found families1 
where descent is reckoned in  the female
 line4#cj    ,,miss ,,alice             
,,fletcher',s ,,theory    ,an           
interesting variant of this theory is   

offered1 as regards the ,omaha  tribe of
 ,north ,america1 by ,miss ,alice       
,fletcher1 whose knowledge of the  inner
 mind of that people is no less         
remarkable than her scientific          
caution4#ca ,the conclusion of ,miss    
,fletcher's valuable essay shows1  at a 
glance1 that her hypothesis contains the
 same fundamental error  as that of ,dr4
 ,wilken3 namely1 the totem of the kin  
is derived from  the manitu1 or personal
 friendly object of an individual1 a    
male  ancestor4 ,this cannot1 we repeat1
 hold good for that early stage of      
society which reckons descent in the    
female line1 and in which male          
ancestors do not found houses1 clans1   
names1 or totem kins4    ,the ,omaha    
men1 at puberty1 after prayer and       
fasting1 choose manitus  suggested in   
dreams or visions4 ,miss ,fletcher      
writes1 #8,as totems could  be obtained 
but in one way--through the rite of the 
vision1 the totem  of a gens must have  
come into existence in that manner1 and 

must  have represented the manifestation
 of an ancestor's vision1 that of a  man
 whose ability and opportunity served to
 make him the founder of a  family1 of a
 group of kindred who dwelt together1   
fought together1 and  learned the value 
of united strength4'#cb    ,this        
explanation obviously cannot explain the
 ,origin of ,totemism among  tribes     
where descent is reckoned in the female 
line1 and where no  man becomes #8the   
founder of a family4' ,the ,omaha1 a    
house-dwelling1  agricultural tribe1    
with descent in the male line1 with     
priests1  and departmental gods1 a      
tribe1 too1 among whom the manitu is not
  hereditable1 can give us no line as to
 the origin of ,totemism4 ,miss         
,fletcher's theory demands the          
hereditable character of the individual 
manitu1 and yet it is never inherited4  
,,mr4 ,,hill ,,tout',s ,,theory    ,mr4 
,hill ,tout has evolved a theory out of 
the customs of the aborigines  of       
,british ,columbia1 among whom #8the    

clan totems are a development of  the   
personal or individual totem or tutelar 
spirit4' ,the ,salish tribes1  in fact1 
seek for #8sulia1 or tutelar spirits1'  
and these #8gave rise to  the personal  
totem1' answering to manitu1 nyarong1   
nagual1 and so  forth4 #8,from the      
personal and family crest is but a step 
to the clan  crest4' ,unluckily1 with   
descent in the female line1 the step    
cannot  be taken4 ,mr4 ,hill ,tout takes
 a village-inhabiting tribe1 a tribe of 
village communities1 as one in which    
,totemism is only nascent4 #8,the       
village community apparently formed the 
original unit of organisation4'  ,but   
the ,australians1 who have not come     
within measurable distance of  the      
village community1 have already the     
organisation of the totem kin4          
,interesting as is ,mr4 ,hill ,tout's   
account of the ,salish ,indians1 we     
need not dwell longer on an hypothesis  
which makes village communities  prior  
to the evolution of ,totemism4 ,what he 

means by saying that #8the  gens has    
developed into the clan1' ,i am unable  
to conjecture4 ,the  school of ,major   
,powell use #8gens' of a totem kin with 
male1 #8clan'  of a totem kin with      
female descent4 ,mr4 ,hill ,tout cannot 
mean that  male descent is being        
converted into descent in the female    
line8 ,as he  writes of #8a four-clan   
system1 each clan being made up of      
groups of  gentes1' he may take a       
#8clan' to signify what is usually      
called a  #8phratry4'#cc    ,,messrs4   
,,hose ,,and ,,mcdougall    ,among other
 efforts to show how the hereditary     
totem of a group might  be derived from 
the special animal or plant friend of an
 individual  male1 may be noticed that  
of ,messrs4 ,hose and ,mc,dougall4#cd   
,the  ,ibans1 or ,sea ,dyaks of         
,sarawak1 are probably of ,malay stock1 
and are  #8a very imitative people1' of 
mixed1 inconsistent1 and extravagant    
beliefs4 ,they have a god of            
agriculture1 and1 of course1 are        

therefore  remote from the primitive2   
being rice-farmers4 ,they respect       
nyarongs1  or #8spirit helpers1' though 
,mr4 ,hose lived among them for fourteen
  years without knowing what a nyarong  
is4 #8,it seems usually to be the       
spirit of some ancestor1 or dead        
relative1 but not always so4444' ,the   
spirit first appears to an ,iban in a   
dream1 in human form1 and the  ,iban1 on
 awaking1 looks for the nyarong in any  
casual beast1 or  quartz crystal1 or    
queer root or creeper4 ,so far the      
nyarong is a  fetish4 ,only about two   
per cent1 of men have nyarongs4 ,if the 
thing  be an animal1 the ,iban respects 
the other creatures of the species4     
#8,in some cases the cult of a nyarong  
will spread through a whole  family or  
household4' ,australian individuals have
 also their secret  animal friends1 like
 nyarongs and naguals1 but these are    
never  hereditary4 ,what is hereditary  
is the totem of the group1 which may    
not be altered1 or so seldom that it    

would be hard to find a modern  example3
 though changes of totems may have      
occurred when1 in the  pristine #8treks'
 of the race1 they reached regions of   
new fauna and  flora4    #8,the children
 and grandchildren1' our authors go on1 
#8among the ,ibans1  will usually       
respect the species of animals to which 
a man's nyarong  belongs1 and perhaps   
sacrifice fowls or pigs to it           
occasionally4'  ,of course #8primitive' 
man has no domesticated animals1 and    
does not  sacrifice anything to anybody4
 #8,if the great-grandchildren of a man 
behave well to his nyarong1 it will     
often befriend them just as much  as its
 original protg4' ,it is not readily    
conceivable that1 among  very early men1
 and where the names of the dead are    
tabued1 the wisest  great-grandchild    
knows who his great-grandfather was4    
,still1 though the  great-grandfather   
was forgotten1 his nyarong--it may be   
said--would  be held in perpetual       
memory1 and become the totem of a group4

 ,but this  is not easily to be         
conceded1 because there would be the    
competition  of the nyarongs of each    
generation to crush the ancient nyarong2
  moreover the totem1 in truly primitive
 times1 is not inherited from  fathers1 
but from mothers4    ,our authors say   
that1 in some cases1 #8all the members  
of a man's  family1 and all his         
descendants1 and1 if he be a chief1 all 
the members  of the community over which
 he rules1' may come to share in the    
benefits of his nyarong1 and in its     
rites4 ,but all this of chiefs1 and     
great-grandchildren of a known          
great-grandfather1 all this occurring   
to-day among an imitative and           
agricultural people1 with departmental  
deities1 and domesticated animals1      
cannot give us a line to the origin  of 
,totemism among houseless nomads1 who   
tabu the memory of their dead1  and1 as 
a rule1 probably reckoned descent on the
 female side1 so that  a man could not  
inherit his father's totem4 ,we must try

 to see how  really early men became    
totemic4 ,mr4 ,frazer observes1 #8,it is
 quite  possible that1 as some good     
authorities incline to believe1 the clan
  totem has been developed out of the   
individual totem by inheritance1'  and  
,miss ,alice ,c4 ,fletcher we have cited
 as holding this process to  be probable
 in ,north ,america4#ce ,all such       
theories are based on the  beliefs and  
customs of modern savages advancing1    
like the ,american  ,indians of to-day1 
towards what is technically styled      
#8barbarism4' ,it  was not in the state 
of barbarism1 but in a savagery no      
longer extant1  that totemism was       
evolved4 ,totemism derived from         
inheritance of a  male ancestor's       
special #8spirit-helper' is checked by  
the essential  conditions of people who 
are settled1 agricultural1 and given to 
reckoning descent in the male line4 ,no 
more can be produced1 in such  a state1 
than #8abortive beginnings of           
,totemism4'#cf ,exogamy is never        

reached on these lines1 and ,totemism is
 behind1 not in front of1 all  such     
peoples4 ,totemism arose in the period  
of the group1 not of the                
family-founding male ancestor4          
,messrs4 ,hose and ,mc,dougall1 it is to
 be noted1 do not say that ,totemism  is
 now being developed1 in ,sarawak1 out  
of nyarongs4 ,they only say  that it1   
perhaps1 might be so developed #8in the 
absence of unfavourable  conditions4'   
,if there existed #8prosperous          
families1' each with a  nyarong1 other  
families would dream of nyarongs1 and it
 would  become rather disreputable to   
have none4 #8,so a system of clan totems
  would be established4' ,but male      
kinship1 agriculture1 metal-working1    
chiefship1 and large houses were        
certainly non-existent when ,totemism   
was first evolved4 ,we must not look1 in
 such advanced society1 for  the origin 
of ,totemism4 ,in ,sarawak is a         
houseless nomadic race1 the  ,punans4   
,among them ,totemism has not yet been  

observed1 but they are so  little known1
 that the present negative evidence     
cannot be regarded as  conclusive4 ,mr4 
,hose knew the ,ibans for fourteen years
 without learning  what a nyarong is1   
and it was by1 mere accident that ,mr4  
,atkinson  discovered the animal        
#8fathers' of the ,kanakas4      ,,mr4  
,,haddon',s ,,theory    ,mr4 ,haddon has
 suggested a theory which was printed in
 the ,proceedings  of the ,british      
,association 7#aijb74 ,on this scheme1  
at a very early  period1 groups1 by     
reason of their local environment1 would
 have  special varieties of food4 ,thus1
 at present1 in ,new ,caledonia1 the    
,sea  branch of a tribe has cocoa-nuts1 
fish of all sorts1 and so forth1  while 
the ,bush branch has bananas1 and other 
commodities1 and the ,sea  and ,bush    
moieties of the tribe meet at markets   
for purposes of barter4  ,but1 in a     
really primitive state1 there will be no
 cultivation1 as  there is in ,new      
,caledonia4 ,still1 a coast savage might

 barter crabs  for a kangaroo1 and1 if  
landed property is acknowledged1 owners 
of  plum-trees1 or of a spot rich in    
edible grass-seeds1 might trade these   
away for lobsters and sea-perch4#cg ,not
 having any idea of real  cultivation1  
or of pisciculture 7though they may and 
do have #8close'  seasons1 under tabu71 
the savages may set about working magic 
for  their specialities in food4 ,thus  
it is conceivable that the fishers      
might come to be named #8crab-men1'     
#8lobster-men1' #8cuttlefish-men1' by   
their neighbours1 whom they would speak 
of as #8grass-men1' #8plum-men1'        
#8kangaroo-men1' and so on4 ,when once  
these names were accepted 7,i  presume71
 and were old1 and now of unknown or    
rather forgotten origin1  all manner of 
myths to account for the connection     
between the groups  and their plant and 
animal names would arise4 ,when the myth
 declared  that the plants and animals  
were akin to their name-giving          
creatures1  superstitious practices     

would follow4 ,we have seen two cases in
 which  ,australian totem groups averred
 that they were named totemically  after
 a small species of opossum1 and a fish 
which their ancestors  habitually ate4  
,but that is an explanatory myth4 ,man  
cannot live on  opossums alone1 still   
less on sardines4    ,my own guess      
admits the possibility of this cause of 
giving plant and  animal names to       
groups1 among other causes4 ,but ,i     
doubt if this was a  common cause4 ,in  
,australia1 everything that can be eaten
 is eaten by  all the natives of a given
 area1 each kindred having only a       
tendency to  spare its own totem1 while 
certain other tabus on foods exist4 ,in 
this  condition of affairs1 very few    
groups could have a notable special     
variety of food1 except in the case of  
certain fruits1 grass-seeds1  and       
insects4 ,for these articles the season 
is almost as brief as the  season of the
 mayfly or the grannom4 #8,when fruits  
is in1 cats is out1'  as the pieman said

 to the young lady4 ,during the rest of 
the year1 all  the groups in a large    
area will be living on the same large   
variety of  reptiles1 roots1 animals    
such as rats and lizards1 birds and so  
forth4  ,it does not seem probable that1
 except as between ,sea and ,bush parts 
of a tribe1 there could be much         
specialisation in matters of diet1      
during the greater part of the year4    
,therefore1 ,i do not think that  the   
derivation of totem names from special  
articles of food can ever  have been    
common4 ,but local knowledge is         
necessary on this point4 ,are  the totem
 groups of ,australia settled on lands  
peculiarly notable for  the plants and  
animals whose names they bear8 ,if so1  
that circumstance  may account for the  
totem names of each group1 and--granting
 that the  origin of the names is long  
ago forgotten1 and that native          
speculation  has explained the names by 
myths--the rest is easy4    ,it will    
appear1 when we come to my conjecture1  

that it varies from ,mr4  ,haddon's only
 on one point4 ,we both begin with plant
 and animal names  given to the various 
groups1 from without4 ,we then suppose  
7or1  at least1 ,i suppose7 the origin  
of the names to be forgotten1 and a     
connection to be established between the
 groups and their name-giving  objects1 
a connection which is explained by      
myths1 while belief in  these gives rise
 to corresponding behaviour3 respect for
 the totem1  and for his human kinsfolk4
 ,the only difference is that my theory 
suggests several sources of the names3  
while ,mr4 ,haddon offers only one      
source1 special articles of food and    
barter4 ,kindreds1 to be sure1 are  now 
named1 not from what they eat 7scores of
 things71 but from the one  thing which 
7as a kindred7 they do not eat4 ,but    
this1 when once the  myths of kinship   
with the totem arose1 might be a later  
development1  arising out of the myth4  
,in essentials1 my conjecture appears to
 be  in harmony with ,mr4 ,haddon's--the

 two1 of course1 were independently     
evolved4    ,on one point ,i perceive no
 difficulty1 and no difference4 ,it has 
been  suggested that ,mr4 ,haddon       
#8commences with the commencement1'     
whereas1  in the hypothetical early age 
which we both contemplate1 people had   
scarcely a sufficient command of        
language to invent nicknames4 ,why more 
command of language is needed for the   
application of nicknames than  of names1
 ,i do not perceive4 ,in ,mr4 ,haddon's 
theory1 as in mine1 names  already      
existed1 names of plants and animals4   
,in both of our hypotheses  those names 
were transferred to human groups2 in my 
conjecture for  a variety of reasons1 in
 his1 solely from connection with       
special  articles of food1 eaten and    
bartered1 by each group4 ,i am not      
convinced  that1 so early1 the relations
 between groups would admit of frequent 
barter3 nor1 as has been said1 am ,i    
certain that many groups could have  a  
very special article of food1 in an age 

prior to cultivation4 ,but1  granting   
all that to ,mr4 ,haddon1 no more       
command of language is needed  by my    
theory than by his4 ,each conjecture    
postulates the existence of  names of   
plants and animals1 and the transference
 of the names to human  groups4 ,if     
gesture language was prior to spoken    
language1 in each case  gesture names   
could be employed1 as1 in ,north        
,america1 totem names are  to this day  
expressed in gesture language4 ,in my   
own opinion1 man was  as human as he is 
to-day1 when totem names arose1 and as  
articulate4  ,but1 if he was not1       
gesture-language would suffice4    ,i   
shall illustrate my theory from         
folk-lore practice4 ,we might do  the   
same for ,mr4 ,haddon's4 ,we talk of    
#8the ,muffin man1' the man who  sells  
muffins4 ,we style one person #8,the    
,english ,opium-,eater1' another  #8,the
 ,oyster-,eater1' another #8,the ,irish 
,whiskey ,drinker4' ,here are the       
nicknames derived from the dealing in1  

or special consumption of1  articles of 
food4    ,many others occur in my       
folk-lore and savage lists of nicknames4
  ,they all imply at least as much      
command of language1 as the names1      
ultimately totem names1 given1 for      
various reasons1 in my theory4 ,thus    
,mr4 ,haddon and myself do not seem to  
me to differ on this point3 his  theory 
goes no further back in culture than    
mine does3 nay1 he assumes  that barter 
was a regular institution1 which implies
 a state of peace1  almost a state of   
co-operation4      ,,an ,,objection ,,to
 ,,all ,,the ,,theories ,,enumerated    
,not one of the theories here           
summarised1 except the ,dieri and       
,woeworung  myth1 explains why members  
of the various totem kins are exogamous1
  may not marry other members of the    
name4 ,suppose you do get your totem    
name from that of a distinguished male  
ancestor1 why may you not marry  another
 descendant8 ,if because the common     
name1 say ,emu1 is taken to  indicate   

some sort of blood-relationship1 why may
 you not marry a  blood relation1 even  
if there be no traceable kinship between
 you and  her8 ,a ,douglas may marry a  
,douglas1 a ,smith may marry a ,smith2  
but an  ,emu is often capitally punished
 if he marries an ,emu4 ,suppose you get
  your totem name from the beast for    
which you do magic4 ,why may you not    
marry a person who bears the name of the
 same beast1 and whose male  kindred do 
magic for it8 ,because it is sacrosanct 
to you and her8 ,but  you are actually  
breeding it for the food-market4 ,the   
answer must be  that you may not marry a
 person who bears your own totem name1  
and is  in the same branch of the       
,co-operative ,magical ,stores1 because 
her  beast and yours are in the same    
phratry1 and phratry mates may not      
intermarry4 ,but why may they not marry8
 ,the reply will probably be1  because  
the legislator divided the previously   
undivided commune into  two             
intermarrying exogamous phratries4 ,but 

that theory we have shown  to be        
untenable4 ,thus not one of the extant  
hypotheses of the origin  of ,totemism  
explains why totem kins are exogamous1  
unless ,mr4 ,haddon  supposes that the  
totem names1 once given from without1   
came to be  explained by myths asserting
 the sacred character and tribal kindred
 of  the totem4 ,mr4 ,haddon has not    
said anything about a previous exogamous
  tendency in each of the groups which1 
by his scheme1 received totem  names    
from without4 ,by my hypothesis1 these  
groups had already a  strongly exogamous
 tendency1 which later was hall-marked  
and sanctioned  by the totem1 with its  
myths and tabus4 ,this advantage of     
explaining  the exogamous attribute of  
the totem1 my scheme possesses1 and its 
rivals lack4    ,,statement ,,of ,,the  
,,problem    ,let us concentrate1 now1  
our attention on the character of the   
genuine  totem1 the totem of the group  
or kin4 ,it is not adopted by the       
savages  on a dream-warning2 each man or

 woman for himself or herself3 nor is it
  chosen for each child at birth1 nor by
 a diviner1 like the nagual1  bush-soul1
 nyarong of ,sarawak1 or the secret     
animal friend of each  individual       
,australian4 ,a savage inherits his     
group totem name4 ,the  name of any     
plant or animal which he may adopt for  
himself1 or have  assigned to him as a  
personal name1 by his parents1 or1 so to
 speak1  god-parents1 is not his totem4 
,my meaning is1 ,i repeat1 that my      
conjecture is only concerned with       
hereditary kin-totems and hereditary    
totem names of kindreds4 ,no others     
enter into my conjecture as to  origin4 
,what some call #8personal totems1'     
adopted by the individual1  or selected 
by others for him after his birth1 such 
as the ,calabar  #8bush-soul1' the      
,sarawak nyarong1 the ,central ,american
 nagual1  the ,banks ,island tamaniu1   
and the analogous special animal of the 
,australian tribesman 7observed chiefly1
 as far as ,i know1 by ,mr4  ,howitt#ch 

and ,mrs4 ,langloh ,parker71 do not here
 concern me4 ,they are  not hereditary  
group names4    ,,the ,,author',s ,,own 
,,conjecture    ,i now approach my own  
conjecture as to the origins of the     
genuine1  hereditary1 exogamous         
,totemism of groups of kin1 real or     
imagined4  ,totemism as we know it1     
especially in some tribes of ,north     
,america  and in ,australia1 has        
certainly1 as a necessary condition1    
that state  of mind in which man regards
 all the things in the world as very    
much  on a level in personality2 the    
beasts being even more powerful than    
himself4 ,were it not so1 the totem     
myths about human descent from  beasts  
and plants3 about friendly beasts1      
beasts who may marry men1 and  about    
metamorphoses1 could not have been      
invented and believed1 even  to whatever
 extent myths are believed4 ,we may say 
that such beliefs  are real1 where they 
regulate conduct4 ,so far1 there is     
probably no  difference of opinion1     

among anthropologists4    ,,the         
,,connection ,,between ,,groups ,,and   
,,totems    ,in all theories1 the real  
problem is1 how did the early groups get
  their totem names8 ,the names1 once   
accepted and stereotyped1 implied  a    
connection between each kindred1 and the
 animal1 plant1 or other  thing in      
nature whose name the kindred bore4     
,round the mystery of this  connection  
the savage mind would play freely1 and  
would invent the  explanatory myths of  
descent from1 and kinship with1 or other
 friendly  relations with1 the          
name-giving objects4 ,a measure of      
respect for  the objects would be       
established3 they might not be killed or
 eaten1  except under necessity3 magic  
might be worked by human ,emus1         
,kangaroos1  ,plum-trees1 and ,grubs for
 their propagation1 as among the ,arunta
 and  other tribes2 or against them1 to 
bar their ravaging of the crops1 as     
among the ,sioux4 ,as a man should not  
spear a real ,emu1 if the ,emu was  his 

totem1 so he does not1 for reasons to be
 adduced1 marry or have an  amour with a
 woman who is also of the ,emu blood4   
,that is part of the  tabu1 resulting   
from the circumstances presently to be  
explained4    ,all these things1 given  
the savage stage of thought1 would      
inevitably  follow from the recognised  
but mysterious connection between  men  
and the plants and animals from which   
they were named4 ,all  such connections1
 to the savage1 are blood-relationships1
 and such  relationship involves the    
duties which are recognised and         
performed4  ,but how did the early      
groups come to be named after the plants
 and  animals2 the name suggesting the  
idea of connection1 and the idea of     
connection involving the duties of the  
totemist to his totem1 and of  the totem
 to the totemist8    ,,no #8,,disease   
,,of ,,language'    ,the names1 ,i      
repeat1 requiring and receiving mythical
 explanations1  and the explanations    
necessarily suggesting conduct to match1

 are the  causes of ,totemism4 ,this    
theory is not a form of the philological
  doctrine1 nomina numina4 ,this is no  
case of disease of language1 in  ,mr4   
,max ,mller's sense of the words4 ,a man
 is called a ,cat1 all of his  kin are  
,cats4 ,the language is not diseased1   
but the man has to invent  some reason  
for the name common to his kin4 ,it is  
not even a case of  ,folk ,etymology1 as
 when a myth is invented to explain the 
meaning of  the name of a place1 or     
person1 or thing4 ,thus the ,loch of    
,duddingston1  near ,edinburgh1 is      
explained by the myth that ,queen ,mary1
 as a child1  used to play at #8dudding'
 7or skipping7 stones across the water3 
#8making ducks and drakes4' ,or again1  
marmalade is derived from ,marie        
malade4 ,queen ,mary1 as a child1 was   
seasick in crossing to ,france1 and     
asked for confiture of oranges2 hence   
,marie malade--#8marmalade4'  ,in both  
cases1 the name to be explained is      
perverted4 ,there is no real  #8stone'  

in ,duddingston--#8,duddings' town1' the
 ton or tun of the  ,duddings2 while    
#8marmalade' is a late form of          
#8marmalet1' a word older  than ,queen  
,mary's day4    ,an example of a folk   
etymology bordering on ,totemism is the 
supposed  descent of ,clan ,chattan1 and
 of the ,house of ,sutherland1 from the 
,wild  ,cat of their heraldic crests4   
,now ,clan ,chattan is named1 not from  
the  cat1 but from ,gilla ,catain1 #8the
 servant of ,saint ,catan1' a common    
sort  of ,celtic personal name1 as in   
,gilchrist4#ci ,the ,sutherland         
cat-crest  is1 apparently1 derived from 
,catness1 or ,caithness4 ,that name1    
again1  is mythically derived from ,cat1
 one of the ,seven ,sons of ,cruithne   
who  gave their names to the seven      
,pictish provinces1 as ,fib to ,fife1   
and  so on4 ,these ,seven ,sons of      
,cruithne1 like ,ion and ,dorus in      
,greece  7,ionians1 ,dorians71 are mere 
mythical #8eponymoi' or                 
name-giving-heroes1  invented to explain

 the names of certain districts4 ,in    
,totemism this is  not so4 ,not fancied 
names1 like ,duddingstone1 or           
,marmalade1 are1  in ,totemism1         
explained by popular etymologies4 ,emu1 
,kangaroo1 ,wolf1  ,bear1 ,raven1 are   
real1 not perverted names1 the question 
is1 why are  these names borne by groups
 of human beings8 ,answers are3 given in
  all the numerous savage myths1 whether
 of a divine ordinance 7,dieri1         
,woeworung7 or of descent and kinship1  
of intermarriage with beasts1 or  of    
adventures with beasts1 or of a woman   
giving birth to beasts1 or  of evolution
 out of bestial types1 and all these    
myths suggest mutual  duties between men
 and their totems1 as between men and   
their human  kinsfolk4 ,it will be seen 
that here no disease of language is     
involved1  not even a volks-etymologie  
7a vera causa of myth74    ,if it could 
be shown by philologists that many totem
 names originally  meant something other
 than they now do1 and that they were   

misunderstood1 and supposed to be names 
of plants and animals1 then  #8disease  
of language' would be present4 ,thus    
and  have  really been regarded1 as     
meaning1 each of them #8the bright      
one1' and the ,wolf ,hero of ,athens1   
and the ,bear of the ,arcadians1 have   
been explained away1 as results of      
#8disease of language4' ,but nobody     
will apply that obsolete theory to the  
vast menagerie of savage totem  names4  
,,hypothetical ,,early ,,groups ,,before
 ,,totemism    ,but1 discarding this old
 philological hypothesis1 how did the   
pristine groups get their totem names8  
,we ought first to return to  our       
conjecture as to what these pristine    
groups were like4 ,they must  have      
varied in various environments4 ,where  
the sea1 or a large lake1  yields an    
abundant food-supply1 men are likely to 
have assembled  in considerable numbers1
 as #8kitchen middens' show1 at         
favourable  stations4 ,in great woods   
and jungles the conditions of           

food-supply are  not the same as in wide
 steppes and prairies1 especially in the
 uniform  and arid plateaus of ,central 
,australia4 ,rivers1 like seas and      
lakes1  are favourable to settlement2   
steppes make nomadism inevitable1 before
  the rise of agriculture4 ,but1 if the 
earliest groups were mutually  hostile1 
strongly resenting any encroachment on  
their region of  food-supply1 the groups
 would necessarily be small1 as in ,mr4 
,darwin's  theory of small pristine     
groups1 the male1 with his females1     
daughters1  and male sons not adult4#dj 
,a bay1 or inlet1 or a good set of pools
  and streams1 would be appropriated and
 watchfully guarded by a group1  just as
 every area of ,central ,australia has  
its recognised native  owners1 who      
wander about it1 feeding on grubs1      
lizards1 snakes1 rats1  frogs1          
grass-seeds1 roots1 emus1 kangaroos1 and
 opossums4    ,the pristine groups1 we  
may be allowed to conjecture1 were      
small4 ,if  they were not1 the          

hypotheses which ,i venture to present  
are of no  value1 while that of ,mr4    
,atkinson shares their doom4 ,mr4       
,mc,lennan1  as far as one can          
conjecture from the fragments of his    
speculations1  regarded the earliest    
groups as at least so large1 and so     
bereft  of women1 that polyandry was the
 general rule4 ,mr4 ,darwin1 on the     
other hand1 began with ,polygyny and    
,monogamy1 #8jealousy determining  the  
first stage4'#da ,this meant that there 
was a jealous old sire1  who kept the   
women to himself1 as in ,mr4 ,atkinson's
 theory4 ,as we  can scarcely expect to 
reach certainty on this essential point1
  anthropology becomes 7like history in 
the opinion of a character in  ,silas   
,marner7 #8a process of ingenious       
guessing4' ,but1 embarking on           
conjecture1 ,i venture to suggest that  
the problem of the commissariat  must   
have kept the pristine groups very      
small4#db    ,they #8lived on the       
country1' and the country was untilled4 

,they  subsisted on the natural         
supplies1 and the more backward their   
material  culture1 the sooner would they
 eat the country bare1 as far as its    
resources were within their means of    
attainment4 ,one can hardly  conceive   
that such human beings herded in large  
hordes1 rather they  would wander in    
small #8family' groups4 ,these would be 
mutually hostile1  or at least jealous3 
they could scarcely yet have established
 a modus  vivendi1 and coalesced into   
the friendly aggregate of a local tribe1
  such as ,arunta1 ,dieri1 ,urabunna1   
and so on4 ,such tribes have now their  
common councils and mysteries lasting   
for months among the ,arunta4 ,we       
cannot predicate such friendly union of 
groups in a tribe1 for the  small and   
jealous knots of really early men2      
watchfully resenting  intrusion on their
 favourite bays1 pools1 and hunting of  
browsing  grounds4 ,as to marriage      
relations1 it is not improbable that    
#8sexual  solidarity' 7as ,mr4 ,crawley 

calls it71 the separation of the        
sexes--the  little boys accompanying the
 men1 the little girls accompanying the 
women--and perhaps that #8sexual tabu1' 
coupled with the jealousy of  male heads
 of groups1 may already have led to     
prohibition of marriage  within the     
group1 and to raids for women upon      
hostile groups4 ,the  smaller the group1
 the more easily would sexual jealousy  
prohibit the  lads from dealings with   
the lasses of their own group4 ,there   
might  thus1 in different degrees1 arise
 a tendency towards exogamy1 and        
specially against son and mother1 or    
father's mates1 and brother and  sister 
marriage4 ,the thing would not yet be a 
sin1 forbidden by a  superstition1 but  
still1 the tendency might 7as we have   
already said7  run strong against       
marriage within each little group4      
,,how ,,the ,,groups ,,got ,,names      
,up to this point we may conceive that  
the groups were anonymous4  ,each group 
would probably speak of itself as #8the 

,men' 7according to  a well-recognised  
custom among the tribes of to-day2 for  
instance1  the ,gournditch-mara of      
,australia1 mara meaning #8men'2 ,kurnai
 and  ,narinyeri1 also mean #8the men'71
 while it would know neighbouring       
groups as #8the others1' or #8the wild  
blacks4' ,but this arrangement          
manifestly lacks distinctness4 ,even    
#8the others down there' is too  like   
the vague manner in which the ,mulligan 
indicated his place  of residence4 ,each
 group will need a special name for each
 of its  unfriendly neighbours4         
,these names1 as likely as not1 or more 
likely than not1 will be animal  or     
plant names1 given for various reasons1 
perhaps1 among others from  fancied     
resemblances4 ,it may be objected that  
an individual may bear  a resemblance to
 this or that animal1 but that a group  
cannot4 ,but it  is a peculiarity of    
human nature1 to think that strangers   
7of another  school eleven1 say7 are all
 very like each other1 and if one of    

them  reminds us of an ,emu or a        
,kangaroo1 all of them will4 ,moreover  
the name  may be based on some real or  
fancied group trait of character1 good  
or  bad1 which also marks this or that  
type of animal1 such as cunning1        
cruelty1 cowardice1 strength1 and so    
forth1 and animal names may even  be    
laudatory4 ,we have also to reckon with 
the kinds of animals1 plants1  trees1   
useful flints1 and other objects which  
may be more prevalent in  the area      
occupied by each group2 and with        
specialities in the food of  each       
group's area1 as in ,mr4 ,haddon's      
theory4 ,thus there are plenty of       
reasons for the giving of plant and     
animal names1 which1 ,i suggest1  were  
imposed on each group from without4     
,it is true that local names would serve
 the turn1 if they were in use4  ,but   
the #8hill-men1' #8the river-men1' #8the
 bush-men1' #8the men of the  thorn     
country1' #8the rock-men1' are at once  
too scanty and too general4  ,many      

groups might fall collectively under    
each such local name4 ,again1  it is as 
society moves away from ,totemism1      
towards male kinship1  and settled      
abodes1 that local names are given to   
human groups1 as  in ,melanesia1 or even
 to individuals1 as in the case of the  
,arunta1  and the ,gournditcha ,mara4   
,among the ,arunta a child is #8of' the 
place  where he or she was born1 like   
our de and von4#dc ,the piquancy  of    
plant and animal names for groups       
probably hostile must also be           
considered4 ,we are dealing with a stage
 of society far behind that of          
,mincopies1 or ,punans of ,borneo1 or   
,australians1 and in imagining that  the
 groups were1 as a rule1 hostile1 we may
 or may not be making a  false          
assumption4 ,we are presuming that the  
jealousy of the elder males  drove the  
younger males out of the group1 or at   
least compelled them to  bring in       
females from other groups1 which would  
mean war4 ,we are also  assuming        

jealousy of all encroachments on feeding
 grounds4 ,these are  the premises1     
which cannot be demonstrated1 but only  
put in for the  sake of argument4 ,in   
any case no more hostility than our and 
the ,french  villages have for each     
other is enough to provide the giving of
 animal  sobriquets4    ,as to          
hostility1 ,mr4 ,atkinson1 in ,new      
,caledonia1 had a set of labourers      
brought in from a distant island4 ,among
 them was a young boy1 who1  being      
employed as cook1 had a good deal of    
popularity with his mates4  ,he went    
home for a holiday1 with a few men from 
his own island4 ,he was  put down at    
their little harbour1 only a few miles  
from that of his  tribe1 and was        
instantly killed and eaten4    ,in      
#8,notice sur la ,nouvelle-,caldonie'   
7#aijj7 this ferocious hostility        
between near neighbouring groups is     
corroborated4 ,it is certain death  for 
the crew of a canoe to be driven into a 
harbour1 however near their  own1 which 

is not their own4 ,this is among the    
islanders not under  the ,french4 ,count
 von ,pfeil remarks on the violent      
hostility between  ,kanakas and others  
near adjacent4#dd    ,on this point of  
unfriendly sobriquets ,i may quote ,,mm4
 ,gaidoz and  ,sbillot4#de    #8,in all 
ages men love to speak ill of their     
neighbour3 to blazon him1  in the old   
phrase of a time when our speech was    
less prudish1 and  more gay4            
,pleasantries are exchanged not only    
between man and man1  but between       
village and village4 ,sometimes in one  
expressive word1  the defect1 or the    
quality 7usually the defect71 the       
dominant and  apparently hereditary     
trait of the people of a race or a      
province is  stated 444 in a kind of    
verbal caricature4444 ,les hommes se    
sont donc  blazonns de tout le temps8   
,de tout le temps6 ,,mm4 ,gaidoz and    
,sbillot were not thinking of the       
origin of totem names1 but their theory 
applies #8to all ages1' even the  most  

primitive4 ,among ,french village       
sobriquets ,i note1 at a hasty  glance1 
,largitzen    ,cows          ,houmeau   
,frogs  ,angoulme    ,lizards           
,artois     ,dogs  ,aire                
,pigeons       ,avalon     ,birds    and
 villages named as eaters of3    ,old   
,ewes  ,onions  ,crows4    ,we shall see
 that many ,sioux groups1 many ,english 
villages are  blazoned1 as in ,mr4      
,haddon's theory1 by the names of the   
things which  they eat3 or are accused  
of eating4    ,thus1 among very early   
men1 the names by which the groups knew 
their  neighbours would be names given  
from without4 ,to call them             
#8nicknames1'  is to invite the         
objection that nicknames are essentially
 derisive1  and that groups so low could
 not yet use the language of derision4  
,i  see no reason why early             
articulate-speaking men 7or even men    
whose  language is gesture language7    
should be so modern as to lack all sense
  of humour1 all delight in derision4   

,but the names need not have been       
derisive4 ,if these people had the      
present savage belief in the wakan1  or 
mystic power of animals1 the names may  
even have been laudatory4 ,i  ask for no
 more than names conferred from without1
 call them nicknames1  sobriquets1 or   
what you like4    ,we are acquainted    
with no race that is just entered on    
,totemism1  unless we agree with ,mr4   
,hill ,tout that ,totemism is nascent   
among the  ,salish tribe1 who live in   
village communities4 ,consequently we   
cannot  prove that early hostile groups 
would name each other after plants  and 
animals4 ,i am only able to demonstrate 
that1 alike in ,english and  ,french    
folk-lore1 and among ,american tribes   
who reckon by the male  line1 who are   
agricultural and settled1 the villages  
or groups are  named1 from without1     
after plants and animals1 and after what
 they  are supposed to be specially apt 
to use as articles of food1 and also  by
 nick-names--often derisive4 ,what ,i   

present is1 not proof that the  primal  
groups named each other after plants and
 animals1 but proof that  among our     
rustics1 by congruity of fancy1 such    
names are given1 with  other names      
exactly analogous to those now used     
among settled savages  moving away from 
,totemism4    ,,illustration ,,from     
,,folk-,,lore    ,i select illustrative 
examples from the blason populaire of   
modern folk-lore4 ,here we find the use 
of plant and animal names  for          
neighbouring groups1 villages1 or       
parishes4 ,thus two informants  in a    
rural district of ,cornwall1 living at a
 village which ,i shall  call ,loughton1
 found that1 when they walked through   
the neighbouring  village1 ,hillborough1
 the little boys #8called cuckoo at the 
sight of  us4' ,they learned that the   
cuckoo was the badge1 in folk-lore1 of  
their  village4 ,an ancient carved and  
gilded dove in the ,loughton church     
#8was  firmly believed by many of the   
inhabitants to be a representation of   

the ,loughton ,cuckoo1' and all         
,loughton folk were ,cuckoos4 #8,it     
seems as  if the inhabitants do not care
 to talk about these things1 for some   
reason or other4' ,a travelled          
,loughtonian #8believes the animal names
  and symbols to be very ancient1 and   
that each village has its symbol4'  ,my 
informants think that #8some modern     
badges have been substituted  for more  
ancient ones1' such as tiger and monkey4
 ,there is apparently  no veneration of 
the local beast1 bird1 or insect1 which 
seems often1  on the other hand1 to have
 been imposed from without as a token of
  derision4 ,australians make a great   
totem of the ,witchetty ,grub 7as       
,spencer and ,gillen report71 but the   
village of ,oakditch is not proud of    
its potato grub1 the natives themselves 
being styled #8tater grubs4' ,i  append 
a list of villages 7with false names#df7
 and of their badges3    ,hillborough   
,mice              ,brailing            
,peesweeps  ,loughton         ,cuckoos  

,wickley          ,tigers  ,miltown     
,mules             ,fenton              
,rooks                7it used to be    
rats7 ,linton           ,men  ,ashley   
,monkeys           ,oakditch            
,potato grubs  ,yarby            ,geese 
,st4 ,aldate's     ,fools  ,watworth    
,bulldogs    ,at ,loughton1 when the    
,hillborough boys pass through on a     
holiday  excursion1 the ,loughton boys  
hang out dead mice1 the ,hillborough    
badge1  in derision4 ,the boys have even
 their #8personal totem1' and a lad who 
wishes for a companion in nocturnal     
adventure will utter the cry of  his    
peculiar beast or bird1 and a friend    
will answer with his4 ,if  boys remained
 always boys 7that is1 savages71 and if 
civilisation were  consequently wiped   
out1 myths about these group names of   
villages would  be developed1 and       
,totemism would flourish again4 ,later  
,i give other  instances of village     
names answering to totem names1 and in  
an ,appendix  ,i give analogous cases   

collected by ,miss ,burne in            
,shropshire1 and  others1 we saw1 are to
 be found in the blason populaire of    
,france4    ,it appears to me that totem
 group names may1 originally1 have been 
imposed from without1 just as the       
,eskimo are really ,inuits2 #8,eskimo1' 
#8,eaters of raw flesh1' being the      
derisive name conferred by their        
,indian neighbours4 ,of course ,i do not
 mean that the group names would        
always1 or perhaps often1 have been1 in 
origin1 derisive nicknames4  ,many      
reasons1 as has been said1 might prompt 
the name-giving4 ,but each  such group  
would1 ,i suggest1 evolve animal and    
vegetable nicknames for  each           
neighbouring group4 ,finally some names 
would #8stick1' would be  stereotyped1  
and each group would come to answer to  
its nickname1 just  as #8,pussy         
,moncrieff1' or #8,bulldog ,irving1' or 
#8,piggy ,frazer1' or #8,cow            
,maitland1' does at school4    ,,how    
,,the ,,names ,,became ,,known    ,here 

the questions arise1 how would each     
group come to know by what  name each of
 its neighbours called it1 and how would
 hostile groups  ,come to have the same 
nicknames for each other8 ,well1 they   
would know  the nicknames through taunts
 exchanged in battle4        #8,run1 you
 deer1 run6'      #8,off with you1 you  
hares6'      #8,skuttle1 you skunks6'   
,they would readily recognise the       
appropriateness of the names1 if        
derived from the plants1 trees1 or      
animals most abundant in their area1    
and most important to their food supply3
 for1 at this hypothetical  stage1 and  
before myths had crystallised round the 
names1 they would  have no scruples     
about eating their name-giving plants1  
fruits1  fishes1 birds1 and animals4    
,they would also hear their names from  
war  captives at the torture stake1 or  
on the road to the oven1 or the         
butcher4 ,but the chief way in which the
 new group names spread would  be       
through captured women2 for1 though     

there might as yet be only a  tendency  
towards exogamy1 still girls of alien   
groups would be captured  as mates4     
#8,we call you the ,skunks1' or whatever
 it might be1 such a  bride might       
remark1 and so knowledge of the new     
group names would be  diffused4 ,these  
names would adhere to groups1 on my     
hypothesis1 already  exogamous in       
tendency1 and1 when the totem myth      
arose1 the exogamy  would be sanctioned 
by the totem tabu4#dg      ,,totemic    
,,and ,,other ,,group ,,names--,,english
 ,,and ,,north ,,american ,,indian      
,it may seem almost flippant to suggest 
that this old mystery of  ,totemism     
arises only from group names given from 
without1 some of them1  perhaps1        
derisive4 ,but ,i am able to demonstrate
 that1 in ,north ,america1  the names of
 what some ,american authorities call   
gentes 7meaning old  totem groups1 which
 now reckon descent through the male1   
not the female  line71 actually are     
nicknames--in certain cases derisive4   

,moreover1  ,i am able to prove that1   
when the names of these ,american gentes
 are  not merely totem names1 they      
answer1 with literal precision1 to our  
folk-lore village sobriquets1 even when 
these are not names of plants  or       
animals4 ,the late ,rev4 ,james ,owen   
,dorsey left1 at his death1 a paper  on 
,the ,siouan ,sociology4#dh ,among the  
gentes 7old totem kindreds  with male   
descent7 he noted1 the gentes of a      
tribe1 #8,the ,mysterious  ,lake        
,tribe4' ,there were1 in #ahhj1 seven   
gentes4 ,three names were  derived from 
localities4 ,one name meant #8,breakers 
of 7exogamous7 ,law4'  ,one was #8,not  
encumbered with much baggage4' ,one was 
,rogues 7#8,bad  ,nation'74 ,these three
 last names are derisive nicknames4 ,the
 seventh  name was #8,eats no ,geese1'  
obviously a totemic survival4 ,of the   
,wahpeton  tribe all the seven gentes   
derived their names from localities4 ,of
  the ,sisseton tribe1 the twelve names 
of gentes were either nicknames  7one1  

#8a name of derision'71 or derived from 
localities4    ,of the ,yankton gentes1 
five names out of seven were nicknames1 
mostly derisive1 the sixth was #8,bad   
,nation' 7#8,rogues'71 the seventh  was 
a totem name1 #8,wild ,cat4' ,of the    
,hunpatina 7seven gentes71 three  names 
were totemic 7,drifting ,goose1 ,dogs1  
,eat no ,buffalo ,cows72 the  others    
were nicknames1 such as #8,eat the      
,scrapings of ,hides4' ,of the          
,sitcanxu1 there were thirteen gentes4  
,six or seven of their titles  were     
nicknames1 three were totemic1 the      
others were dubious1 such as            
#8,smellers of ,fish4' ,the ,itaziptec  
had seven gentes2 of their names all    
were nicknames1 including #8,eat dried  
venison from the hind quarter4' ,of  the
 ,minikooju1 there were nine gentes4    
,eight names were nicknames1  including 
#8,dung ,eaters4' ,one seems totemic1   
#8,eat no ,dogs4' ,of five  ,asineboin  
gentes the names were nicknames from the
 habits or localities  of the           

communities4 ,one was #8,girl's ,band1' 
that is1 #8,girls4'    ,now compare     
parish sobriquets in ,western           
,england4#di ,in this list  of parish or
 village nicknames1 twenty-one are      
derived from plants and  animals1 like  
most totemic names4 ,we also find #8,dog
 ,eaters1' #8,bread  ,eaters1' #8,burd  
,eaters1' #8,whitpot ,eaters1' and1     
answering to #8,girl's  ,band' 7,gens   
des ,filles71 #8,pretty ,maidens3'      
answering to #8,bad ,nation1'           
#8,rogues'3 answering to #8,eaters of   
,hide ,scrapings' #8,bone ,pickers'3    
while  there are1 as among the ,siouans1
 names derived from various practices   
attributed to the ,english villagers1 as
 to the ,red ,indian gentes4    ,no     
closer parallel between our rural       
folk-lore sobriquets of village  groups1
 given from without1 and the names given
 from without of old  savage totem      
groups 7now reckoning in the male line1 
and1 therefore1  now settled together in
 given localities7 could be invented4   

7,for  other examples see ,appendix ,a47
 ,i conceive1 therefore1 that my        
suggestion--the totem names of pristine 
groups were originally given  from      
without1 and were accepted 7as in the   
case of the nicknames of  ,siouan       
gentes1 now accepted by them7--may be   
reckoned no strain  on our sense of     
probability4 ,it is demonstrated that   
the name-giving  processes of our       
villagers exist among ,american savage  
groups which  reckon descent in the male
 line1 and that they also existed among 
the  savage groups which reckoned       
descent in the female line is1 surely1 a
  not unreasonable surmise4 ,i add a    
list in parallel columns4               
,english ,village ,names        ,siouan 
,group ,names        ,rogues            
,bad ,sorts      ,stags#ej              
,elk#ej      ,bull ,dogs                
,common ,dogs      ,horse ,heads        
,warts on ,horses' ,legs      ,bone     
,pickers                    ,hide       
,scrapers      ,pretty ,girls           

,girl ,folk        ,eaters of           
,eaters of      ,whitpot                
,dried ,venison      ,cheese            
,fish      ,barley ,bread               
,dung      ,dog4      ,,theory ,,that   
,,siouan ,,gentes ,,names ,,are ,,of    
,,european ,,origin    ,to produce1 from
 ,north ,america1 examples of group     
names conferred from  without1 as in the
 instances of our ,english villages1    
may1 to some  students1 seem inadequate 
evidence4 ,for example an unconvinced   
critic  may say that the nicknames of   
,mr4 ,dorsey's #8,siouan gentes' were   
originally given by white men2 the      
,sioux1 ,dacota1 ,asineboin1 and other  
tribes having been long in contact with 
,europeans4 ,now it is quite  possible  
that some of the names had this origin1 
as ,mr4 ,dorsey himself  observed4 ,but 
no critic will go on to urge that the   
common totemic  names which still       
designate many gentes were imposed by   
,europeans who  came from ,english      
villages of #8,mice1' #8,cuckoos1'      

#8,tater ,grubs1' #8,dogs1'  and so     
forth4 ,we might as wisely say that our 
peasantry borrowed these  village names 
from what they had read about totem     
names in ,cooper's  novels4 ,to name    
individuals1 or groups1 after animals1  
is certainly a  natural tendency of the 
mind1 whether in savage or civilised    
society4    ,if we take the famous      
,mandan tribe1 now reckoning descent in 
the male  line1 but with undeniable     
survivals of descent in the female line1
 we  find that the gentes are3          
,wolf    ,bear               ,prairie   
,chicken        ,good ,knife      ,eagle
   ,flat ,head   ,high ,village         
,here1 out of seven gentes1 four names  
are totemic2 one is a name  of locality1
 #8,high ,village1' not a possible name 
in pristine nomadic  society4 ,while    
there are hundreds of such cases1 we    
cannot reasonably  regard the ,american 
group nicknames as generally of         
,european origin4  ,still more does this
 theory fail us in the case of          

,melanesia1 where  contact with         
,europeans is recent and relatively     
slight4 ,among such  tribes as the      
,mandans1 and other ,siouan peoples1 we 
see ,totemism with  exogamy and female  
kinship waning1 while kinship1          
recognised by male  descent1 plus       
settled conditions1 brings in local     
names for gentes1  and tends to cause   
the substitution of local names and     
nicknames for  the totem group name4    
,precisely the same phenomena meet us1  
as we are  to see1 in ,melanesia4       
,footnote #a3 ,as to the word #8totem1' 
but little is certainly known4  ,its    
earliest occurrence in literature1 to my
 knowledge1 is in a work by  ,j4 ,long  
7#agia71 ,voyages and ,travels of an    
,indian ,interpreter4 ,long  sojourned  
among the ,algonquin branch of the      
,north ,american ,indians4 ,he  spells  
the word #8,totam1' and even speaks of  
#8,totamism4' ,mr4 ,tylor has  pointed  
out that ,long in one place confuses the
 totem1 the hereditary  group name1 and 

protective object1 with what used to be 
called the  manitu or #8medicine1' of   
each individual ,indian1 chosen by him1 
or  her1 after a fast1 at puberty4      
,remarks on ,totemism1 #ahih1 pp4       
#aci-dj4  ,cf4 infra1 #ace1 note4       
,footnote #b3 ,man1 #aijb1 ,no4 #ge4    
,footnote #c3 ,totemism1 p4 #b1 #ahhg4  
,footnote #d3 ,so also ,mr4 ,hartland   
writes1 ,man1 #aijb1 ,no4 #hd4 ,but     
manitu is perhaps too wide and vague a  
term3 it usually connotes  anything     
mystical or supernormal4    ,footnote   
#e3 ,introduction to the ,history of    
,religion1 p4 #bad4 ,major  ,powell has 
said something to the same effect1 but  
that was in a journal  of #8popular     
science4'    ,footnote #f3 ,bureau of   
,ethnology1 #ahic-ahid1 p4 #bda4        
,footnote #g3 ,l',anne ,sociologique1 v4
 #ic1 #ii1 #ajj4 ,as far as the  proof  
rests on ,arunta traditions1 ,i lay no  
stress upon it4    ,footnote #h3 ,j4 ,a4
 ,i4 vol4 xviii41 no4 #c1 p4 #bed4      
,footnote #i3 ,frazer1 ,totemism1 p4 #a4

    ,footnote #aj3 ,major ,powell1 ,man1
 #aija1 no4 #ge4    ,footnote #aa3      
,howitt1 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4 xx4 #dj-da1 #ahia4 
,footnote #ab3 ,the ,marquis d',eguilles
 kindly sends me extracts from an       
official #8,notice sur la               
,nouvelle-,caldonie1' drawn up for the  
,paris  ,exhibition of #aijj4 ,the      
author says that the names of           
relationships are  expressed1 by the    
,kanaka1 #8in a touching manner4' ,one  
name includes our  #8uncle' and         
#8father1' another our #8mother' and    
#8aunts2' another name  includes our    
#8brothers1' #8sisters1' and #8cousins4'
 ,this1 of course1 is  #8the            
classificatory system4' ,about animal   
#8fathers' nothing is said4    ,footnote
 #ac3 ,tylor1 ,remarks on ,totemism1 pp4
 #ada-adc4 ,myth1 ,ritual1  and         
,religion1 ii4 #ef-eh4 ,turner's ,samoa1
 p4 #ag 7#ahhd74    ,footnote #ad3      
,howitt1 ,on the ,organisation of       
,australian ,tribes1 p4  #acf1 note1    
#ahhi4    ,footnote #ae3 ,the ,mura     

,mura appear really to answer to the    
fabled  ancestors of the ,arunta1 but   
are addressed in prayers4 ,cf4 ,miss    
,howitt1  ,folk ,lore1 ,january #aijc4  
,footnote #af3 ,tylor1 ,remarks on      
,totemism1 p4 #acd4    ,footnote #ag3   
,so also to explain the crest of the    
,hamiltons1 the  ,skenes1 and many      
others4    ,footnote #ah3 ,frazer1      
,totemism1 p4 #g4    ,footnote #ai3     
,hose and ,mc,dougall1 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4 xxxi4
 #aic1 #aija4    ,footnote #bj3 ,custom 
and ,myth1 p4 #bfb4    ,footnote #ba3   
,contributions to the ,science of       
,mythology1 i4 #bja4    ,footnote #bb3  
,the ,principles of ,sociology1 i4 #cfb1
 #ahgf4    ,footnote #bc3 ,the whole    
passage will be found in the work cited4
 ,vol4  i4 #cei-cfh4    ,footnote #bd3  
,i am haunted by the impression that ,i 
have met examples1  but where ,i know   
not4    ,footnote #be3 ,howitt1 ,journal
 of the ,anthropological ,institute1    
xviii4 #eh4    ,footnote #bf3 ,golden   
,bough1 iii4 #daf1 note #c4    ,footnote

 #bg3 ,it is possible that ,i have      
failed to understand the  mode of       
reconciling the two hypotheses1 and ,mr4
 ,frazer is not to be  understood as    
committed to either or both in the      
present state of our  information4      
,footnote #bh3 ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1  
p4 #bhj4    ,footnote #bi3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4  
xiii4 #aia1 note #a4    ,footnote #cj3  
,tylor1 ,remarks on ,totemism1 pp4      
#adf-adg1 #ahih4    ,footnote #ca3 ,the 
,import of the ,totem1 by ,alice ,c4    
,fletcher1 ,salem  ,press1 ,mass41      
#ahig4    ,footnote #cb3 ,op4 cit4 p4   
#ab4    ,footnote #cc3 #8,the ,origin of
 the ,totemism of the ,inhabitants of   
,british  ,columbia1' ,transactions of  
,royal ,society of ,canada1 second      
series1  vol4 vii41 #aija-aijb4         
,quaritch1 ,london4    ,footnote #cd3   
,j4 ,a4 ,i4 xxxi4 #aif1 et seq4         
,footnote #ce3 ,golden ,bough1 iii4     
#dai1 note #e4    ,footnote #cf3 ,hose  
and ,mc,dougall1 op4 cit4 p4 #baa4      
,footnote #cg3 ,mr4 ,haddon's theory    

involves the existence of barter        
between groups that had special articles
 of food4 ,under #8,hypothetical  early 
groups' ,i show proof of the extreme    
hostility of adjacent groups  in some   
regions4 ,the merchant1 with his        
articles of barter1 would there  himself
 be eaten4 ,mr4 ,atkinson's cook was    
eaten by his neighbours4 ,mr4  ,haddon  
does not hold that the primitive human  
groups were thus mutually  hostile4     
,here we differ in opinion4    ,footnote
 #ch3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4 xiii42 ,folk ,lore1   
#aj1 #dia4    ,footnote #ci3 ,macbain1  
,etymological ,dictionary1 #ahif1       
quoting  manuscript of #adef4           
,footnote #dj3 ,descent of ,man1 ii4    
#cfb4    ,footnote #da3 ,studies in     
,ancient ,history1 second series1 p4    
#ej4    ,footnote #db3 ,this is the     
opinion not only of ,mr4 ,darwin but of 
,major  ,powell and ,mr4 ,mc,gee4       
,footnote #dc3 ,spencer and ,gillen1 p4 
#eg1 note4    ,footnote #dd3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4
 ,may #ahig1 p4 #aha4    ,footnote #de3 

,blason ,populaire de la ,france1 p4 #e4
 ,paris1 ,cerf1 #ahhd4    ,footnote #df3
 ,pseudonyms were given to avoid        
arousing local attention1  when ,i put  
forth these facts in ,the ,athenum4 ,for
 reasons1 ,i retain  the pseudonyms2 but
 for the real village names see p4 #agc1
 note #a4    ,footnote #dg3 ,some       
objections are noticed later4           
,footnote #dh3 ,report of ,american     
,bureau of ,ethnology1 #ahic-ahid1 p4   
#bac et seq4    ,footnote #di3          
,thirteenth ,report of the ,committee of
 ,devonshire  ,folk-,lore1 ,devonshire  
,association for the ,advancement of    
,science1  #ahie1 xxvii4 #fa-gd4        
,footnote #ej3 ,many other animal and   
vegetable names--totem names in         
,america1 village names in              
,england--have already been cited4 ,see 
p4  #agj4          ,,chapter ,,ix       
,,the ,,melanesian ,,systems      ,we   
have1 fortunately1 an opportunity in    
,melanesia of studying1 as  it seems1   
the ,australian marriage system in a    

state of decay4#a  ,the institutions of 
,melanesia bear every note of being     
,australian  institutions1 decadent1    
dislocated1 contaminated and partially  
obliterated4 ,starting from ,new        
,guinea1 we find a long archipelago     
sloping down1 away from the east side of
 ,australia1 towards the ,fiji          
,islands4 ,the archipelago consists     
mainly1 in the order given1 of  ,new    
,ireland1 ,new ,britain1 the ,solomon   
,group1 ,banks ,island1 the ,new        
,hebrides1 ,loyalty ,island1 and ,new   
,caledonia4 ,the inhabitants are a      
fusion of many oceanic elements1 and are
 much more advanced in culture  than the
 natives of ,australia3 they have       
chiefs1 whose office tends  to be       
hereditary 7and in one place1 ,saa1 is  
hereditary71 in the  male line1 the     
father handing on to the son his magical
 acquirements  and properties1 and      
leaving to him his wealth1 as far as he 
may4 ,this  is not very far1 as1 curious
 to say1 descent in the female line is  

generally prevalent4 ,wealth is both    
real and personal3 landed property      
consisting 7#a7 of ,town ,lots1 7#b7 of 
,gardens 771  7#c7 of the ,waste 7#8the 
,bush'74 ,the #8town lots' and gardens  
pass by  inheritance2 the possessor     
being only #8possessor1' not proprietor1
  and real property passing in the      
female line1 where that line still      
prevails4 ,the reclaiming of land from  
the ,waste tends1 however1 to  direct   
property into the male line1 which1     
except in certain districts1  is not    
dominant4 ,money is divided1 on a death1
 among brothers1  nephews--and sons1    
#8if they can get it'--the money being  
the native  shell currency4 ,the        
tendency towards the substitution1 as   
heirs1 of a  man's sons for his sister's
 sons1 is powerful4#b    ,this is a     
curious and anomalous condition of the  
family4 ,as regards  material advantages
 77 ,melanesian society is  greatly in  
advance of ,australian4 ,it is in       
possession of houses1 fruit  trees1     

agricultural allotments1 domesticated   
animals1 and a native  currency4 ,thus  
there is much property to be inherited1 
and where that  is the case1 and where  
the family has a house of its own1 the  
desire of  men to leave their goods and 
dwellings to their sons usually results 
in the reckoning of descent on the sword
 side4 ,yet1 in this respect1  the      
,melanesians of many regions are behind 
the naked1 houseless ,arunta1  and other
 ,australian tribes with male descent44 
,what influences caused  these tribes to
 depart from the reckoning in the female
 line1 still  used among their equally  
destitute neighbours1 the ,urabunna1 is 
a  most difficult question2 indeed the  
number of distinct grades1 in  relation 
to family laws among the ,australians1  
is an enigma4 ,among  the ,melanesians1 
at all events1 material advance and     
accumulation of  property have often    
failed to bring inheritance out of the  
female into  the male line4    ,insular 
conditions are apt to develop           

divergences from any given  type--local 
varieties--while the mixture of races1  
and the introduction  into one island1  
or part of it1 of the customs of        
settlers from other  islands1 produces  
peculiarities and anomalies in          
,melanesia4 ,we expect1  therefore1 to  
find ,melanesian marriage rules rather  
dislocated and  contaminated1 and to see
 that the archaic type is half          
obliterated4  ,in fact1 this is the     
case1 and ,totemism1 if it exists1      
survives in  fragments and vestiges4    
#8,where are the totems8' ,dr4          
,codrington asks1 and we can only reply 
that  they seem to be half obliterated4 
#8,nothing is more fundamental than the 
division of the people into two or more 
classes1 which are exogamous1  and in   
which descent is counted through the    
women4'#c ,this answers to  the         
,australian #8primary divisions1' or    
#8phratries4' ,but1 in ,australia1  as  
we showed1 these divisions appear to be 
of totemic origin4 ,if this  was so1 in 

,melanesia1 the evidence for the fact is
 much less distinct4  ,in a large region
 of the ,solomon ,islands #8there is no 
division of the  people into kindreds1  
as elsewhere1 and descent follows the   
father4444  ,the particular or local    
causes which have brought this          
exceptional  state of things are        
unknown4'#d    ,speaking generally1     
however1 the two primary exogamous      
classes exist1  and to a ,melanesian    
man1 all women of his own generation    
count either  as #8sisters' 7barred7 or 
as 7potential7 #8wives4' ,the           
appropriation of  actual wives to their 
actual husbands #8has by no means so    
strong a hold  on native society1' as   
the exogamous class divisions4 ,by many 
students  this license will be          
considered a survival of #8group        
marriage4'  ,prenuptial unchastity is   
wrong1 but a breach of the exogamous    
rule used  to be punished by death4     
,wife-lending used to be common1 as in  
,central  ,australia1 if the wife and   

guest were of opposite #8divisions4'    
,whether  the license of certain feasts 
7as among ,australians and ,fijians7    
smiles  on breaches of the exogamous    
law1 does not seem quite certain4#e     
,in ,banks ,island and the ,north ,new  
,hebrides1 there are but the two        
#8primary class divisions4' ,these have 
not names as in ,australia--if  once    
they had names1 the names are lost4 ,we 
find merely #8divisions'  7veve71 two   
#8sides of the house4' ,every man knows 
his own division2 all  the women in it  
are tabu to him2 all the women of the   
other division1  in the same generation1
 are potential wives 7with certain      
restrictions  in practice74    ,in      
,merlav1 one of the ,banks ,islands1    
there are #8families within the  kin'   
7answering to gentes--totem kins--in    
,australia74 ,these families  have local
 names1 as a rule3 one has its name from
 the ,octopus1 but  eats it freely4     
,it is not inconceivable that here we   
have broken down and obliterated        

,totemism1 among a settled agricultural 
people1 probably dwelling1 as a  rule1  
in close contiguity4    ,in ,florida1   
and adjacent parts of the ,solomon      
,islands1 not merely  two1 but six      
#8kema' or exogamous divisions          
7#8phratries8'7 exist4 ,two  of the six 
have names derived from localities1 two 
have animal names1  ,eagle and ,crab3   
two kema came in from abroad4 ,all this 
points to  contamination1 and           
rearrangement1 under new circumstances4 
,each kema  in ,florida has one or more 
buto1 the clam1 pig1 pigeon1 and so on1 
not to be eaten by members of the kema4 
,this looks like the #8totemic          
subdivisions' 7that is1 the totem groups
 within the #8phratries'7 of  the       
,australians4 ,again1 these butos within
 each kema1 animals and  plants not to  
be eaten1 are exactly like the survivals
 of ,totemism in  the names of the      
,siouan totem kins with male descent1   
#8,do not eat small  ,birds1' #8,do not 
eat ,dogs1' #8,do not eat ,buffalo1' and

 so forth4 ,the  buto of each kin within
 the ,melanesian exogamous kemas1 then1 
seems  to me to be the old totem of the 
kin1 now relegated to a position more   
obscure1 in the changes of society1 and1
 with one exception1 not giving  its    
name and tabu to the kema4 ,only in one 
case is the animal which is  the buto1  
also the animal which gives its name to 
the kema4 ,the ,kakau  kema may not eat 
,kakau--the crab4 ,the ,manukuma 7eagle7
 kema may eat  the eagle3 one fancies   
that they find it tough4 ,in the same   
way the  ,narrinyeri and other tribes in
 ,australia permit their totem kins to  
eat  their totems4 ,members of each kema
 are apt to speak of their butos  7which
 they may not eat7 as their ancestors1  
as in ,totemism1 but this  is a mere    
mythical explanation of why they may not
 eat the buto4 ,with  half a dozen other
 myths1 it is used by totemists to      
explain why they  may not eat their     
totems4    ,dr4 ,codrington1 on the     
other hand1 writes1 #8the buto of each  

kema  is probably comparatively recent  
in ,florida1 it has been introduced  at 
,bugotu within the memory of living     
men4'#f ,dr4 ,codrington1 as  we have   
already seen1 inclines to the theory    
which derives totems  originally from   
individuals4 ,he cites ,mr4 ,sleigh1 of 
,lifu 7mentioned  by us before71 who    
writes1 #8,when a father was about to   
die1 surrounded  by members of his      
family1 he might say what animal he will
 be1 say a  butterfly or some kind of   
bird4 ,that creature would be sacred to 
his  family1 who would not injure or    
kill it2 on seeing or falling in with   
such a creature the person would say1   
8,that is kaka0 7papa71 and  would1 if  
possible1 offer him a young cocoa-nut4  
,but they did not thus  adopt the name  
of a tribe4'#g    ,we need not repeat   
the objections to all such theories of  
the  derivation of pristine totem group 
names from individuals1 ,the butos1     
ancestors1 not to be eaten1 have all the
 air of archaic totems1 now  reduced to 

a lower plane1 and1 save in one case out
 of six1 not giving  the name to a kema1
 in ,florida4 ,thus the butos of each   
kema  would be1 originally1 totemic1 but
 immigrations1 settled conditions1  the 
tendency to male descent1 and the       
introduction of local or place  names   
for some groups1 of nicknames for       
others1 broke down the old  totemic     
nomenclature1 leaving only the ,kakau1  
or crabs1 true to their  colours and to 
their totem and totem name1 while the   
other kemas got  local names or         
nicknames--the ,hongokikki being named  
from the pastime  of ,cat's             
,cradle--clearly a nickname4 ,apparently
 the pigeon is their  buto4 ,how did    
these conditions arise8    ,say that    
there were once four exogamous totem    
groups in  ,ettrickdale--,grouse1 ,deer1
 ,hares1 ,partridges4 ,say that there   
came in  two alien groups1 ,trout and   
,plover4 ,of these two1 one might come  
to  be called ,quoits1 from their skill 
in that game4--,two of the original     

four might get local names1 from their  
places of residence1 say  ,singlee and  
,tushielaw4 ,one might keep its old     
totem1 ,grouse1 and its  old totem name1
 abstaining from grouse4 ,one might get 
a new name1 ,roe  ,deer1 but all1 under 
the names of ,tushielaw1 ,singlee1      
,quoits1 ,roe  ,deer1 and ,grouse 7with 
another not given71 would retain their  
old  totems as butos1 ancestral in some 
way1 and not to be eaten4 ,but the  new1
 not the totemic1 names would now mark  
off the exogamous kemas4  ,something of 
this kind must have occurred in         
,florida1 under new social  conditions1 
and the stress of immigrants4 ,but ,dr4 
,codrington gives a  case in which the  
banana was tabued1 just before his      
death1 by #8a man  of much influence who
 said that he would be in the banana4'#h
    ,this origin of ,totemism 7namely1  
in animism1 a man of influence  tabuing1
 and bequeathing to his descendants for 
ever1 the animal or  plant that is to be
 his soul vehicle7 is approved of1 as   

the original  cause of ,totemism1 by    
,dr4 ,wilken4 ,but could it arise in a  
much lower  state of society1 wherein   
#8men of much influence' are rare1 and  
are  readily forgotten8 ,now in         
,melanesia1 generally1 a man's fame1    
however  great1 perishes with those who 
remember him in his life4#i ,again1     
this sort of tabuing the banana affected
 #8all the people' of the isle  ,ulawa1 
and so could not be the base of an      
exogamous prohibition1  unless all      
brides were to be brought in from       
foreign islands4 ,if the  prohibition   
was confined to known descendants of the
 banana man1 then  we have the          
patriarchal family1 founded by a known  
ancestor1 and  exogamous4 ,now1 in      
,ulawa1 descent is reckoned in the male 
line1 and  there are no exogamous       
divisions4#aj #8,this is an exceptional 
state of  things1' says ,dr4 ,codrington
 7p4 #bb71 yet he thinks it 7p4 #cb7    
#8in all  probability'--plus the tabuing
 of an object by a dying patriarch--the 

cause of the buto prohibition in the    
kemas of ,florida4 ,thus a  solitary    
case from an isle without exogamous     
divisions 7#8the only  restriction on   
marriage is nearness in blood'71 and    
with male descent1  is supposed by ,dr4 
,codrington to cause the buto           
prohibition in an  island with exogamous
 divisions1 and with female descent4#aa 
,his theory is manifestly inconsistent  
with his facts--moreover1 it  involves  
the existence of the patriarchal system 
at the time when  totems first arose4   
,on the whole1 this reasoning does not  
convince1 but1 if ,dr4 ,codrington  is  
right1 ,melanesian institutions are     
shattered1 dislocated1  contaminated1   
and worn down to a remarkable degree4   
,yet1 behind them1  where the two1 or   
the six exogamous divisions prevail1    
with descent  counted in the female     
line1 we can scarcely help recognising a
 basis  of ,australian customary law1   
with obsolescence of the totem1 slowly  
tending towards inheritance through the 

father4 #8,a chief's sons are  none of  
them of his own kin2 and1 as will be    
shown1 he passes on what  he can of his 
property and authority to them4'#ab ,in 
spite of the  #8generation names1'      
#8father1' #8brothers and sisters1'     
#8children1' the  real distinctions of  
own father1 cousin1 and so forth1 are   
understood1  and expressed1 as they     
usually are1 everywhere4#ac    ,thus    
,melanesia shows us some of the ways out
 from ,totemism1 exogamy1  and descent  
in the female line4 ,it also shows us1  
what ,australia does  not1 ghost        
worship3 most prominently in ,saa1      
where1 with descent  in the male line1  
and hereditary chiefship1 eleven        
generations of  ancestors are           
remembered1 #8by the invocation of their
 successive names  in sacrifices4'#ad   
,this is a solitary case of such        
genealogical  knowledge among           
,melanesians1 as distinct from          
,polynesians4 ,it is made  possible by  
the sacrifices to the ancestors4 ,now1  

in ,australia1 there  are no such       
sacrifices4 ,without them ancestors     
among low savages cannot  be remembered1
 and could not hand down1 as an         
hereditary totem1 the  animal or other  
object which is their #8soul-box1' or   
the vehicle of  the ancestral soul after
 death4 ,there appears to myself to     
exist1 in  ,melanesia1 a notable        
tendency to adore1 nay1 almost to deify1
 a dead  man1 as a tindalo4 ,dr4        
,codrington cites1 from ,bishop ,selwyn1
 a case  in which a renowned brave man  
was slain in action4 ,a house1 or       
shrine1  was built over his head1 and he
 was canonised1 or made a tindalo4      
,his claims to sanctity were            
automatically certified by canoe        
tilting1  in principle like our table   
tilting4 ,the men in the canoe cease    
paddling1 #8in a quiet place1' and1 when
 the canoe begins to tilt1  they call   
over a roll of names of tindalos 7human 
ghosts74 ,at the  name of the dead      
warrior1'the canoe shook again4' ,a     

successful raid  followed1 a new shrine 
was built for the warrior1 and fish and 
food  were sacrificed to him4 ,by this  
means a great man's memory is1 now  and 
then1 contrary to general custom1 kept  
green in this region of  ,melanesia4    
,occasionally he seems to be on the way 
towards godship1  as a departmental     
deity1 perhaps as god of war4#ae ,pigs  
are common  victims1 now1 in sacrifice4 
,we do not hear of any #8totem          
sacrifice1' if  ever such a thing       
anywhere existed4 ,in the case of a     
tindalo called  ,manoga1 deification    
seems close at hand4 ,his #8dwelling is 
the light of  setting suns1' or of the  
dawn3 or in high heaven1 or in the      
,pleiades1  or ,orion's belt4 ,it is a  
remarkable circumstance that this       
discarnate  spirit is the tindalo or    
saint of a kema1 or exogamous division1 
one of the six of ,florida1 and all of  
the six possess their tindalo1  a ghost 
patron in receipt of sacrifice1 as well 
as their buto1 or  animal not to be     

eaten4#af    ,still more remarkable it  
is that1 in certain ,melanesian isles of
 the  ,new ,britain group1 the two      
exogamous divisions are neither         
anonymous1  nor totemic1 nor of local   
names1 nor bear nicknames1 but are named
  after the two opposing powers of      
,dualism1 the ,god and ,devil of savage 
theology4 ,of these ,te ,kabinana is    
#8the founder1 creator1 or inventor  of 
all good and useful things1 usages1 and 
institutions4' ,on the other  hand ,to  
,kovuvura is the ,epimetheus of this    
savage ,prometheus3 ,te  ,kabinana      
created good land3 ,to ,kovuvura created
 bad land1 mountains  and everything    
clumsy and ill formed4 ,these powers    
captain the  two exogamous divisions1 an
 office assumed by two totems in the    
neighbouring ,duke of ,york group4#ag   
,nothing can prove more clearly the     
blending of different stages of thought 
in ,melanesia4    ,on the whole1        
,totemism is breaking down1 and         
something very like  ,polytheism1 of an 

animistic type1 is beginning to emerge1 
in ,melanesia4  ,there is a tindalo of  
the sea1 of war1 and of                 
gardens1--,poseidon1  ,ares1 and        
,priapus in the making4 ,sacrifice and  
prayer exist1 neither  is found 7perhaps
 with an exception as regards prayers   
for the souls  of the dead7 in          
,australia4 ,on the other hand1 only the
 smallest of  small change for the      
,australian conception of such makers   
and judges  as ,baiame is noted in      
,melanesia1 mainly in the myths of and  
prayers  to ,qat1 and myths of a        
creative unworshipped female being4     
,these are  ,vuis1 not ghosts2 they are 
spirits never incarnate1 unlike the     
tindalos4#ah ,qat appears to hover      
between the estate of a lowly  creative 
being1 born of a rock1 and that of a    
culture hero1 and rather  resembles the 
,zulu ,unkulunkulu4 ,thus ,melanesia    
seems1 in society and  beliefs1 to show 
an advance from ,totemism1 nomadic life1
 and from an  unworshipped female       

creative being1 towards ,animism and    
,polytheism1 and  descent reckoned in   
the male line3 agricultural and settled 
existence1  with mixture of race1 and   
foreign contamination of custom1 being  
marked  agents in the developement4     
,as tindalos 7human ghosts1 in one case 
the patron of a kema7 thrive  to ,gods' 
estate1 while butos remain ancestral    
plants or animals1  not to be eaten1 it 
would be a natural step to imagine later
 that the  family ,god 7tindalo7 of     
ghost origin1 incarnates himself in the 
buto1 the sacred animal of the kin4     
,that would be an explanatory  myth4 ,if
 accepted1 it would produce the ,samoan 
and ,fijian belief1 that  the animals   
and plants not to be eaten by the       
kindreds 7old totems7 are  incarnations 
of gods4 ,thus the ,florida beliefs and 
customs are a stage  between those of   
,australia and those of ,samoa and      
,fiji4    ,,how ,,the ,,origin ,,of     
,,totem ,,names ,,was ,,forgotten    ,it
 appears1 at least to the mind of the   

maker of an hypothesis1 that  the names 
of ,melanesian kemas1 as well as the new
 names of ,american  #8gentes' 7totem   
kins with male descent71 indicate the   
probability  that1 from the first--as   
among our villagers--group names were   
given  7in the majority of cases7 from  
without1 as in many ,american and  some 
,melanesian cases they certainly are4   
,we see that it is so3  no group would  
call itself #8,cat's ,cradle ,players1' 
or #8,eaters of  ,hide-scrapings1' or   
#8,bone ,pickers1' as in ,florida2 among
 the ,sioux2 and  in ,western ,england4 
,we cannot possibly expect to find any  
groups in  the process of becoming      
totemic and of having plant and animal  
names  given to them from without4 ,but 
we certainly do observe that names1 or  
nicknames1 relatively recent1 are given 
to savage groups1 on their way  out of  
,totemism--the totem name often still   
lingering on in ,america1  like the     
butos in ,melanesia--and that these     
names1 or nicknames1 are  given from    

without4 ,nearer to demonstration that  
the totem names were  given in the same 
way 7as #8,whig' and #8,tory' were      
given71 we cannot  expect to come4      
,it may be said that my conjecture is   
only a form of that suggested 7if  ,i   
understand him7 by ,mr4 ,herbert        
,spencer4 ,an individual had an animal  
name or nickname4 ,he died3 his ghost   
was revered by his old name1 say  ,bear4
 ,he was forgotten1 and his descendants1
 who kept up his worship1  came to think
 that they were descended from a real   
bear1 and were akin  to bears4 ,i need  
not once more reiterate the objections  
to this theory1  but1 like my own       
suggestion1 it involves forgetfulness of
 a fact1--here  the fact that #8,bear'  
was a human ancestor4 ,against the      
chances of this  forgetfulness was the  
circumstance that individuals were      
constantly  being named ,bear1 ,wolf1   
,eagle1 and so on1 in daily experience1 
usually  with a qualifying epithet1     
#8,sitting ,bull1' #8,howling ,wolf1'   

and so  forth4 ,these facts might have  
prevented ,mr4 ,spencer's savages from  
forgetting that the ancestral ,bear was 
a ,bear of human kind1 like  themselves 
and their contemporaries4    ,in my     
hypothesis1 forgetfulness1 on the other 
hand1 might readily  occur4 ,when all   
the group names in each area had become 
organised and  stereotyped1 there would 
necessarily be no new giving of group   
names to  remind the savages how these  
titles came into existence4 ,on the     
other  hand the myth-making stage1 as to
 kinship with the name-giving plants    
and animals1 would set in1 and then     
would come reverent behaviour  towards  
these creatures1 as if they were kinsmen
 and friends4 ,respect  for the totem1  
in each case1 will clinch the tendency  
to group exogamy4  ,i have supposed1 for
 the reasons given1 that there was      
already a  tendency against marriage    
within the group4 ,that tendency must   
have  been confirmed by the totem tabu  
against making any use of any member  of

 the totem kin1 and a woman of the totem
 would be exempted from  marital use by 
her male fellow-totemists4 ,the totem   
belief would add a  supernormal sanction
 to the exogamous tendency4      ,,other
 ,,sources ,,of ,,sacredness ,,in       
,,plants ,,and ,,animals    ,now any    
such superstitious respect for an       
animal1 whatever its origin1  will take 
the same inevitable forms2 and thus1 if 
individuals select  nyarongs1 naguals1  
and so on1 they must necessarily behave 
to these  things as they do to their    
hereditary totems4 ,there is no other   
way  in which they can behave1 if they  
regard the animals as mysteriously      
friendly and protective1 though the idea
 that they are friendly and  protective 
has different origins1 in either case4  
,thus the exigencies of my guess as to  
the origin of ,totemism1 compel  me to  
disagree with a dictum of ,mr4 ,frazer1 
#8if the relations are  similar1 the    
explanation which holds good of the one 
ought equally  to hold good of the      

other4'#ai ,the conclusion is not       
necessary4 ,you  may revere a rat 7your 
totem71 and a cat 7your nagual7 for     
quite  different reasons1 and in quite  
different capacities1 you being the     
kinsman of your totem1 the protg of your
 nagual2 but1 if you revere  them1 your 
reverence can only show itself in the   
same ways4 ,there are  no other ways4#bj
      ,,recapitulation    ,does my guess
 at the origin of totems seem out of    
harmony with human  nature8 ,you1       
belonging to a local group1 must call   
other groups by  one name or another4   
,plant and animal names come very handy4
 ,the  names fluctuate at first1 but are
 at last accepted by the groups to      
which they are applied4 ,the origin of  
the names being forgotten1 an           
explanation of them is needed1 and1 as  
in every case where it is  needed1 it is
 provided in myths4 ,the myths1 once    
believed in1 are acted  upon2 they      
become the parents of tabus1 magic1     
rites of various kinds4  ,social rules  

must be developed1 some already exist2  
and each group  called by an animal1    
plant1 or other such name1 becomes1     
under that  name1 a social unit1 and    
accepts1 as such1 the customary         
legislation1  just as a parish does4    
,you must not marry within the totem    
name3 either  because of the totem tabu 
in general1 or because the totem comes  
to  be conceived of as denoting kinship1
 and 7for one reason or another7  you   
had already a tendency not to marry     
within the limit of the group4  ,the    
usual totem rules may be thwarted by    
other rules derived from a  peculiar    
system of animism1 very philosophically 
elaborated1 as among  the ,arunta of    
,central ,australia4 ,the institution1  
in short1 may develop  or may dwindle1  
may persist in practice1 or fade into   
faint survival1  or blend with analogous
 superstitions1 or wholly vanish1 in    
varying  conditions4 ,totemism affects  
art2 to some extent it may have affected
  religious evolution4 ,it is certainly 

a source of innumerable myths4    ,but1 
if my guess holds water1 ,totemism arose
 out of names given from  without1 these
 names being of a serviceable sort1 as  
they could be1  and are1 not only       
readily expressed in words1 but readily 
conveyed in  gesture language from a    
considerable distance4 ,the names could 
be  #8signalled4'#ba #8,there is an ,emu
 man3 look out6' ,this could easily  and
 silently be expressed in gesture       
language4 ,place-names1 and many        
nicknames1 could not so be signalled4   
,this theory1 of course1 is not in      
accordance with any savage  explanations
 of the origin of their totem4 ,it could
 not be6 ,their  explanations are such  
fables as only men in their intellectual
  condition could invent3 they are      
myths1 they involve impossibilities4    
,my hypothesis 7or myth7 does not1 ,i   
think1 involve anything impossible  or  
far-fetched1 or incapable of proof in a 
general way4 ,it is human1 it  is       
inevitable1 that plant and animal names 

should be given1 especially  among      
groups more or less hostile4 ,we call   
the ,french #8frogs4' ,it is  also a    
fact that names given from without come 
to be accepted4 ,it is a  fact that     
names1 once accepted1 are explained by  
myths2 it is a fact  that myths come to 
be believed1 and that belief influences 
behaviour4    ,,an ,,objection          
,,answered    ,here ,i foresee an       
objection2 it will be said that1 on the 
other  hand1 behaviour produces myths4  
,men find themselves performing some    
apparently idiotic rite3 they ask       
themselves1 #8,why do we do this        
thing8' and they invent a myth as an    
answer4 ,certainly they do1 but  you    
believe in a ,god1 or in ,saints1 and   
act 7or you ought to act7 in  a manner  
pleasing to these guardians of conduct4 
,you don't believe in  a ,god1 because  
you behave well1 and it is not because  
you behave well  to a totem that you    
believe in a totem4 ,you treat him as   
game1 not as  vermin1 because you       

believe in him1 and your belief is based
 on the  myth which your ancestors      
invented to account for their having a  
totem4    ,my guess has the advantage of
 going behind the age of settled        
dwellings1 agriculture1 kinship through 
males1 and the causal action  of        
individuals4 ,it reverts to the group   
stage of human life4 ,groups  give and  
accept the names2 invent the myths1 act 
on their belief in  the myths1 and so   
introduce the sanction of what had      
perhaps been a  mere tendency towards   
exogamy4 ,on the other hand1 my guess   
has the  disadvantage of dealing with a 
hypothetical stage of society1 behind   
experience4 ,but this cannot be avoided1
 for if we base our hypotheses  of the  
origin of ,totemism on our experience of
 the ways of societies  which have      
passed1 or are passing1 out of          
,totemism1 our theories must            
necessarily be invalidated4 ,it may be  
replied that ,i have myself given       
illustrations of my theory from the     

folk-lore of civilised society4 ,but    
the only begetters of these illustrative
 cases are boys--and boys are  in the   
savage stage1 #8at least as far as they 
are able4'    ,in a tone more serious1  
it may be reiterated that no theory of  
the  origin of ,totemism is likely to be
 correct which derives the totem1  in   
the first instance1 in any way1 from the
 individual1 the private  man4 ,long    
ago1 ,mr4 ,fison wrote1 #8,sir ,john    
,lubbock considers that  the 8worship of
 plants and animals is susceptible of a 
very simple  explanation1 and has really
 originated from the practice of naming1
  first individuals1 and then their     
families1 after particular  animals40#bb
 ,mr4 ,fison replied1 #8,this is surely 
a reversal of the  true order4 ,the     
,australian divisions show that the     
totem is1 in the  first place1 the badge
 of a group1 not of an individual4 ,the 
individual  takes it1 in common with his
 fellows1 only because he is a member of
  the group4 ,and1 even if it were first

 given to an individual1 his  family1   
i4e4 his children1 could not inherit it 
from him1' when descent  is reckoned on 
the female side4#bc    ,it is a         
commonplace1 perhaps an overworked      
commonplace1 that the  group1 not the   
individual1 is the earlier social unit4 
,yet the  hypotheses of ,lord ,avebury1 
,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer1 ,dr4 ,wilken1   
,mr4 ,boas1  ,miss ,alice ,fletcher1 and
 ,messrs4 ,hose and ,mc,dougall1 all    
derive from  individuals1 in one way or 
other1 the most archaic names of human  
groups4 ,the hypothesis of ,mr4 ,max    
,mller leaves the origin of the  group  
name unexplained4 ,the later hypothesis 
7especially provisional71  of ,mr4      
,frazer1 does start from the group name1
 but ,i am not certain  whether we are  
to understand that each group name is   
derived from the  plant ,or animal or   
selected by the group as the object of  
its magical  rites1 or whether1 for some
 unknown reason1 each group already bore
  the name of the animal1 or plant1 or  

element1 before entering on the  great  
co-operative industrial system4 ,now it 
seems to me certain that  the names1 in 
each case1 were originally not names of 
individuals1  or in any way derived from
 individuals1 but were names of groups4 
,as  to how pristine groups might obtain
 such names ,i have offered what1  in   
the nature of the case1 has to be only a
 conjecture4 ,but named1  as soon as men
 had intelligence and speech1 the       
groups1 as groups1  had to be1 and the  
actual names are such as1 whether in    
savagery or  in full civilisation1 are  
given to individuals1 and are also1 in  
civilised rural society1 given to local 
groups1 to members of parishes  and     
villages4 ,so far1 the cause which ,i   
suggest is a vera causa of  collective  
group names4    ,,other ,,objections    
,,answered    ,a well-known ,folk-lorist
 to whom ,i submitted my theory1 rather 
#8in the  rough1' replied to me thus3   
#8,i have thought of ,totemism as       
meaning a  social system1 that is1 as   

including belief1 worship1 kinship1     
society4  ,and therefore1 the animal or 
plant names are an essential part of the
  system4 ,you1 as ,i understand it1    
come along and say the name is the      
result of one of the trifles of the     
human mind1 therefore did not enter     
into the totem system very deeply1 and  
certainly did not belong to the  beliefs
 and the worship1 except as the result  
of a later myth-making  age4 ,of course 
your book may explain all1 and ,i shall 
look forward to  studying it1 as ,i have
 always enjoyed your studies4    #8,but 
,i confess ,i don't much believe in     
these accidents causing or  rather      
entering into so widely spread a system 
as ,totemism4 ,cut away  the name and   
nothing is left to ,totemism except     
myth1 survivals1 and a  social grouping 
without any apparent cement4 ,blood     
kinship as a basis  of society surely   
arose much later1 unless ,dr4 ,reevers's
 remarkable  evidence from the ,haddon  
expedition to ,new ,guinea helps the    

matter4 ,he  found1 you remember1 blood 
kinship traceable by definite           
genealogies  beneath1 so to speak1 a    
system of ,totemism1 and but for the    
most minute  examination blood kinship  
would have escaped observation once more
 and  ,totemism only would have been    
reported4 ,is this blood kinship the    
true  social basis and ,totemism only a 
veneer8    #8,i have goodly notes on    
,totemism and non-,totemism1 and ,i     
confess it  difficult to eliminate the  
name as an important part of the system4
 ,it  covers every part--is the shell   
into which all the rest fits4 ,now ,i   
have too much respect for our savage    
friends to think they used myth  any    
further than we do4 ,we go every ,sunday
 saying 8,i believe10 but we  don't     
build up much upon this4 ,our social    
fabric1 nay our religion1 is  not of    
this4 ,and so of the savage4 ,if ,i     
grant you the myth of descent  from an  
animal to have arisen out of a          
pre-existing name system1 ,i am  no     

nearer the understanding of             
totem-kinship as the basis of a social  
group4'    ,these are natural           
objections1 on a first view of my       
suggestions4  ,totemism is a social     
system1 but there was an age before     
totemism1  an age of undeveloped        
totemism2 into these we try to peer4    
,but the  method of name-giving which ,i
 postulate is hardly #8a trifle of the  
human mind4' ,it is1 as ,i have proved1 
a widely diffused1 probably  an         
universal tendency of the human mind4   
,not less universal1 in the  savage     
intellectual condition1 is the belief in
 the personality and  human             
characteristics of all things           
whatsoever2 man is only one tribe  in   
the cosmic kinship1 and is capable of   
specially close kinship with  animals4  
,nobody denies this1 and the resulting  
myths to explain the  connection of the 
groups and their totems are not only    
natural1 but  inevitable--the real      
origin of the connection1 #8in the dark 

backward  and abysm of time1' being     
forgotten4 ,we may go to church1 and say
 #8,i  believe1' and we may not act up  
to our creeds4 #8,and so of the savage4'
  ,but it is not #8so of the savage4'   
,his belief in a myth of kinship with   
an ,emu is carried into practice1 and   
regulates his conduct1 magical  and     
social4 ,this is not contestable4 ,in   
the same way a ,christian who  believes 
in the efficacy of masses for the       
welfare of his dead friends1  pays for  
masses4 ,at the lowest1 he #8thinks the 
experiment well worth  trying4' ,to     
other myths1 say as to the origin of the
 spots on a beast1  a savage may #8give 
but a doubtsome credit4' ,they are not  
of a nature  to affect his conduct in   
any way4 ,but the totem myths do affect 
his  conduct1 quite undeniably1 and1    
even if there are sceptics1 public      
opinion and customary law compel them to
 regulate their behaviour on  the lines 
of the general belief4 ,we are not to be
 told that nobody  believes in anything6

 ,the #8social grouping' consequent on  
the beliefs  is not #8without any       
apparent cement4' ,the cement is the    
belief in the  actual kinship of all    
persons having the same totem name1 and 
sacred  totem blood1 even if they belong
 to remote and hostile tribes4 ,all     
wolves are brethren in the wolf2 all    
bears are brethren in the bear2  and so 
men-bears are sisters to women-bears1   
and brothers may not marry  sisters4    
,here is #8apparent cement' of the very 
best quality1 and in  abundance1 given  
the acknowledged condition of the savage
 intellect4    ,manifestly these ideas  
belong1 as a whole1 to #8a later        
myth-making  age'--that is to an age    
later than the dateless period of the   
hypothetical anonymous groups4 ,but1    
between that hypothetical period and    
the evolution of the idea of group      
kinship with animals and plants1 and    
with all men of the same animal and     
plant stock names1 there is time  enough
 and to spare for the full evolution of 

,totemism4    ,again1 to a ,darwinian1  
the enormous influence of #8accidents'  
in  evolution ought not to be a matter  
hard of belief2 without #8accidents'    
7in the ,darwinian sense of the word71  
there would be no differentiation  at   
all1 and no evolution4 ,the ,darwinian  
#8accident' seems to mean a  variation  
of unknown cause4 ,but the giving of    
plant and animal group  names is hardly 
an #8accident' of this kind4 #8,what    
else are you to call  it8' the player   
asked1 when questioned as to the origin 
of the words #8a  yorker4' ,and by what 
names so handy and serviceable as plant 
and animal  names were pristine men to  
call the neighbouring groups8    ,i have
 shown why place names were less handy1 
and how1 in nomadic  life1 they were    
scarcely possible4 ,local names come in 
as ,totemism  goes out4 ,long nicknames1
 #8,boil-food-with-the-paunch-skin1'    
#8,take down their leggings1'           
#8,travel-with-very-light-baggage1'     
#8,shot-at-some-white-object' 7,siouan  

nicknames of gentes71 are much  less    
handy1 much less easy to be signalled by
 gesture language1 and  are certainly   
much later than #8,emu1' #8,wolf1'      
#8,kangaroo1' #8,eagle1'  #8,skunk1' and
 other totem names4 ,if such totem names
 were1 originally1  the favourite form  
of nomenclature for hostile groups 7like
 our #8,sick  ,vulture' for a famous    
scholar1 or #8,talking ,potato1' for    
,mr4 ,j4 ,w4  ,croker71 ,i see not much 
of an #8accident' in the circumstance4  
,the totem names1 then1 came in upon a  
very early society3 and myth1  belief1  
custom1 and rite1 crystallised round    
them1 and round the idea  of blood      
kindred1 which must be very early       
indeed4    ,my critic asks1 #8,is blood 
kinship the true social basis1 and      
,totemism  only a veneer8' ,that        
question ,i have already answered4 ,in  
my opinion  mankind1 in evolving        
prohibitions of marriage1 first had     
their eyes  on contiguity1 that of      
#8hearth-mates4' ,groups of hearth-mates

 were  next distinguished by totem      
names4 ,but these names could give no   
superstitious sanction to customary     
laws1 till the idea of #8blood  kinship'
 with1 or descent from1 or evolution out
 of1 or other form of  kinship with the 
totem was developed4 ,at this period1   
the totem name  roughly indicated ties  
of blood kinship4 ,but the ,australians1
 as we  saw1 have now reached a clearer 
idea of what blood kinship is1 and1  by 
a bye-law1 prohibit marriages of #8too  
near flesh1' in cases where1  though the
 persons are akin by blood1 totem law   
does not interfere4  ,totem law has had 
an educating influence in developing the
 objection to  marriages between people 
contiguous as hearth-mates1 into the    
objection  to marriages between persons 
too near in blood kinship4 ,thus        
,totemism  is not #8only a veneer4'     
,on the foundation of all these blended 
ideas1 ,totemism arose1 a stately  but  
fantastic structure1 varying in shape   
under changing conditions1  like an     

iceberg in summer seas4 ,it is1 indeed1 
#8a far cry' from  anonymous human      
groups1 and groups of plant or animal   
names1 to ,helen1  the daughter of the  
swan1 that was ,zeus6 ,but the pedigree 
is hardly  disputable4    ,on the other 
hand1 suppress the totem names1 give the
 original  groups such titles as the    
,sioux #8,take-down-their-leggings1'  or
 #8,boil-meat-in-the-paunch-skin' 7some 
names you must give  them71 and what is 
left8 ,suppose such names to have been  
those of pristine groups1 and suppose   
them to be tending to  exogamy4 ,a      
#8,boil-meat-in-the-paunch-skin' man may
 not marry  a                           
#8,boil-meat-in-the-paunch-skin' girl2  
but must marry a                        
#8,take-down-their-leggings' girl1 or a 
#8shoot-in-the-woods' girl1  or a       
#8,do-not-split-the-body-of-a-buffalo-wi
th-a-knife-but-cut                      
-it-up-as-they-please' girl6 ,that is   
rather cumbrous3 marriage rules on  that
 basis are not readily conceivable4     

,and where is here the tabu sanction8   
,brother ,wolf or ,brother  ,emu is a   
thinkable1 powerful1 sacred kinsman1 who
 will  not have his tabu tampered with4 
,but there is no sanctity  in           
,do-not-split-the-body-of-a-buffalo-with
-a-knife-but  -cut-it-up-as-they-please6
    ,luckily we have here a case in     
point4 ,my theory is that animal names  
being once given to the groups1 the     
animal1 in accordance with savage       
ideas1 became a kinsman and protector4  
,the animal or vegetable or  other type1
 in each case1 sanctioned various tabus1
 including exogamy4  ,had the name been 
another kind of nickname1 as            
#8,boil-meat-in-the  paunch-skin1' what 
was there to sanction the tabu8 ,or1 if 
the group  name was a local name1 where 
was the sanction8 ,exogamy does persist 
where totem groups have become local1   
and are now known by the names of  their
 places of settlement4 ,but not always4 
,of an ,australian tribe1 the           
,gournditch ,mara1 we read that it      

consisted of four local divisions1      
water 7mere871 swamp1 mountain1 and     
river4 ,but there was no exogamous  rule
 affecting marriage4 ,a man of the group
 dwelling in the swamp might  marry a   
woman of the same group4 ,there was     
descent in the male line2  wife-lending 
was highly condemned4 ,the office of    
headman was hereditary  in the male     
line1 #8before any whites came into the 
country4' ,the  benighted tribe was not 
devoid of superstition4    #8,they      
believed that there was a future good   
and bright place1 to which  those who   
were good went after death1 and that    
there was a ,man at that  place who took
 care of the world and of all the       
people4' ,the place was  called         
,mmble-,mirring4 ,the dark1 bad place   
was ,burreet ,barrat4 #8,this  belief   
they had before there was any white     
person in the country4'    ,as these    
statements are odious to most           
anthropologists1 they cannot be  true1  
and thus a slur is cast on all that we  

learn about the ,gournditch  ,mara4 ,but
 though a missionary 7the ,rev4 ,mr4    
,sthle7 cannot1 of course1  be trusted  
here1 he had no professional motive for 
fictions about the  marriage laws of the
 tribe4 ,they had no ceremonies of      
initiation1 no  seasons of license1     
apparently no totems1 and the merely    
local names  of groups naturally carried
 no exogamous prohibition3 conveyed no  
tabu  sanction4#bd ,had there never been
 any totem names1 exogamy might never   
have arisen4    ,how my friendly critic 
is #8no nearer to the understanding of  
totem  kinship as the basis of a social 
group1' if1 for the sake of the         
argument1 he grants #8the myth of       
descent from an animal to have arisen   
from a pre-existing name system1' ,i am 
at a loss to comprehend4 ,here  are     
groups1 ,bear1 ,wolf1 ,trout1 ,racoon1  
firmly1 though erroneously1  believing  
that they are akin to these animals4    
,naturally they #8behave  as such4'     
,each racoon has duties to other        

racoons1 and to the actual  racoons4 ,he
 does not shoot a racoon if he can get  
anything else2 he  does not shoot a     
racoon sitting4 ,he is brother to       
racoons of his own  sex1 and to sisters 
in the racoon of the other sex4 ,he does
 not marry  them4 ,the belief in the    
racoon kinship is the basis of that     
social  group--the man has other social 
groups of other kinds4 ,savages believe 
in their beliefs1 to the extent of dying
 from fear after infringing  a tabu in  
which they believe4 ,thus ,i would reply
 to the objections  offered after a     
first glance at my conjecture4          
,,totems ,,and ,,magical ,,societies    
,a man has other social groups than his 
own totem group in certain  regions4    
,totem groups among the ,arunta1 we have
 seen1 work magic #8to  secure the      
increase of the plant or animal which   
gives its name to the  totem4' ,the     
,arunta have no myth as to the origin of
 these performances1  styled            
,intichiuma4#be ,this1 as far as        

,australia is concerned1 seems  to be a 
peculiarity of the ,arunta system alone1
 or all but alone1 and1  as we saw1 it  
has even been suggested that these rites
 are the origin  of ,totemism4 ,but such
 rites appear to be most firmly         
established and  organised among        
societies which are passing out of      
,totemism4 ,such a  society is that of  
the ,omaha tribe of ,north ,america1    
where descent is  reckoned in the male  
line4#bf ,among the ,omahas we find the 
,elk totem  group with male kinship2    
they may not touch a male ,elk1 or eat  
its  flesh3 if they do1 as in ,new      
,caledonia1 they break out into sores4  
,this  kindred1 with the ,bears1        
#8worship the thunder' in spring4 ,their
 special  business and duty is #8to stop
 the rain4' ,but1 if they are a ,weather
  ,society1 in this respect1 that fact  
does not appear in their totem  names1  
,elk and ,bear4    ,other ,omaha gentes1
 or #8subgentes1' are also totemic1 and 
are named  from that which they may not 

eat1 as wild turkeys1 wild geese1       
cranes1  and blackbirds4 ,the people of 
the black-bird totem actually do a      
little  totem magic1 against their      
totem2 they chew and spit out corn1 to  
prevent the blackbirds from feeding on  
the crops4#bg ,the reptile group  does  
not touch or eat reptiles1 but1 if worms
 injure the corn1 they  pound a few     
worms up into flour1 make a soup        
thereof1 and eat it 7is  this #8totem   
sacrifice'871 all for the good of the   
crops4 ,the worm group  does this magic 
7involving the eating of its totem7 not 
for the benefit  of worms 7as among the 
,arunta7 but to control the mischievous 
action of  worms4    ,now turning to    
,magical or ,magico-,religious          
,societies among these  ,indians1 we    
find a ,wind ,society1 but it contains  
members of many  totems1 buffalo1 eagle1
 hawk1 and so on1 plus #8,the ,south    
wind  people1' who1 apparently1 may be a
 totem group of that name1 which1  as   
among the ,arunta1 might work           

wind-magic4#bh ,but our authority1  the 
late ,mr4 ,dorsey1 calls all the members
 of this ,wind ,magic ,society  #8,wind 
gentes1' and surely this breeds much    
confusion4 ,by a gens  he usually means 
a totem kin with male descent 7by       
#8clan1' he means  a totem kin with     
female descent74 ,thus all #8wind       
gentes' ought to  be wind totem groups3 
only wind totem groups ought to be in   
the ,wind  ,society1 which is not the   
case3 and all water gentes1 or earth1 or
 fire  gentes ought to be of water1     
earth1 or fire totems4 ,but this1 again1
 is  not the case4    ,all sorts of     
totem kindreds enter into the earth1    
wind1 fire1 and  water ,magical         
,societies1 or ,magico-,religious       
,societies4 ,they belong  to them as    
members of any universities1 or of      
certain selected  universities1 may     
belong to an ,university ,club3 or1     
again1 may be  ,catholics1 ,anglicans1  
,brownists1 or ,presbyterians4 ,these   
,american  ,magical ,societies1 though  

composed of members of totem kindreds1  
are  not1 in themselves1 totemic        
societies4 ,members of other totems     
serve  in the societies which work magic
 for earth1 wind1 fire1 and so on4      
,among the ,arunta1 on the other hand1  
the magic for each object is  worked    
solely by the men who have that object  
for totem4 ,to a certain  extent1       
however1 this rule is changing1 and     
members of other totems  may1 at least1 
be present at each totem's ,intichiuma1 
or magical  rites4#bi #8,in addition to 
the members of the totem' 7water7       
#8other men  are invited to come1 though
 they will not be allowed to take any   
part  in the actual ,intichiuma         
ceremony4' ,from presence1 by           
invitation1 to  participation in the    
rites 7as in the ,american ,shamanistic 
,societies71  is a step which may come  
to be taken1 and thus the ,arunta totem 
groups  would become mere #8,shamanistic
 ,societies4'    ,a most curious and    
interesting account of the ,omaha       

,magical ,societies  is given by ,miss  
,alice ,fletcher1 in her essay1 already 
cited1 on #8,the  ,import of the        
,totem4' ,to obtain the #8personal      
totem' 7manitu7 a youth  must first     
listen to his elders4 ,they tell him    
#8to go forth to cry to  ,wa-kon-da4    
,you shall not ask for any particular   
thing1 whatever is  good1 that may      
,wa-kon-da give4'    ,fiat voluntas tua6
    #8,four days and nights upon the    
hills the youth shall pray1 crying1 and1
  when he stops1 shall wipe his tears   
with the palms of his hands1 lift  his  
wet hands to heaven1 then lay them on   
the earth4'    ,to the ordinary mind1   
this describes such prayers as are the  
petitions  of the ,saints4 ,but1 in     
accordance with the views of the        
official school  of ,american           
anthropology1 it is averred that nothing
 of the kind is  intended by the ,omaha4
 #8,there is no evidence that they did  
regard the  power represented by that   
word 7,wa-kon-da7 as a supreme being1   

nor is  there any intimation that they  
had ever conceived of a single great    
ruling spirit1' says ,miss ,fletcher    
7#ahig74    ,the prayer is evidence     
enough4 ,prayer is directed to a person1
 and  whether he is envisaged as #8a    
spirit1' or not1 is a mere detail of    
metaphysical terminology4 ,if ,miss     
,fletcher is right1 ,wa-kon-da is a     
pantheistic conception1 but as ,he1 7or 
,it7 also listens to prayer1  ,he 7or   
,it7 is personal4 ,we see rather an     
anthropomorphic conception  of deity1   
passing towards pantheism1 or to        
divinity no longer  anthropomorphic1    
than a notion of impersonal force       
immanent in the  universe1 passing      
towards anthropomorphism--as in ,miss   
,fletcher's  theory4 ,the idea of such a
 force1 or cosmic rapport 7the ,maori   
mana71 is1 indeed1 familiar to us in the
 speculations of the lower  barbaric    
races4 ,it does credit to their         
metaphysics1 but1 prima  facie1 seems   
likely to be later in evolution than the

 idea of an  anthropomorphic ,maker1    
like the ,australian ,baiame4    ,at all
 events1 the ,omaha appears to live1 in 
prayer1 on a high  religious level1 and 
it is open to the friends of religious  
borrowing1  to say that he took his     
creed from ,europeans4 ,i am not certain
 that  ,miss ,fletcher is indisposed to 
agree with me on this point of ,red     
,indian unborrowed theism4 ,in her      
,indian ,song and ,story1#cj she gives  
,pawnee songs1 #8hitherto sealed from   
the knowledge of the white race4'  ,here
 is one3        ,lift thine eyes6 ',tis 
the gods who come near1      ,bringing  
thee joy1 release from all pain4        
,sending sorrow and sighing      ,far   
from the child1 ,ti-ra-wa makes fain4   
,ah1 you look1 you know who comes1      
,claiming you his1 and bidding you rise1
      ,blithely smiling and happy1      
,child of ,ti-ra-wa1 ,lord of the       
,skies6    ,ti-ra-wa is ,hau-ars1 #8a   
contraction of the word meaning father4'
 ,the  song is used to still children   

who cry at a religious ceremony4        
,however it be1 the ,omaha prays to     
,wa-kon-da1 not for #8any particular    
thing1' but for whatever1 in the gift of
 ,wa-kon-da1 is good1 and mainly  for a 
manitu 7#8personal totem'74 ,the ,omaha 
also believe in telepathy4  #8,thought  
and will can be projected to help a     
friend4' ,a magical society  exists1 to 
concentrate and direct this expenditure 
of energy1 and  the process is          
strengthened by such things as the      
neophyte beholds  in vision1 after      
prayer to ,wa-kon-da4 ,he sent an answer
 to prayer1 a  feather of a bird1 a tuft
 of a beast's hair1 a crystal1 a black  
stone1  representing the species1 or    
element of nature1 which was to be the  
neophyte's #8personal totem1' or manitu4
 ,if it were thunder1 the man  could    
control the elements2 if it were an     
eagle1 he had an eagle eye  for the     
future2 if it were a bear 7or a badger71
 he was not so gifted4    ,now1         
according to ,miss ,fletcher1 the ,bear 

,magical ,society is composed  of men1  
who1 after prayer1 have seen the bear in
 dream or vision2 those  who saw        
representatives #8of thunder or water   
beings' form the ,society  which deals  
with the weather4 #8,the membership came
 from every kinship  group' 7totem kin7 
#8in the tribe4' ,thus the ,magical     
,societies are  composed of men of any  
totem1 and1 the less purely totemic the 
tribe1  the stronger is the ,magical    
,society4    ,the totem kins now1 among 
the ,omaha1 have descent in the male    
line4  ,all this is #8late1' and #8late'
 is the totem priesthood held by        
#8hereditary chiefs of the gens4' ,miss 
,fletcher regards the totem of  the     
#8gens1' with the beliefs crystallised  
around it1 as an ingenious              
#8expedient1' with a social #8purpose6' 
the totem of each kindred having  been  
inherited from the vision and manitu of 
some ancestral chief4  ,we need not     
again point out that1 even now1 among   
the ,omaha1 advanced  as they are1      

manitus are not hereditable1 and that   
,miss ,fletcher's  system cannot account
 for ,totemism in tribes which reckon   
descent on  the spindle side4 ,miss     
,fletcher justly remarks that the real  
totem1  #8the gentile totem1' #8gave no 
immediate hold upon the supernatural1   
as did the individual totem' 7manitu7   
#8to its possessor4 ,it served  solely  
as a mark of kinship1 and its connection
 with the supernatural  was manifest    
only in its punishment of the violation 
of tabu4'    ,in brief1 the real totem1 
and the individual manitu1 with its     
magical  societies1 are two things      
totally apart1 and apart we must keep   
them1  in our studies of early society4 
,not to do so is to make the topic      
incomprehensible4      ,,totem          
,,survivals    ,in other books1         
especially in ,myth1 ,ritual1 and       
,religion1 and ,custom  and ,myth1 ,i   
have examined apparent survivals of     
,totemism1 in ancient  ,greece1 ancient 
,egypt1 and other civilised countries4  

,of these the  most notable are the     
,greek myths of descent of families from
 animals1  explained as the temporary   
vehicles of ,zeus or ,apollo3 and the   
worship  of special animals by each of  
the ,nomes of ,egypt4 ,other arguments  
,i  have offered1 especially in the case
 of ,apollo and the ,shrew ,mouse4 ,i   
remain of the opinion that many of the  
,greek mythical and religious  phenomena
 noted1 are most probably to be         
explained as survivals of a  totemic    
past4 ,of course ,totemism is only one  
element in animal worship1  and the     
,corn ,spirit1 disguised as almost any  
animal you please1 may be  one of the   
other elements4 ,but1 as far as ,i have 
studied the subject1  ,i agree with ,mr4
 ,tylor in his #8protest against the    
manner in which  totems have been placed
 almost at the foundation of religion4  
,totemism  444 has been exaggerated out 
of proportion to its real theological   
magnitude4444 ,the rise and growth of   
ideas of deity1 a branch of  knowledge  

requiring the largest range of          
information and the greatest  care in   
inference1 cannot1 ,i hold1 be judged on
 the basis of a section  of theology of 
secondary importance--namely1 animal    
worship--much less  of a special section
 of that--namely1 the association of a  
species of  animals 7and of a vast      
variety of other things7 #8with a clan  
of men  which results in ,totemism4 ,a  
theoretical structure has been raised   
quite too wide and high for such a      
foundation4'#ca ,the totem god  himself 
,i regard as only the hypothesis by     
which certain barbaric races  account to
 themselves for the survivals of        
,totemism among them4 ,the  so-called   
#8totem sacrament' is not #8god-eating1'
 but a piece of magic1  used in         
ceremonies designed to foster--or to vex
 and annoy--the totem4  ,as ,mr4 ,tylor 
writes1 #8till the totem sacrament is   
vouched for by some  more real proof1 it
 had better fall out of speculative     
theology4'    ,,did ,,the ,,ancestors   

,,of ,,the ,,civilised ,,races ,,pass   
,,through ,,the ,,australian  ,,stage8  
,that the ancestors of the              
,aryan-speaking peoples passed through  
the  #8stone age' of culture1 few will  
deny4 ,that they also passed through    
the totemic stage as regards marriage   
law is1 however1 a problem  perhaps not 
to be solved4 ,for reasons unknown1 the 
#8white' races  7not to speak of        
,egyptians1 ,babylonians1 ,chinese1 and 
,japanese7 have  a peculiar aptitude for
 civilisation1 are peculiarly accessible
 to  ideas4 ,it might therefore be      
argued that conceivably they were       
readily  accessible to the idea of blood
 kinship4 ,the maternal affection1 in a 
race whose children 7unlike the         
offspring of the lower animals7 are  so 
long in attaining maturity1 cannot but  
suggest the idea of blood  kinship4     
,among totemic peoples it seems that    
this idea was originally  defined by the
 totem name1 a definition at once too   
wide and too  narrow4 ,it is not        

physically unthinkable that our own     
ancestors may  have been more acutely   
intelligent1 and1 if so1 why should not 
they  simply forbid unions between      
persons too near akin in blood8 ,we have
  found no such moral or instinctive    
reason among totemic peoples who  were1 
apparently1 led to exogamy1 first by    
non-moral causes1 or causes  in which   
the moral element was not explicit1 and 
then1 by aid of  corollaries from rules 
thus based1 came to forbid marriages of 
#8too  near flesh4' ,without the        
training of totemic institutions1 it is 
hard  to see how the ,aryan-speaking    
peoples 7however naturally gifted from  
the first7 arrived at the same          
conception of incest4 ,it seems absurd  
to suppose that black men and red men   
arrived at the idea of incest1  and at  
the laws which prohibit it1 by the      
devious and unpromising path  of        
,totemism1 while white men reached the  
same point in some other way4  ,yet if  
it has appeared difficult to find traces

 of ,totemism among the  ,melanesians1  
much more difficult must it be to prove 
that races with  so long a civilised    
history as1 for example1 the ,greeks1   
were once  under totemic institutions4  
,i have already indicated my inclination
 to believe that ,totemism has  left its
 traces1 in ,greece1 in the myths of    
descent from bulls1 bears1  swans1 dogs1
 ants1 and so forth1 and in certain     
peculiar aspects  of animal worship4 ,it
 is usual for scholars to explain these 
facts  away1 as things borrowed by early
 ,greeks from some other race4 ,but     
#8the receiver is as bad as the thief1' 
and if ,greeks were capable  of         
accepting totemic ideas1 they were      
capable of evolving totemic             
institutions4 ,we are not to invent an  
ideal #8,aryan1' and then to  explain   
all his traces of savagery as borrowings
 by him from some  unknown prior race4  
,there is no reason at all for supposing
 that the  peoples who speak languages  
called1 for convenience1 #8,aryan1' were

  better bred than any other peoples at 
the beginning4    ,it would greatly add 
to the force of the presumptions in     
favour of an  #8,aryan' totemic past1 if
 we could point to apparent survivals   
not only  in myth and early art1 but in 
actual institutions4 ,now there are     
,greek  institutions1 in ,attica1 the   
#8deme1' the genos1 and the phratria1   
which may be interpreted1 rightly or    
wrongly1 as survivals of ,totemism4  ,we
 have seen that gens 7equivalent to the 
,greek 7 and  that phratria 77 are used1
 by certain students1 to designate  the 
totem kin1 and the two #8primary        
exogamous divisions' 7say ,dilbi  and   
,kupathin7 of ,australia and ,north     
,america4 ,to use gens thus is          
misleading1 especially as #8totem kin'  
is adequate and unambiguous4 ,but  we   
have here employed #8phratria' to       
designate the #8primary exogamous       
division1' because no better word is    
handy1 while we do not maintain  that   
the ,attic phratria is a survival of the

 institution usual in  ,australia4      
,messrs4 ,fison and ,howitt1 in an      
instructive paper1 have offered1 as  a  
provisional hypothesis1 the theory that 
the ,attic deme 7a local  association7  
may have arisen from the kind of local  
tribe 7or  horde7 in ,australia1 while  
the ,attic phratries and  7associations 
depending on birth and kinship7 were    
survivals  of the #8primary exogamous   
divisions' and totem kins4#cb ,the      
present  writer had made similar        
suggestions long ago4#cc ,concerning the
   and  we know but little3 inevitably1 
for we have seen that1  even in         
,australia1 still more in ,melanesia1   
local names and local  communities are  
beginning to encroach on and usurp the  
authority of  the totem kin1 and other  
associations based on common blood1 real
 or  reputed4 ,infinitely more must this
 have been the case in ,greece4 ,if     
savage phratries and totem kins once    
existed in ,attica1 they must have  been
 nearly obliterated long before the     

historical period4 ,at most  they would 
only survive in connection with ritual  
and religion4 ,again1  our definitions  
of  genos and  are derived from late    
grammarians and lexicographers4 ,thus   
our means of knowledge are limited  and 
darkling4    ,messrs4 ,howitt and ,fison
 start from the horde1 or tribe1 the    
horde  meaning the largest local        
,australian community1 composed of      
subtribes1  if we are not merely to say 
#8tribe1' and leave #8horde' out of the 
question4 ,the members of the horde or  
tribe are1 as we know1 of many  various 
totems1 but of only two #8primary       
exogamous divisions' or  phratries4     
,into these the members are born1 mostly
 taking the mother's  phratry and totem4
 ,as a rule1 both father and mother     
belong to the  tribe1 but if a woman    
does come in out of an alien tribe1 her 
children1  though deriving totem and    
phratry names through her1 are of their 
father's local tribe4 ,an alien woman   
may be assigned1 by the elder men1  to  

this or that totem3 or to the totem     
corresponding to that which she  had in 
her own local tribe4 ,the children of   
male aliens follow the  totem of their  
mother1 a member of the tribe4    ,in   
,attica1 too1 was a local community1 the
 deme--thus ,thucydides  was a          
,halimusian by deme4 ,the historical    
demes were organised by  ,cleisthenes1  
on a local basis4 ,some of them bore the
 names of the   which occupied them1 and
 often the names were derived from      
plants4 ,either these plants were       
characteristic of the localities1 or    
conceivably the  had old totemic plant  
names1 like the plum and  other         
vegetable totems of the ,australians4   
,all about the local demes1  the members
 of the phratri were scattered1 like    
members of various  totem names among   
the ,australian local tribes4 ,an alien 
could belong  to a local deme1 but not  
to a 4 ,his children1 if by marriage    
with a free woman1 were reckoned in her 
father's  male descent  prevailing1 of  

course1 in ,attica4 ,in ,australia the  
tribes-woman's  children by an alien    
would usually go to her totem and       
#8primary  exogamous division4' ,the    
child of an alien woman1 in ,attica1    
even if  the father was high born1 could
 not be admitted to a 3 which  certainly
 looks like a survival of the archaic   
reckoning by female  descent4 ,to try to
 insert an alien child in a deme was a  
civil1 in a   was a religious           
offence4#cd ,the ancient court of the   
,areopagus  had to do with these        
offences against customary religion4    
,messrs4 ,fison  and ,howitt draw a     
parallel between the ,areopagus and the 
,great ,council  of the ,dieri tribe1   
whose headman was inspired by #8the     
great spirit  ,kuchi1' of whom one would
 like to know more4    ,an ,attic boy   
was presented to his  at once2 full     
membership of  the local deme came with 
adolescence1 and after military training
 and  service4 ,as we know1 a series of 
initiations1 and instruction #8as to    

the existence of a great spirit1' with a
 probation of a year1 are to  be passed 
before the ,australian lad is allowed to
 marry and attend the  assembly of his  
local tribe4 ,better examples of        
initiation1 and of a  retreat in the    
hills in company with an adult1 and     
instructor1 are  to be found in ,sparta 
than in ,athens4 ,but the ,australian   
#8and ,attic  analogies are pretty      
close4 ,on the most important point     
there is no  analogy4 ,there were plenty
 of 1 of #8phratries' each ,australian  
tribe has only two4 ,again1 these two   
are exogamous3 that is their main       
raison d'tre4 ,we have not a glimpse of 
exogamy in the  of  ,attica4    ,the 1  
we may agree1 ,i think1 with ,messrs4   
,fison and ,howitt1 was1  originally1   
like the totem kin1 an association of   
persons supposed  to be related by ties 
of blood4 ,the grammarian ,pollux says  
#8they who  belonged to the  were styled
 ' 7men of the 1 and #8men  of the same 
milk'71 #8not that they were related 1  

but they were  so called from their     
union 7or assemblage--   74' ,what  is  
meant by     #8not genealogically       
related'8 ,i  conceive ,pollux to mean  
that the members of the  were not all of
  traceable or recognised degrees of    
kinship4 ,thus a ,cameron1 if asked     
whether he is related to another        
,cameron1 may say1 and not so long ago  
would have said1 #8he is not my         
relation1 but my clansman4' ,messrs4    
,fison and ,howitt take much the same   
view4 ,by #8relations1' ,pollux meant   
#8such as parents1 sons1 brothers1 and  
those before them1 and their  progeny1' 
that is1 from grandfathers and          
granduncles to grandsons and            
great-nephews4 ,this might be the notion
 of relationship in the time of         
,pollux1 the second century of our era1 
but1 as ,messrs4 ,fison and ,howitt     
justly remark1 ,attic ideas of kinship  
before the  ascribed  to ,theseus would 
be much more extensive1 as in ,scotland 
and ,britanny4  ,the humblest ,stewart1 

,douglas1 ,ruthven1 or ,hamilton would  
call himself  #8the ,king's poor        
cousin4' ,but the ,greeks of our second 
century were  more modern1 more like the
 ,english4    ,yet the very words  and  
gens indicate the idea of blood         
relationship1 just as #8clan' does4 ,the
  had common sacra1 and a  common place 
of burial4 ,they were clans1 but we have
 no proof that  they were ever exogamous
 or totemic4 ,however1 the myths and    
rituals of  ,greece certainly yield     
facts of which a totemic past seems the 
most  plausible explanation4 ,mr4       
,jevons writes1 #8we find fragments of  
the  system' 7,totemism71 #8one here and
 another there1 which1 if only they  had
 not been scattered1 but had been found 
together1 would have made a  living     
whole4 ,thus we have families whose     
names indicate that they were           
originally totem clans1 e4g4 there were 
,cynad at ,athens1 as there  was a ,dog 
clan among the ,mohicans2 but we have no
 evidence to show that  the dog was     

sacred to the ,cynad4444 ,on the other  
hand1 storks were  revered by the       
,thessalians1 but there is nothing to   
show that there was  a stork clan in    
,thessaly4'#ce ,wolves were buried      
solemnly in ,attica1  where there was a 
wolf hero1 and lobsters were buried in  
,seriphos1  like the gazelle in ,arabia4
 ,but we have no evidence of a wolf kin 
in  ,attica1 though we have in ,italy   
7the ,hirpi7 nor of a lobster kin in    
,seriphos4 7,for other traces1 fairly   
numerous1 ,i may refer to my ,custom    
and ,myth1 and ,myth1 ,ritual1 and      
,religion1 while deprecating the idea   
that all worship or reverence of animals
 is of totemistic origin47    ,it will  
probably be admitted that1 if ,greeks   
7or ancient dwellers  on ,greek soil7   
were at some remote period totemistic1  
and next1 by  reckoning descent in the  
male line1 became attached to           
localities1  then something like demes1 
phratries1 and  might very naturally  be
 evolved4 ,and many traces in ritual1   

myth1 and custom do point to  ,totemism 
in the remote past4 ,indeed1 it is      
remarkable that we should  still be able
 to point to so many apparent relics of 
institutions  already almost obliterated
 among the ,melanesians4    ,on the     
whole1 ,i regard it as more probable    
than not1 that1 in the  education of    
mankind1 ,totemism has played a part    
everywhere2 a  beneficent part4 ,but    
this is only a private opinion3 one     
believes in it  as one believes in      
telepathy1 without asserting that the   
evidence is of  constraining value4     
,footnote #a3 ,mr4 ,haddon agrees on    
this point4    ,footnote #b3            
,codrington1 ,the ,melanesians1 chaps1  
iii4 iv4    ,footnote #c3 ,op4 cit4 p4  
#ba4    ,footnote #d3 ,op4 cit4 p4 #bb4 
,footnote #e3 ,ibid4 p4 #bf4            
,footnote #f3 ,op4 cit4 p4 #cb4         
,footnote #g3 ,tylor1 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41      
,august1 ,november4 #ahih1 p4 #adg4     
,footnote #h3 ,op4 cit4 p4 #cc4         
,footnote #i3 ,ibid4 p4 #dj4            

,footnote #aj3 ,ibid4 p4 #bb4           
,footnote #aa3 ,dr4 ,codrington's exact 
words are #8,the buto is in all         
probability a form of the custom which  
prevails in ,ulawa1' and the  banana    
story follows4    ,footnote #ab3 ,op4   
cit4 pp4 #cc1 #ei-fh4    ,footnote #ac3 
,ibid4 pp4 #cf-cg4    ,footnote #ad3    
,ibid4 p4 #ej4    ,footnote #ae3 ,op4   
cit4 pp4 #abd-acj4    ,footnote #af3    
,danks1 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4 xviii4 #c1 #bha-bhb4
    ,footnote #ag3 ,ibid4 pp4 #aca-acb4 
,footnote #ah3 ,codrington1 op4 cit4 pp4
 #aed-aef4    ,footnote #ai3 ,golden    
,bough1 iii4 #daf-dag4    ,footnote #bj3
 ,mrs4 ,langloh ,parker writes1         
concerning the ,euahlayi                
,baiame-worshipping tribe of ,new ,south
 ,wales3 #8,a person has often a  second
 or individual totem of his name1 not   
hereditary1 and given him  by the       
wirreenuns' 7medicine men71 #8called his
 yunbeai1 any hurt  to which injures    
him1 and which he may never eat--his    
hereditary totem  he may4 ,he is        

supposed to be able1 if he be a great   
wirreenun1 to  take the form of his     
yunbeai1 which will also give him       
assistance  in time of trouble or       
danger1 is a sort of alter ego1 as it   
were4'  ,in this tribe the yunbeai      
7nyarong1 nagual1 manitu7 is of more    
importance to the individual than his   
hereditary totem1 which1 however1  by   
,baiame's law1 regulates marriage1 as   
elsewhere 7,folk-,lore1 x4  #dia1 #dib74
 ,the tribe studied by ,mrs4 ,langloh   
,parker speaks a dialect  7,euahlayi7   
akin to the ,kamilaroi1 but the         
,kamilaroi of ,mr4 ,ridley are  seated  
three or four hundred miles away4       
,footnote #ba3 ,roth1 ,ethnological     
,studies1 #ga-ij4 ,dr4 ,roth gives  the 
signs for the animals1 but does not say 
that they are used for  signalling totem
 names2 indeed1 he says nothing about   
totems4    ,footnote #bb3 ,origin of    
,civilisation1 p4 #ahc4    ,footnote    
#bc3 ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1 p4 #afe4   
,in his edition of #aijb1  ,lord        

,avebury does not reply to these        
arguments4    ,footnote #bd3 ,kamilaroi 
and ,kurnai1 pp4 #bgd-bgh4    ,footnote 
#be3 ,spencer and ,gillen1 ch4 vi4      
,footnote #bf3 ,dorsey1 #8,omaha        
,sociology1' ,bureau of ,ethnology1     
#ahha-ahhb1 p4 #bbe4    ,footnote #bg3  
,dorsey1 #8,omaha ,sociology1' ,bureau  
of ,ethnology1  #ahha-ahhb1 pp4         
#bch-bci4    ,footnote #bh3 ,dorsey1    
#8,siouan ,cults1' ,bureau of           
,ethnology1 #ahhi-ahij  7#ahid71 p4     
#ecg4    ,footnote #bi3 ,spencer and    
,gillen1 pp4 #afi1 #aia4    ,footnote   
#cj3 ,nutt1 #aijj1 pp4 #ajh-aab4        
,footnote #ca3 ,j4 ,a4 ,i41 ,august1    
,november1 #ahih1 p4 #add4    ,footnote 
#cb3 ,j4,a4,i4 xiv4 #adb1 #aha4         
,footnote #cc3 ,politics of ,aristotle1 
,bolland and ,lang1 #ahgf2 #8,family'   
in ,encyclopdia ,britannica4            
,footnote #cd3 ,dem4 ,centra ,neram #ag4
    ,footnote #ce3 ,introduction to the 
,history of ,religion1 pp4 #abe-abf4    
,,primal ,,law          ,,chapter ,i    

,,man ,,in ,,the ,,brutal ,,stage       
,mr4 ,darwin on the primitive relations 
of the sexes4--,primitive man           
monogamous or polygamous4--,his         
jealousy4--,expulsion of young males4-- 
,the author's inferences as to the      
evolution of ,primal ,law4--,a customary
  ,rule of ,conduct evolved4--,traces   
surviving in savage life4--,the customs 
of ,avoidance4--,custom of ,exogamy     
arose in the animal stage4--,brother    
and ,sister ,avoidance4--,the author's  
own observation of this custom in  ,new 
,caledonia4--,strangeness of such a     
custom among houseless nomads in        
,australia--,rapid decay under ,european
 influences4      #8,man1 as ,i have    
attempted to show1 is certainly         
descended from some  ,apelike ,creature4
 ,we may1 indeed1 conclude1 from what we
 know of the  jealousy of all ,male     
,quadrupeds1 armed as many of them are  
with special  weapons for battling with 
their rivals1 that promiscuous          
intercourse  in a state of ,nature is   

extremely improbable4 ,therefore1       
looking far  enough back in the ,stream 
of ,time1 and judging from the ,social  
habits  of ,man as he now exists1 the   
most probable view is that he           
aboriginally  lived in small            
communities1 each with a single wife1   
or1 if powerful1  with several1 whom he 
jealously guarded against all other     
,men4 ,or he  may not have been a social
 animal#a and yet have lived with       
several  wives like the ,gorilla--for   
all the natives agree that but one adult
  male is seen in a band2 when the young
 male grows up1 a contest takes  place  
for the mastery1 and the strongest1 by  
killing or driving out  the others1     
establishes himself as head of the      
,community4    #8,younger males1 being  
thus expelled and wandering about1      
would1 when at  last successful in      
finding a partner1 prevent too close    
interbreeding  within the limits of the 
same family4'#b    ,mr4 ,darwin1 in the 
foregoing sentences1 affirms the        

improbability of  ,promiscuity in the   
,sexual ,relations of ,man during the   
,animal ,stage1  and1 incidentally1 the 
,unity of the ,human ,race in its       
origin4 ,both  theories are contested4  
,the following thesis1 however1 on the  
,genesis  of ,primal ,law in ,human     
,marriage1 treats of a conjectural      
series  of events in the ,ascent of     
,man1 events which involve a state of   
the  inter-sexual relationships amidst  
our primitive ancestors identical  with 
that portrayed in the ,descent of ,man4 
,my essay includes further1  as regards 
the continued evolution of society1 the 
development of a  theory1 based on my   
#8,primal ,law1' which1 if correct1     
would seem also to  confirm ,mr4        
,darwin's ideas as to ,unity of ,origin4
    ,i am content1 for my part1 to hope 
that my hypothesis1 however novel  some 
of its conclusions1 is in its general   
tenor in accord with the  views of so   
great a naturalist as ,mr4 ,darwin4 ,his
 exposition of the  probable relations1 

within the family group1 of the male and
 female  prototypes of mankind1 and more
 especially of the antagonistic         
attitude1 inter se1 of the older and    
younger males1 is indeed literally      
prophetic of the ,primal ,law1 whose    
existence ,i surmise4 ,this law is  the 
inevitable corollary of ,mr4 ,darwin's  
statement1 if ,man was ever to  emerge  
from the ,brute4 ,my theory1 in fact1   
viewed as to its genesis1  is simply    
evolved from a consideration of the     
potential results of the  attitude of   
such creatures as our ancestors then    
were1 when subjected  to the effects of 
those changes of environment1 which     
alone1 to my  deeming1 could have fixed 
modifications towards the human type4   
,mr4  ,darwin's premises1 indeed1 as to 
the ,early ,social economy of our ,race 
in the animal stage1 inevitably entail1 
if progress was to be made1  the        
evolution of law in regulation of       
,marriage relationship1 having  regard  
to the fierce sexual jealousy of the    

males1 on the one hand1 and  on the     
other to the patent truth that in the   
peaceful aggregation of  our ancestors  
alone lay the germ of ,society4    ,this
 would above all be the case if1        
reasoning by analogy1 we  provisionally 
accept1 as the probable nearest approach
 to man's  direct ancestors1 the actual 
,anthropoids4 ,these1 such as the       
,gorilla1  are undoubtedly amongst the  
most unsocial of animals as regards the 
attitude of the adult males inter se4   
,from the very difficulty of  the       
problem of the congregation of such     
creatures in friendly unison  within the
 group1 we may infer that1 in its       
solution1 there will be  found the key  
to the whole question of the ,ascent    
from ,brute to ,man4  ,in that ascent1  
,habit1 the parent of ,law1 must have   
been conquered1  and modified into the  
direction of novel ,custom1 a shock to  
the older  economy of life4 ,again1 the 
new rule of conduct1 necessarily        
inchoate  7considering the presumed     

feeble intellectuality of the creatures 
concerned1 animals more or less brutish7
 must yet be of facile  interpretation  
to its subjects1 though1 as befits ,homo
 alalus1 it  must have been quite mute  
in operation4 ,the new ,rule of ,conduct
 would  not be expressed in terms of    
speech1 a function1 ex hypothesi not    
yet evolved4 ,the rule1 as it was to my 
mind1 ,i here propose to attempt  to    
unfold as the #8,primal ,law2' hoping to
 show that therein lay the  beginning of
 law and order1 and that1 whilst itself 
arising in a  natural manner1 in its    
incidental creation of a first standard 
of a  possible right and wrong1 it laid1
 so to speak1 one of the foundations  of
 that moral sense1 which has seemed to  
place so wide a space between  man and  
other creatures4    ,the prior existence
 of this law1 in the semi-brutish stage 
of our  physical and ethical evolution1 
might have been deductively evolved1    
even if no traces of it had remained to 
our day4 ,it will be1 however1  my      

endeavour to point out that evidence of 
its existence 7abundant  as it appears  
to me7 is to be found in certain obscure
 customs which  are common to most      
actual savage races4 ,the customs of    
so-called  #8avoidance' between near    
relations will have the principal       
interest  for us1 although primitive    
marriage and inheritance will be found  
of  corroborative value4 ,survivals and 
myths can be shown to point to the      
undeniable occurrence of this #8,primal 
,law' in the earlier life-history  of   
the non-civilised peoples4 ,the myths1  
however1 may be merely early  guesses   
about the unknown past of the race4     
,amongst marriage customs that which has
 given rise to most discussion  as      
regards its origin is #8,exogamy' or    
marriage outside the family  group1 or  
outside the limit of the totem name4 ,my
 general argument1 as  will be seen1    
places me in antagonism with all        
theories yet advanced  on the subject4  
,but ,mr4 ,lang1 in ,custom and ,myth1  

#ahhd 7p4 #beh71  hazards1 as his own   
impression1 a conception of this matter 
which ,i  will note--namely1 that       
#8,exogamy1 may be connected with some  
early  idea of which we have lost       
touch1' and he adds1 #8,if we only knew 
the  origin of the prohibition to marry 
within the family#c all would be  plain 
sailing4' ,however utterly beyond human 
ken1 in these our latter  days1 any     
truthful image of so remote a past may  
seem to be1 it is  yet precisely this   
hypothetic early idea which ,i hope to  
be able to  expose4 7,if ,i am correct1 
we shall find that it was connected with
  the sexual relations of primitive man1
 whilst in the animal stage1  and       
especially with the mutual marital      
rights of the males within  a group47   
,such idea in travail1 hastened and     
sharpened by needs of  environment1     
created issues which necessarily gave   
birth to a #8,primal  ,law' prohibitory 
of marriage between certain members of a
 family or  local group1 and thus1 in   

natural sequence1 led to forced         
connubial  union beyond its circle the  
family1 or local group--that is1 led to 
,exogamy4 ,but if such was in reality   
the original order of succession  in the
 growth of custom1 it becomes evident   
that ,exogamy as a habit  7not as an    
expressed law7 must have been of        
primordial evolution4  ,thus 7in        
contra-distinction to generally received
 opinion and to  ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's      
theory in particular7 ,exogamy must have
 been a cause  rather than an effect in 
relation to its ordinary concomitants1  
i4e4  ,female ,infanticide as a custom1 
,polyandry as a fixed institution1 and  
,totemism as connected with exogamous   
groups1 within which marriage was       
forbidden4 ,as thus my new hypothesis   
finds itself in opposition to  those of 
recognised authorities1 it is evident   
that it will require to  account for all
 the facts if it is to hold its ground4 
,however convinced the author may be by 
the array of seemingly  confirmatory    

details in favour of his hypothesis1 it 
is possible that  from their paucity    
they may yet to others seem to          
constitute but a  feeble line of        
defensive proof4 ,but if the theory     
shall prove in itself  to have merit1   
this defect 7arising1 as ,i believe1    
from lack of general  anthropological   
knowledge on my part1 for ,i dwell #8far
 from books'7  will quickly be remedied1
 for a hundred other details in favour  
of my  view will be at once perceived by
 more experienced students4 ,should my  
hypothesis really furnish the clue to   
the problem of the prohibition  to marry
 within the family name1 or totem name1 
all the rest will  doubtless become     
#8plain sailing' in competent hands4    
,in any case before my conjecture is    
definitely laid aside as  erroneous1 it 
may1 let us hope1 be considered         
desirable to await  fuller evidence as  
to the extent of the operation1 in      
actual savage  life1 of that particular 
custom of #8,avoidance' which ,i        

consider1 in  its inception1 and as the 
earliest law1 to have been a #8vera     
causa'  of widest operation in primitive
 social evolution4 #8,avoidance' is1    
however1 to-day1 a mere faint image of a
 remote past1 and its genetic           
significance has utterly faded from     
among even those people who yet1  with  
strange conservatism1 still blindly     
yield an everyday obedience to  it1 in  
form at least4 ,belonging to a class of 
savage habits presenting  features so   
extraordinary1 #8,avoidance between     
brother and sister'  has ever been a    
puzzle to inquirers4 ,this ,avoidance is
 only the most  obscure of all the      
numerous cases of the strange habit1 but
 it is also  that which1 up to the      
present1 seems least to have attracted  
the  notice of anthropologists4 ,in this
 class of custom1 the ,avoidance of     
which most frequent mention has been    
made in literature1 is avoidance        
between mother-in-law and son-in-law1   
whereas that between brother and  sister

 is to my knowledge but rarely          
mentioned4#d ,and yet1 as far  as my own
 experience goes 7and it extends over   
more than a quarter  of a century among 
primitive peoples in the ,south ,seas71 
,avoidance  of brother and sister is not
 only as common as1 but infinitely more 
strict and severe in action than1 the   
,avoidance of #8,mothers-in-law4'  ,it  
is indeed probable that the very        
severity of observance has led to  its  
being so little noticed4 ,for by the    
action of this law1 a brother  and a    
sister1 after childhood1 are kept so far
 apart from one another1  that only     
those who have actually lived long      
amidst natives can be  expected to have 
had a chance of being aware of the      
restraints to  intercourse between them4
 ,even then it would be from some such  
casual  occurrence as the accidental    
rencontre of the two1 placing them thus 
in sudden and unavoidable proximity to  
each other1 which would lead to  an     
observation1 by an ,european1 of their  

extraordinary attitude and  behaviour   
under such circumstances4    ,my own    
attention was primarily only drawn to   
this matter by noting  the grave scandal
 and excitement caused in a native      
community by the  momentary isolation1  
in a canoe1 of a brother and sister4    
,the affair  became so very serious for 
the brother that he disappeared from the
  tribe for over a year4 ,indeed1 the   
rigorous severity of this particular    
law in daily action is almost           
incredible4 ,in ,new ,caledonia1 for    
instance1 all intercourse between a     
brother and sister by speech or  sign is
 absolutely prohibited from a very early
 age4 ,whilst the girl  will remain in  
the paternal home1 the boy1 at the age  
of seven or eight  7when not1 as is     
usual1 adopted by the maternal uncle71  
only comes  there for his meals1        
partaken again solely with the other    
males4#e  ,he dwells until married in   
the large general bachelors' hut1 set   
apart for youths in all villages4 ,even 

after marriage1 if brother and  sister  
have to communicate with each other on  
family matters1 such  communication must
 be made through the intermediary of a  
third person1  nor can the sister enter 
the brother's hut even after his        
marriage1  despite the presence of her  
sister-in-law therein4 ,if the two      
should  unexpectedly meet in some narrow
 path1 the girl will throw herself  face
 downwards into the nearest bush1 whilst
 the boy will pass without  turning his 
head1 and as if unaware of her presence4
    ,they cannot mention each other's   
names1 and if the sister's name is      
mentioned publicly before the brother1  
he will show much embarrassment1  and if
 it is repeated he will retire          
precipitately4 ,she can eat  nothing he 
has carried or cooked4 ,whilst1 then1   
such propinquity as is  implied in the  
mutual habitation of the same hut by    
these two would be  scandalously        
impossible1 it is not uncommon to find a
 mother-in-law  and son-in-law1 whilst  

in ,avoidance1 living under the same    
roof4 ,it  is obvious that in the latter
 case each detail of #8,avoidance' in   
act  or speech would be easily remarked 
by ,europeans1 whereas no chance of     
such observation between the adult      
brother and sister could possibly       
arise1 they being kept1 as we see1 so   
utterly apart4 ,it is to be noted1      
however1 that the seemingly instinctive 
natural affection between two  so nearly
 related is not quenched by these       
strange restraints4 ,they  remain       
interested in each other's welfare1 and 
in cases of sickness1  for instance1    
keep themselves informed of each other's
 condition  through third persons4 ,so  
great1 however1 is the depth in action  
7on  these lines7 of the feeling of     
avoidance in this matter1 that ,i am    
convinced that the infanticide of twins1
 which only takes place in ,new         
,caledonia when the children are of     
different sexes1 arises from the  idea  
of a too close propinquity in the womb4 

,further evidence as to  the very       
widespread existence of this custom in  
the ,south ,seas ,i will  leave to a    
later stage1 only noting here that ,i   
have been astonished to  find1 in answer
 to inquiries1 that it is well          
recognised amongst the  aborigines1 of  
,australia4    ,mr4 ,atkinson has left a
 blank space for an expected            
communication  from the late ,mr4 ,curr4
 ,on #8,avoidance' in ,australia1       
between brother  and sister1 ,messrs    
,spencer and ,gillen write3 #8,a curious
 custom exists  with regard to the      
mutual behaviour of elder and younger   
sisters and  their brothers4 ,a man may 
speak freely to his elder sisters in    
blood1  but those who are tribal        
,ungaraitcha must only be spoken to at a
  considerable distance4 ,to younger    
sisters1 blood and tribal1 he may  not  
speak1 or1 at least1 only at such a     
distance that the features  are         
indistinguishable4444 ,we cannot        
discover any explanation of this        

restriction in regard to the younger    
sister2 it can hardly be supposed  that 
it has anything to do with the dread of 
anything like incest1  else why is there
 not as strong a restriction in the case
 of the elder  sisters8#f    ,now the   
occurrence of this particular habit     
amidst a race of nomad  hunters1 forced 
by the exigencies of the chase to wander
 about in  isolated groups1 composed for
 the most part of single families1 and  
where the separation of the sexes cannot
 possibly be arranged1 as  with the hut 
and village dwelling ,caledonians1 is a 
most remarkable  fact4 ,when we take    
into consideration the disturbing       
effects of such  an avoidance in the    
internal economy of such a family       
circle1 the  significance of the        
circumstance is great as regards our    
general  argument4 ,it becomes1 indeed1 
evident that the fundamental cause of   
the  custom involving this daily and    
hourly dislocation of domestic life1    
must lie very deep in savage society4   

,if1 however1 our theory as to the  idea
 which dominated the inception of this  
strange habit shall turn  out to be     
correct1 then it will be seen that no   
surprise need be felt1  if the genesis  
of this rule should prove to be in the  
animal stage1  that traces of the       
superstructure should exist to our day4 
,now that  attention will perhaps be    
more closely drawn to this1 till        
recently the  least observed of the     
cases of ,avoidance1 ,i feel sure that  
proof of its  existence will be found in
 abundance in the present or past of all
  primitive peoples4#g ,in view of its  
unexpectedly wide dissemination  in     
,australia1 hope may be felt that       
research will find it as a working      
factor in many peoples where its        
presence has been least expected1 and   
not only in ,australasia4 ,it is        
possible that a stricter examination of 
the inner life of lower races in ,africa
 and ,asia will allow a perfectly       
legitimate inference that they are still

 under the influence of its  effect1    
although the custom itself may be no    
longer in actual force4 ,it  is also    
possible1 as ,i have said1 that         
,survivals and ,myths may point         
conclusively to its having had its day  
amongst the highest nations1  with whom 
all traditions of it have been lost     
before the dawn of  history4 ,rather the
 reverse is the case2 see the marriage  
of ,zeus and  ,hera1 brother and sister1
 and of the ,incas1 c4--,a4 ,l4    ,in  
many cases philological evidence based  
on the derivation of the  root syllable 
of the word #8sister1 a word which in   
the tongues of  peoples still obedient  
to this law is from a root implying     
#8,avoidance1'  may afford affirmative  
proof1 as circumstantial as unexpected1 
that  this custom was once as universal 
as my theory would require4'#h ,if      
difficulty is felt in the acceptation of
 an hypothesis of such wide             
significance1 simply based on an obscure
 lower custom so little noted  in       

anthropological literature as to permit 
doubts of its existence1  ,i can only   
repeat that a cognisance of the traits  
of this particular  habit of avoidance  
and its effect as a factor in savage    
life demands  such conditions of        
residence and chances of observation1 as
 can fall to  the lot of few4 ,i may add
 that it is one of the very first       
customs to  disappear after contact with
 whites1 especially missionaries1 being1
  as it is1 in such extreme divergence  
with the economy of the ,european       
family1 in regard to the mutual attitude
 of brother and sister4    ,it is more  
than a quarter of a century since the   
author had his  attention first drawn to
 the practice4 ,the evolution of the    
idea  of its possible identity with the 
,primal ,law has led to a continued  and
 close observation2 he is thus able to  
certify as to its rapid  disappearance4 
,brother and sister avoidance was at    
that time1 thirty  years ago1 quite     
universal in ,new ,caledonia2 now in    

many places it is  unknown1 even as a   
tradition1 among the younger aborigines4
 ,in view  of the probability of a      
similar oblivion among other peoples1   
the  immediate collection of evidence is
 urgent1 and further delay seems        
dangerous and even culpable4    ,thus1  
however much to the present advantage of
 the theory as regards  the custom it   
would have been to cull larger proofs   
from that vast  field of literature only
 to be procured in older lands1 it has  
seemed  desirable to make this thesis   
public without further delay4 ,as we    
have  said1 if the theory is correct1   
wider students will bring forward       
cogent facts in further proof from      
existing knowledge1 whilst continued    
research should afford evidence so      
complete of the widespread existence  of
 the custom in the present and past of  
the human race1 as to render  my        
speculation as to its origin less       
seemingly illegitimate4#i      ,footnote
 #a3 ,mr4 ,atkinson's theory is based on

 the idea that our  supposed anthropoid 
ancestor was eminently unsocial4--,a4   
,l4    ,footnote #b3 ,darwin1 ,descent  
of ,man1 ii4 #cfa-cfc 7#ahga74          
,footnote #c3 ,i ought to have said     
#8within the community1 whether local   
or of recognised kindred1 indicated by  
the totem name4'--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote  
#d3 ,this was written before the        
appearance of ,mr4 ,crawley's  ,mystic  
,rose 7#aijb74    ,footnote #e3 ,cf4 ,v4
 de ,rochas1 ,la ,nouvelle-,caldonie1 p4
 #bci2  ,crawley1 ,mystic ,rose1 p4     
#bag4    ,footnote #f3 ,native ,tribes  
of ,central ,australia1 pp4 #hh1        
#hi4--;,a4 ,l44    ,footnote #g3 ,mr4   
,atkinson's forecast was correct4       
,brother and sister  avoidance is very  
widely diffused4--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote  
#h3 ,the author does not give examples  
of words for #8sister'  implying        
avoidance4 ,but we elsewhere show that  
in ,lifu 7,melanesia7 the  word for     
#8sister' means #8not to be             
touched4'--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote #i3     

,other speculations have now been       
advanced1 especially by  ,mr4           
,crawley4--,a4 ,l4          ,,chapter   
,,ii    ,,sexual ,,relations ,,of       
,,animals      ,brother and ,sister     
,avoidance1 a partial usage among the   
higher  mammals4--,males' attitude to   
females in a group dominated by a single
  male head4--,band of exiled young     
males4--,their relations to the sire4   
--,examples in cattle and horses--,in   
game-fowl4--,strict localisation  of    
animals4--,exiled young males hover on  
the fringe of the parent                
group4--,parricide4      ,another       
difficulty in connection with the       
evolution of the so-called  ,primal ,law
 of ,avoidance between brother and      
sister from that early  idea which we   
will presently disclose1 seems to lie in
 the fact that  if1 as we uphold1 such  
law was the first factor in the ascent  
of  man1 it must have taken its rise    
whilst he was still some ape-like       
creature4 ,it remains1 however1 to be   

shown from its peculiar form  that in   
its primitive application1 the law would
 not have required  for its intelligence
 greater mental power than is possessed 
by  actual anthropoids4 ,the law may    
indeed be said to be practically an     
inchoate fact1 an actual if partial     
usage1 for the regulation of the        
intersexual relations among most of the 
higher mammals4 ,it could1 at  any rate1
 have come into full intelligent        
application as a well-defined  social   
institution1 in the actual sense of the 
term1 whilst the  anthropomorphic       
progenitor of man was still so little   
removed from the  ape that        ,his  
speech was yet as halting as his gait1  
,only less brutish than his moral state4
    ,briefly1 the law of ,avoidance     
concerns 7more particularly7 the        
relation  #8inter se1' from a sexual    
point of view1 of the male and female   
offspring of any given parents4 ,in     
other words it determines the  mutual   
attitude to the females within a        

7single7 family group dominated  by a   
male head4    ,before1 however1 entering
 into the argument in this connection1  
it  will be desirable to make a         
paraphrase on ,mr4 ,darwin's dictum as  
to  the social condition of man in the  
animal stage in general1 and more       
particularly in regard to his           
intermarital relations1 and to compare  
this with that of actual mammals4 ,it is
 to be noted that he does not  pronounce
 definitely as to whether1 in the era of
 pure animalism1 the  original type of  
man's ancestor was social or non-social 
in habit4 ,but  we may judge from the   
extract already made from the ,descent  
of ,man  that ,darwin evidently inclines
 to the opinion that1 even primitively1 
he was a social animal1 as seemingly    
more in accord with the present         
eminently social conditions4    ,the    
very significant counter-fact1 however1 
remains1 that none of the  actual       
anthropoids1 as far as regards the adult
 males1 are in any way  social or even  

gregarious2 the conclusion thus seems   
evident that1  like these his nearest   
compeers of to-day1 man was on the      
contrary  a non-social animal1 and that1
 as with the gorilla1 only one grown    
male would have been seen in a band4 ,we
 must then imagine our more or  less    
human ancestor1 roaming the forest in   
search of daily food1 as a  solitary    
polygamous male1 with wife or wives and 
female children2 the  unsocial head of a
 solitary isolated group4    ,with equal
 strength and probably already greater  
cunning than any  actual animal of      
to-day1 he had perhaps acquired         
dominance over most  of the other beasts
 of the field4 ,the patriarch had only  
one enemy whom  he should dread1 an     
enemy with each coming year more and    
more to be  feared--deadly rivals of his
 very own flesh and blood1 and the fruit
  of his loins--namely1 that            
neighbouring group of young males exiled
  by sexual jealousy from his own and   
similar family groups--a youthful  band 

of brothers living together in forced   
celibacy1 or at most in  polyandrous    
relation with some single female        
captive4#a ,a horde as yet  weak in     
their impubescence1 they are1 but they  
would1 when strength  was gained with   
time1 inevitably wrench by combined     
attacks1 renewed  again and again1 both 
wife and life from the paternal tyrant4 
,but they  themselves1 after brief      
communistic enjoyment1 would be         
segregated  anew by the fierce fire of  
sexual jealousy1 each survivor of the   
slaughter relapsing into lonely         
sovereignty1 the head of the typical    
group with its characteristic feature of
 a single adult male member in          
antagonism with every other adult male4 
,now it can be shown that this  vicious 
circle of the stream of social life is  
common to most mammals4  ,the facts of  
the circumstance can be most easily     
observed amidst the  half-wild1         
half-domesticated animals met with in   
colonial farming  experience1 in ,new   

,caledonia1 for instance1 where         
,european horses and  cattle have been  
allowed to return almost to a state of  
nature4    ,in this respect the economy 
of life in a herd of even such          
gregarious  creatures as the bovine     
race1 is a very curious and instructive 
study4  ,there is no fact more striking 
than the subordination in which the     
younger bulls are kept2 as long as they 
are at all tolerated in the  herd by its
 patriarch1 their intercourse with the  
females is most  limited1 and only takes
 place by stealth and at the risk of    
life and  limb4    ,nothing1 as breeders
 are aware1 is so fatal to the          
well-being of a  herd1 or leads so      
quickly to degeneration1 as the         
perpetuation of  the race by immature   
males4 ,that procreation should be the  
act of  the robust adult alone1 is      
evidently an axiom with nature herself  
in successful production2 it is         
doubtless of the highest importance  to 
keep up the normal standard of strength 

and size4 ,as a fact1 the  presence of  
the immature male among a herd of cattle
 is only permitted  whilst he is still  
quite impubescent4 ,then banishment by  
the master of  the herd is inevitable at
 a later stage4 ,these exiles1 although 
thus  apart from the main herd1 remain  
in touch with it1 so to speak1 and  we  
find in consequence1 in continual       
proximity of the troop of the  patriarch
 and his females1 a small band of males1
 which1 as is evident  from their colour
 and general physical resemblance1 are  
its direct  product4 ,the relations     
between this mob and the old male are   
always  strained1 the latter has        
constantly to be on the watch to shield 
his  marital rights4    ,for long the   
mere menace of his presence suffices for
 such protection1  but with age--the    
young bulls becoming more               
bold--struggles take place  which sooner
 or later1 from mere force of numbers1  
end in the rout or  death of the parent4
 ,we may here cite the mention made by  

,mr4 ,darwin#b  of ,lord ,tankerville's 
account of the battles of the wild bulls
 in  ,chillingham ,park3 #8,in #ahfa    
several contended for mastery1 and it   
was  observed that two of the younger   
bulls attacked in concert the old       
leader of the herd1 overthrew and       
disabled him1 so that he was believed   
by the keepers to be lying mortally     
wounded in a neighbouring wood4  ,but a 
few days afterwards one of the young    
bulls approached the wood  alone1 and   
then the monarch of the chase1 who had  
been lashing himself  up for vengeance1 
came out and in a short time killed his 
antagonist4  ,he then quietly joined the
 herd1 and long held undisputed sway4'  
,i may  add from my own observation     
among half-wild herds in the colonies1  
that  often when the old patriarch is   
not absolutely killed in such cases1 he 
is forced to quit the herd4 ,he then    
becomes a solitary exile1 always        
exceptionally savage and dangerous to   
approach or molest4 ,it seems to  me    

probable that we have here an           
explanation of the occurrence of the    
existence of the well-known #8rogue'    
elephant1 which is always a male  and   
notoriously dangerous4    ,one important
 fact must here1 however1 be noted2 that
 before such death  or exile takes      
place1 and the sons reach an age which  
enables them  successfully to dispute   
the supremacy of the father1 the        
daughters have  reached puberty and     
borne produce to the sire--this matter1 
as will be  seen later1 has an important
 bearing on our general argument--on our
  theory of ,primal ,law4 ,amongst      
horses1 again1 which have become wild1  
exactly the same facts are to be        
observed4 ,each herd has one head1 and  
this1 as natural selection would imply1 
is the most powerful stallion2  he is   
the master and owner of the females1 and
 this mastery he retains  until         
overpowered by other males1 which1 as   
before1 are almost  invariably his own  
progeny4 ,in fact1 any strange male     

would probably  have first to run the   
gauntlet of this outlying herd of exiled
 sons  before he could reach the father4
 ,it is1 however1 again to be noted     
that he is rarely thus overpowered by   
even the combined efforts of his  sons1 
before his daughters have reached such  
an age as to have produced  offspring to
 their father4    ,this system of       
sequence of generations in breeding is1 
indeed1 so  universal in a state of     
nature amongst all animals1 as to seem  
to point  to the fact that in-breeding  
between father and daughter cannot be so
  prejudicial as some believe4 ,its     
efficacy in type-fixing is at least     
very great1 if1 as experiments of my own
 in pig-breeding on these  lines would  
lead me to think1 the question of       
prepotency is merely a  matter of such  
close in-breeding repeated for          
generations4 ,we may note  here that if1
 as is probable1 the produce1 on the    
contrary1 of a full  brother and sister 
are degenerate1 nature seems to attempt 

to prevent  its occurrence4 ,on the     
succession of the sons to the father's  
rights1  speedy conflicts from sexual   
jealousy arise amidst the former and    
lead  to a rapid segregation of the     
herd1 in which the chances of own       
brother  and sister continuing to mate  
are slight4 ,until this segregration1   
however1 does take place1 nothing is    
more curious to watch than the  attitude
 and relations of these young males     
among themselves1 the  oldest and       
strongest claiming prior marital rights1
 but no more4    ,the same phenomena in 
social economy may be observed with even
 greater  intensity in lower ranks of   
life than the quadrupeds4 ,for instance1
  in a large flock of game fowl which ,i
 had an opportunity to observe  closely 
for several years1 during which they had
 nearly relapsed into a  state of       
nature1 there was an exact reproduction 
of all these details4  ,there existed   
the same division into small family     
groups1 each headed  by an adult male1  

the same subordination imposed on the   
junior males of  their banishment at    
puberty1 as also their inevitable       
combined attack1  when sufficiently     
powerful1 on their paternal enemy4 ,his 
death resulted  in the same communistic 
assumption of his rights1 with a        
subsequent  disruption1 from jealousy1  
into the typical smaller and separate   
groups4    ,we thus find an identical   
condition of the sexual relations       
between  the females of a group and its 
older and younger male members to be    
common in the animal world--the         
domination1 in fact1 of an idea that    
might1 in the person of the senior male1
 confers marital rights over  the female
 members of the family1 and an inchoate 
rule of action  resulting therefrom2    
which bars from the enjoyment of such   
right each  junior male4 ,to hold that  
man1 whilst in the animal stage1 should 
form an exception to the general rule   
seems unreasonable4 ,if1 as we  are     
inclined to believe1 he was originally a

 quite non-social animal1  the fact     
becomes more possible still that1 as    
with modern types of  anthropoid apes1  
each adult as head of a group was at    
feud with every  other4 ,as regards the 
social evolution1 it would indeed seem  
most  natural that1 as ,mr4 ,darwin     
conceived1 the first step in progress   
should have been taken by animals       
already united gregariously1 and thus   
already imbued with some social         
feelings4 ,strange to say1 the path in  
advance which the ancestor of man1 in   
the light of our hypothesis1 was        
destined to follow1 disclosed itself as 
an indirect consequence of the  very    
intensity of his non-social             
characteristic4 ,in fact1 as ,i fancy   
mil become evident in the development of
 our argument1 the only line  of        
progress open to man was one            
inaccessible to animals of gregarious   
habits1 judging by the economy of life  
in a troop of mandrills or  baboons4    
,having ventured to differ from the     

great naturalist on this point1 ,i      
would with deference take exception to  
his further statement--#8,that the      
younger males1 being thus expelled and  
wandering about1 would1 when at  last   
successful in finding a partner1 prevent
 too close inter-breeding  within the   
limits of the same family4' ,this1 if ,i
 understand it  rightly1 would convey   
the idea that this youthful band quitted
 the  scene of their birth1 and deserted
 entirely their original habitat  in the
 forest4 ,i cannot help considering it  
an error to imagine that  such          
wanderings could thus be without bounds4
 ,nothing seems to me more  remarkable  
and irrevocable in savage ,nature than  
the rigid localisation  of all living   
things in her realm4 ,no fish in the    
sea1 no bird in the  air1 but has its   
local habitation1 which only becomes    
free to the  stranger on the death of   
the occupant4#c ,no corner on earth but 
seems  to hold its lawful tenant1 and   
the bounds thereof are defined within   

rigid limits4 ,within1 there is safety1 
with a sense of ownership2  without1 is 
the great unknown1 possessed by others1 
fiercely ready  to defend their rights1 
and threaten every danger and death to  
the  stranger intruder--unless quite    
otherwise formidable than adolescent    
youth4    ,it is thus probable1 in fact1
 that in common with the lower animals1 
the band of exiled young males of our   
anthropoid ancestor haunted the         
neighbourhood of the parent herd1       
remaining thus on familiar ground1  and 
in hearing of friendly voices4 ,for we  
must remember that their  feud was only 
with the paternal parent4 ,in the magic 
alembic of time  the constantly         
increasing shadow of their presence     
would take sudden  dreadful form1 but in
 parricidal crime alone4 ,the sequel in 
disastrous  incest1 which ,mr4 ,darwin  
would here conjecture at1 ,nature alone 
has  ever been impotent to deal with4   
,the problem of an effectual bar to     
undesirable union between brother and   

sister was solved by man alone1  and in 
the ,primal ,law4 ,an effort of his     
embryonic intellect1 thus early  defiant
 of ,nature1 the law placed ethically1  
for once and for ever1 a  distinction   
between him and every other creature4   
,footnote #a3 ,why #8single8--,a4 ,l4   
,footnote #b3 ,descent of ,man1 p4 #eja4
    ,footnote #c3 ,this fact is well    
known to anglers for trout4--,a4 ,l4    
,,chapter ,,iii    ,,man ,,varying      
,,from ,,animals      ,effect of the    
absence of a special pairing season on  
nascent  man4--,consequent state of     
ceaseless war between sire and young    
males4--,man already more than an       
ape4--,results of his prolonged infancy 
and of maternal love4--,a young male    
permitted to live in the parent         
group4--,conditions in which this       
novelty arose4      ,in common1 then1   
with their nearest congeners of to-day1 
we have  found each male head of a group
 of our anthropoid ancestors in direct  
antagonism with every other male1 and a 

consequent disruption of the  family at 
each encounter with a superior force4   
,this disruption1 in its  effects on a  
species of non-gregarious habits1 would 
result not only in  the dispersal of its
 members1 but in the destruction of what
 material  progress in the accumulation 
of property might have accrued4 ,as this
  would have included all germs of      
mechanical discovery1 again doubtless   
due solely to the superior constructive 
faculties of the male1 it is  evident   
that advance in a race thus socially    
constituted was quite  impossible4      
,now this antagonism of male with male1 
with all its retrograde  consequences1 a
 struggle fierce enough in all animals1 
had a more  intense effect on nascent   
man than on any other creature that had 
ever  existed4 ,an added force was      
caused by the disappearance in the      
nascent  human species of that season of
 physical and mental repose1 granted  by
 ,nature to the rest of creation1 when  
not actually in the moment  or season of

 rut4 ,this ever-recurring but limited  
period1 ordinarily  appearing for a     
certain fixed epoch in each year1 by the
 exigencies  of supply and demand in the
 necessarily abundant food required for 
nursing mothers1 had lost its           
date-fixing power with this new         
creation--,man4 ,with the very first    
steps in progress would come his        
adaptation to a more or less omnivorous 
and consequently more regular  diet4    
,the consequent modification would be   
profound in the matter of  sexual habit 
and appetite4 ,man needed no longer to  
put limits to the  season of love and   
desire4#a ,this was a crime against     
,nature1 new in  the history of the     
world1 a crime which ,nature would      
probably have  avenged by               
race-deterioration or extermination1 if 
the germs of mental  power had not been 
already strong enough to lift him1 ,man1
 to be1 of  all creatures1 almost       
completely beyond the influence of      
environment1  thence of ,nature herself4

    ,the intensity of the evil led to   
its cure4 ,in a state of society where  
literally every male creature's hand was
 against the other1 and life  one       
continual uproar from their contending  
strife2 where not only was  there no    
instant's truce in the war-fare1 but    
each blow dealt was  emphasised         
7fatally7 by the intellectual finesse   
which now directed it1  it became a     
question of forced advance in progress  
or straight retreat  in annihilation as 
a species4 ,however difficult it may be 
to imagine  by what path such a creature
 was ever to emerge from the            
materialistic  labyrinth in which we    
thus find him involved1 it is sure that 
he  neither could nor did remain there4 
,a forward step was somehow taken1  some
 road out of the maze was somehow found4
    ,it remains for us to trace1 by what
 dim light of custom and tradition  we  
may1 the faint trail of those momentous 
footprints1 which1 however  lame and    
halting1 took the strait and difficult  

way to a higher life4  ,we may expect to
 find1 as is but natural1 that the path 
was one before  untrodden4 ,as man      
followed it1 at first unconsciously1    
from the  shoulders of this new pilgrim1
 predestined to worthier burdens1 would 
fall some of the heavy load of the mere 
animal nature4    ,there was now1 in    
fact1 to be a break in the economy of   
animal nature1  as regards that vicious 
circle1 where we found an ever-recurring
  violent succession to the solitary    
paternal tyrant1 by sons whose          
parricidal hands were so soon again     
clenched in fratricidal strife4  ,in the
 dawn of peace between this father and  
son we shall find the  signpost to the  
new highway4    ,before going further1  
we may here state our assumption that1  
when our  ancestor had arrived at this  
crisis in his life1 a crisis involving  
the vast psychological step in advance  
implied in the development of  society1 
and the intelligence necessary for the  
evolution of the law  in its regulation1

 he was already somewhat more than ape4 
,the animal  stage as forming part of   
the ladder of ascent from brute to man  
would  be marked by degrees of          
progression1 each a step further removed
 from  the original type4 ,these very   
earliest steps we indeed propose to     
examine later in detail1 for the present
 we will suppose they have  been taken1 
and that the influence of environment1  
under certain  hypothetic conditions1 to
 be also detailed hereafter1 has        
fostered  physical modifications towards
 the human type such as we found in the 
matter of rut4 ,but in nature the       
relation is very close between the      
physical and the mental qualities4 ,the 
advance in one would possibly  lead to a
 corresponding development of the other4
 ,each is the necessary  complement of  
each4 ,for instance1 as ,mr4 ,darwin has
 pointed out1 while  the lower          
extremities become more and more used   
for progression alone1  so the upper1   
thus left free1 would be specialised as 

prehensile  organs1 so becoming both    
valet and tutor to the nascent brain4   
,to push  our metaphor to an extreme1 we
 may say that when ,homo ,alalus trod   
the new path1 it was already as a biped 
in an upright attitude1 thus  leaving at
 least his hand free to point it out to 
others1 for as yet  his tongue1 at least
 by the hypothesis1 was inarticulate4   
,our line of research as regards the new
 departure was at once narrowed  when we
 indicated that it ended in the peaceful
 conjunction of father  and son4 ,our   
path will lie in the examination of the 
question as to  what possible series of 
natural circumstances1 in the domestic  
life of  the race1 could lead to such   
conjunction1 and what law in such an age
  could suffice for regulation of such  
association if formed4 ,we shall  have  
to examine more closely 7as far as our  
imagination will aid us7  the exact     
conditions of the family life of the    
semi-human group which  we have supposed
 typical in that era1 i4e4 the small    

isolated band of  anthropoids1 composed 
of a single polygamous adult male with  
dependent  wives and offspring4 ,his    
possible relations with these1          
especially his  attitude towards his    
male children1 will interest us4        
,therein should  certainly be found the 
desired series of circumstances         
entailing a  critical situation1 whose  
happy resolution shall furnish the clue 
to  the problem of that possible        
aggregation on which all future progress
  depends4 ,however strange it may      
appear1 it will be found1 as we have    
already said1 that the abnormal         
conditions imposed by the unnatural     
modifications of the sexual functions   
have served as a means to the end  of   
advance in progress4 ,and as1 by their  
action in the past1 anthropoid  man had 
become the most sexually jealous and    
intractable of all  creatures1 so it may
 be expected that the series of causes  
which shall  have for effect the        
restraint of such excess of passion1    

will possess  further vast potentiality 
of action4 ,such latency in potentiality
 is  evidently indispensable when we    
consider that there is here concerned   
the evolution of law in opposition to   
nature1 and its triumph for all  time   
over the mere brute4    ,but first as   
regards the fact of the association of  
adult males on  friendly terms within   
the group1 which fact has seemed to us  
to  constitute the whole problem of     
progress1 it would on a hasty view      
appear as if it had been already found  
in the band of exiled sons  which we    
have seen haunting the parent horde4    
,here we meet with that  aggregation of 
individuals whose combination in        
peaceful union should  apparently be the
 result of some law in regulation4 ,this
 idea would  even seem to gain support  
from the fact that all the members being
  brothers1 and living most probably in 
a state of polyandry1 we here  appear to
 find fulfilled exactly those genetic   
conditions of primitive  marriage       

imperative according to ,mr4            
,mc,lennan's theory of the origin  of   
society4 ,it will not1 however1 be      
difficult to prove that1 at  least at   
this stage in evolution1 such a group   
would lack the most  essential elements 
of stability4 ,their unity1 in fact1 as 
has been  already pointed out1 could    
only endure as long as the youthfulness 
of  the members necessitated union for  
protection1 and their immaturity        
prevented the full play of the sexual   
passion4 ,the horde would  inevitably   
dissolve under the influence of jealousy
 at the adult stage1  especially if1 as 
is probable1 the number of their female 
captives had  increased with the gain in
 years and power4 ,the necessary ,primal
 ,law  which alone could determine peace
 within a family circle by recognising  
a distinction between female and female 
7the indispensable antecedent  to a     
definition of marital rights7 could     
never have arisen in such a  body4 ,it  
follows that if such law was ever       

evoked1 it must have been  from within  
the only other assembly in existence1   
viz4 that headed by  the solitary       
polygamous patriarch1 #8the ,cyclopean  
family4'    ,we have said that this     
family would be composed of the male    
head and  his wives1 the latter         
consisting of captured females1 and     
further1 let  us note1 of his own adult 
female offspring1 accompanied by a troop
  of infants of both sexes4 ,the absence
 of male offspring beyond those  of     
tender years would be another most      
notable phenomenon4 ,these sons  would1 
as we have seen1 have been banished at  
puberty from the herd1 in  common with  
the habit of most animals4    ,now we   
have surmised that at this stage our    
subject has been modified1  both        
physically and mentally1 to a certain   
extent in approach to the  human type1  
and there is precisely one special      
modification which would  have been of  
paramount importance in view of the     
problem of advance in  progress4 ,for if

 we may thus infer a certain increase in
 the longevity  of the nascent race at  
even so early a stage in evolution1 then
 that  evidently entails a more         
prolonged infancy4 ,it follows that1    
however  precocious1 the young males    
before exile must have passed at least  
nine  to ten helpless years under their 
mother's care4 ,but1 again1 the rise  of
 superior intellectual faculties in     
general presupposes a decided  increase 
in the powers of memory1 and this agent1
 in connection with  that of the longer 
companionship1 would here set in        
movement1 sooner or  later1 a           
psychological factor of strangely       
magnified force as compared  with what  
it is in the mere brute--namely1 human  
maternal love4    ,separation1 however  
caused1 between this mother and her     
child would  be far more severely felt  
than by any other animal4 ,at the       
renewed  banishment of each of her male 
progeny by the jealous patriarch1 the   
mother's feelings and instinct would be 

increasingly lacerated and  outraged4   
,her agonised efforts to retain at least
 her last and youngest  would be even   
stronger than with her first-born4 ,it  
is exceedingly  important to observe    
that her chances of success in this case
 would be  much greater4 ,when this last
 and dearest son approached adolescence1
  it is not difficult to perceive that  
the patriarch must have reached  an age 
when the fire of desire may have become 
somewhat dull2 whilst1  again1 his      
harem1 from the presence of numerous    
adult daughters1 would  be increased to 
an extent that might have overtaxed his 
once more  active powers4 ,given some   
such rather exceptional situation1 where
 a  happy opportunity in superlative    
mother love wrestled with a for once    
satiated paternal appetite in desire1 we
 may here discern a possible  key of the
 sociological problem which occupies us1
 and which consisted  in a conjunction  
within one group of two adult males4    
,we must conceive that1 in the march of 

the centuries1 on some fateful  day1 the
 bloody tragedy in the last act of the  
familiar drama was  avoided1 and the    
edict of exile or death left            
unpronounced4 ,pure  maternal love      
triumphed over the demons of lust and   
jealousy4 ,a mother  succeeded in       
keeping by her side a male child1 and   
thus1 by a strange  coincidence1 that   
father and son1 who1 amongst all        
mammals1 had been  the most deadly of   
enemies1 were now the first to join     
hands4 ,so  portentous an alliance might
 well bring the world to their feet4    
,the  family group would now present1   
for the first time1 the till then       
unknown spectacle of the inclusion      
within a domestic circle1 and amidst    
its component females1 of an adolescent 
male youth4 ,it must1 however1  be      
admitted that such an event1 at such an 
epoch1 demanded imperatively  very      
exceptional qualities1 both             
physiological and psychological1 in  the
 primitive agents4 ,the new happy ending

 to that old-world drama  which had run 
for so long through blood and tears1 was
 an innovation  requiring very unusually
 gifted actors4 ,how many failures had  
doubtless  taken place in its rehearsal 
during the centuries1 with less able or 
happy interpreters6 ,it is probable     
that1 in the new experiment1 success    
was rendered possible by the rise of new
 powers in nascent man4 ,some  feeble   
germ of altruism may already have arisen
 to make its force felt  as an important
 factor4    ,it is also certain that1   
with such prolonged infancy1 there had  
been  opportunity for the development of
 paternal philo-progenitiveness4 ,it  is
 evident that such long-continued       
presence of sons could but result  in a 
certain mutual sympathy1 however        
inevitable the eventual exile4    ,the  
love and care of a parent for his       
offspring is1 after all1  ethically     
speaking1 the normal condition4         
,habitual desertion at too  early an age
 would be fatal4 ,their dissociation1   

the abnormal and  only one1 took place  
under the influence of the strongest    
passion in  nature1 again largely       
exaggerated in primitive man4 ,but in   
such an era  purely physical            
characteristics would undoubtedly have  
also a vast  influence in the           
development of the incident we have     
tried to depict4  ,the fiercely solitary
 patriarch who first consented to the   
intrusive  presence within his family   
circle of another adult male was1 as ,i 
think  we can prove1 a being of abnormal
 physical power as compared with his    
fellows4 ,for we have assumed satiety in
 desire to have been a powerful  factor 
in the innovatory struggle we have      
witnessed4 ,but such satiety  implies   
extensive polygamy1 and yet again a     
large harem composed  exclusively of    
unwilling outside captives is           
incredible1 escape for  them in the     
primeval forest being too facile4 ,thus 
the harem would  certainly be formed of 
the female offspring of the tyrant      

himself4  ,these alone would need no    
watch or guard1 for them the unknown    
outside  world was hostile ground4 ,but 
again very many adult daughters imply a 
father stricken in years4 ,that one of  
such advanced age1 in an epoch  when    
force was all in all1 could1 defiant of 
rivals1 still retain  possession of his 
female kind1 presupposes vast enduring  
physical  power1 or at least the        
protective tradition of past exceptional
  strength1 still enduring in terror4   
,if1 again1 at so early a date in  the  
history of man we may be permitted to   
surmise any development of  the faculty 
of psychogenesis1 then we may again     
perceive how extreme  physical qualities
 might have facilitated the solution of 
the problem  of the admission of the    
intrusive male4 ,for it is credible that
 long  undisputed supremacy of power as 
the result of personal vigour might1  in
 its incredulous contempt of a possible 
rivalry1 show a tolerance of  a         
situation utterly impossible to a weaker

 nature4      ,footnote #a3 ,see        
,westermarck1 ,history of ,human        
,marriage1 ch4 ii41  #ahia4 ,the subject
 is obscure4          ,,chapter ,,iv    
,,earliest ,,evolution ,,of ,,law       
,trace between semi-human sire and      
son4--,consequent distinction taken     
between female and female1 as           
such--,consequent rise of habit of      
,brother  and ,sister                   
,avoidance4--,result1 son seeks female  
mate from without ,note  by the editor4 
,in what1 then1 we are willing to       
concede1 must have been exceptional     
circumstances1 may thus have been taken 
that first step in progress  which was  
to lead to such vast advance4 ,in a     
development of the  social qualities    
depended the whole future of mankind1   
and here we  seem to see their germ and 
birth4    ,when1 however1 we affirm that
 the triumph of maternal love in the    
continued companionship of a male child1
 constituted the solution of  the social
 problem before us1 we do not intend to 

convey the idea that  it lay solely in  
the fact of a simple inclusion of male  
offspring  within a group4 ,such a      
condition1 however significant in the   
actual  case1 has nothing in itself but 
what is common to the family economy  of
 many animals4 ,it is the normal one1   
for instance1 among many  pithecoids1 as
 baboons1 c41 where we find the younger 
males still form  an integral part of   
the horde1 although denied all marital  
rights4 ,but1  however inexorable among 
such species the temporary separation   
from  the females during the actual     
season of rut1 there is at other times  
a propinquity in amity as members of the
 same herd1 which lessened  doubtless   
the fierceness of the strife during the 
periodic play of  passion1 a truce in   
fact admitting of peace and alliance in 
offence and  defence during most of the 
year4    ,with our ancestors there could
 be no such healing pause1 the unnatural
  sexual modification of the race had   
rendered it impossible4 ,the            

non-periodicity of the sexual function  
in rut would have made the  whole year1 
with two adult males in presence1 an    
interval of trial  insupportable to the 
mere brute4 ,with this race the         
banishment of the  youth would be for   
all time1 and the loss would be not only
 that of  an ally1 each exile would     
become an active enemy4 ,now we have    
hinted  that the importance1 in a       
potential sense1 of a movement towards  
union1  in such creatures1 arose        
precisely from the fact that1 on account
 of  the intensity of the relations     
between male and male1 and especially   
between father and son1 their amicable  
conjunction was only possible  under    
such exceptional conditions as would    
probably conduce to its  stability      
whenever it did take place4    ,indeed  
such inchoate rule or habit1 a corollary
 of the early idea1 as  reigns in       
regulation of marital rights among lower
 creatures1 would  not be fully adequate
 for this higher creation4 ,with lower  

creatures1  might alone confers rights1 
which feebler force ever seeks each     
chance  to invade1 all stratagems being 
legitimate as a means to that end4      
,with inchoate man such imperfect rule  
of action had become utterly            
impossible4 ,the greater endowment in   
memory and reason entailed a too        
fatally added hate on non-compliance4   
,for inchoate men the requisite  law    
required such further exactness in      
definition as should leave no  doubt of 
a meaning1 not only to be understood1   
but to be accepted and  obeyed          
unconditionally4    ,for between this   
father and son there was yet no real    
peace1 only a  truce1 and that enduring 
but so long as the latter respected     
those  marital rights of the former     
which we found extending over all that  
was feminine in the horde4 ,the         
intelligent acceptance by the intruding 
junior of the sole right of the senior  
to union with the females of a  group1  
was its sine qua non1 which the dawn of 

intellectuality in  the race as         
inevitably imposed as it happily        
permitted4 ,such a step  in advance as a
 possible obedience1 ex animo1 to such a
 law would  be immense4 ,therefrom would
 issue the vital point of a conception  
of  moral reserves in marital rights as 
regards the other sex2 the germ  of a   
profound and fundamental difference     
between brute and man4 ,for  the first  
time in the history of the world we     
encounter the factor  which is to be the
 leading power in future social         
metamorphosis1  i4e4 an explicit        
distinction between female and female1  
as such4  ,the superlative fact1 indeed1
 in relation to our general argument1   
appears--namely1 that certain females   
are now to become sacred to  certain    
males1 and that both 7nota bene7 are    
members of the same  family circle4     
,but what shall be1 in such an age1 the 
notes of a law conveying this  noble    
sentiment of sanctity1 which1 disarming 
jealousy1 could permit  peace where     

before strife reigned8 ,how give the    
outer expression of  the inner feeling1 
now aroused1 of a change in the past    
intersexual  attitude of certain group  
members8 ,whence borrow the eloquence   
which  shall ordain rules in restriction
 of intercourse whilst yet1 for  ,homo  
,alalus1 they must needs be mute in     
expression4#a ,in the primal  law alone1
 as ,i hope in its portrayal to show1   
can each condition be  comprised and    
found as such4 ,it will be marked and   
recognised by a  physical trait whose   
presence is as significant and          
imperative as it is  characteristic of  
the epoch4 ,for a sentiment of restraint
 in feeling1  whilst articulate speech  
was yet lacking1 could only be expressed
 by  restrictive checks in act and deed1
 requiring mere visual perception  for  
interpretation--acts we may here note1  
which1 as insulating the  individual1   
would also inevitably tend to           
consecration4    ,now we mentioned in   
our first chapter that1 in connection   

with the  primal law1 certain cases of  
so-called avoidance1 and especially     
that between near relatives1 would have 
interest for us and probably  afford aid
 in proof4 ,we drew attention to the    
strange features  marking these customs1
 which had rendered their origin a      
source of  wondering conjecture to all  
inquirers4 ,it may be that precisely the
  actual anomalism of these             
characteristics may render them eloquent
  in our case4 ,in view of our past     
argument1 in very deed1 nothing  now    
becomes insignificant in these quaint   
rules of non-propinquity  between       
certain near relations2 nothing         
inexpressive in the ordinance  of       
non-recognition between individuals well
 known to each other2  nothing not      
suggestive in the dread of mere contact 
between those whom  nature would place  
closest together1 no lack of import in  
the strange  taciturnity so incongruous 
with our garrulous later days of        
unloosed  tongues4 ,there is a possible 

vestige of a past era of dumb show in   
their eloquent muteness2 of connection  
in their actual utter unreason  with a  
long dead past of all unfamiliar habits 
and manners4 ,further1 is  verily aught 
lacking1 in these latter-day customs of 
avoidance1 of the  necessarily archaic  
features of a possible primeval law8 ,if
 these in  truth were still existent1   
would they not1 with such traits in     
common1  be simply classed with those8  
,undoubtedly so1 as it seems to me4     
,now in the course of our argument it   
has appeared that the inclusion  of the 
son as the second adult male in a group 
would evolve1 as the  most primitive    
rule of action1 restriction of          
intercourse between  its component      
females and the intruder4 ,but in such a
 group1 the  former would necessarily be
 to the latter in the relation of mother
  and sisters4 ,such restriction1 again1
 taking the only possible form1  would  
be avoidance of these relations1 and    
thus there is a concurrence  in         

resemblance with that particular habit  
of avoidance on which we  enlarged in   
our first pages1 viz4 that between      
brother and sister 7and  now less       
strictly71 between mother and son4 ,do  
we not thus seem to lay  a finger on an 
actual law1 still an every-day working  
factor in savage  life1 which is not    
only identical with1 but is in very deed
 the primal  law itself1 in form at     
least8 ,the acceptation of such         
intolerably  irksome restraints as      
avoidance1 in the daily economy of      
savage life1  has seemed forcibly to    
imply a fundamental cause of profound   
depth4  ,this cause now seems laid open 
to us4 ,the unaccountable and seemingly 
unreasonable restrictions on intercourse
 which mark it thus betray  their       
appropriate origin in a time of         
comparative unreason4    ,this then1 the
 primal law--avoidance between a brother
 and sister--with  appalling            
conservatism has descended through the  
ages 7in conservance  of form1 if not of

 ultimate purpose74 ,it ordained in the 
dawn of time  a barrier between mother  
and son1 and brother and sister1 and    
that  ordinance is still binding on all 
mankind but in ,egypt and ,peru1  for   
example1 the opposite of this rule1 for 
special reasons1 has  prevailed4        
,between these for ever1 a bit was      
placed in the mouth of  desire1 and     
chains on the feet of lust4 ,their      
mutual relationship is  one that has    
been held sacred from a sexual point of 
view1 in most  later ages4 ,it only     
remains for us to repeat that it follows
 that  this law1 as applied in the group
 composed of a single family1 is1 as  we
 pointed out1 the parent of exogamy2    
continuance within the group            
necessarily and logically entailed      
marriage without2 but1 again as we      
said1 it was itself the offspring of the
 early idea4 ,for this idea1  in its    
assumption that sovereignty in marital  
right was compatible  with solitude     
alone1 was shaken to its depths when a  

second presence  threatened rivalry1 and
 demanded remedy in the action of law1  
which it  has seemed to us could only   
take the form we have tried to portray#b
  in the primal law4    ,,note ,,to     
,,chapter ,,iv    ,to the ,editor this  
theory seems worthy of the ingenuity of 
his old  friend and kinsman4 ,granting  
that early man was a speechless jealous 
brute1 dwelling in groups consisting of 
a patriarchal beast1 and all  the       
females whom he could catch1 and all the
 females whom he could  beget2 granting 
that he drove all his adolescent sons   
out2 and finally  7under the            
circumstances described7 kept one or a  
few sons at home1 his  rule would tabu  
all females of the group to these sons4 
,otherwise there  would be a fight4     
,the sons would have to bring in mates  
from without--the result is  ,exogamy4  
,but ,mr4 ,atkinson does not observe the
 numerous tabus existing  among savages1
 on ordinary 7not sexual7 intercourse   
between men and  women2 as if each      

individual1 of each sex1 was or might be
 dangerous to  each individual of the   
other sex2 that is no idea of our       
speechless  brute ancestors1 of ,mr4    
,atkinson's hypothesis4 ,these tabus do 
not  amount to absolute avoidance1 but  
they do amount to very marked           
restrictions2 for example1 on eating    
together1 or sleeping under the  same   
roof1 even where husbands and wives are 
concerned4 ,for the facts1  to save     
repetition1 it is enough to refer to    
,mr4 ,crawley's book1 ,the  ,mystic     
,rose4 ,now if these less rigid tabus   
between the sexes 7which  ,mr4 ,atkinson
 noted in his observations on the life  
of ,new ,caledonian  natives7 arose in  
the general savage superstitious dread  
of everything  not a man's or woman's   
own self1 they might become more rigid  
as  propinquity increased4 ,the most    
dangerous female would be the female    
who had most chance of being dangerous1 
by virtue of propinquity1  namely the   
sister4 ,she would therefore be the most

 strictly barred4 ,the  closest of all  
relations1 that of lover and lover1 and 
man and wife1  would be most severely   
guarded1 as most dangerous1 by tabus4   
,all this  would happen 7granting the   
verifiable condition of savage          
superstitious  dread7 even if ,mr4      
,atkinson's theory of our speechless    
beast ancestors'  way of life were      
wrong4    ,we should probably find the  
effects 7,avoidance and ,exogamy7 even  
if  the primeval causes postulated by   
him never actually existed4 ,moreover   
any avoidance between mother and son    
that may exist 7as in the case of  the  
mothers of chiefs1 in ,new ,caledonia1  
and their sons7 is perhaps no  more than
 part of the general rule of restricted 
familiarity between  the sexes1 whether 
that rule arises from a superstition1 or
 from  the circumstance that men and    
women sometimes #8disturb each other    
damnably1' as ,lord ,byron remarked to  
his wife4 ,it might be argued that  the 
exogamous prohibition is only one aspect

 of the general totem tabu2  and that1  
in the case of brothers and sisters1    
incest against the  totem tabu needed to
 be guarded against 7as most likely to  
occur7 by  precautions of avoidance     
peculiarly stringent4 ,these            
precautions1 then1  would not           
necessarily come down from the time of  
our hypothetical  speechless beast      
ancestors4 ,they might come down from   
that time1  but the descent1 it may be  
objected1 is not necessary4 ,the rules  
might have arisen among men as human as 
we are--,totemists4 ,on the  other hand1
 it might be argued for ,mr4 ,atkinson  
that his hypothetical  groups must be   
infinitely older than ,totemism4 ,when  
totem names were  imposed on the earlier
 groups1 the totem name and mark would  
only be  a method of distinguishing     
group from group1 probably becoming the 
germ of later superstitions by which    
everything connected with the  totem was
 tabued1 in each case1 to the groups    
bearing its name4 ,either  alternative  

hypothesis is easily conceivable3 on the
 whole1 ,i prefer  the theory that      
exogamy arose1 or an exogamous tendency 
arose1 as  in ,mr4 ,atkinson's          
hypothesis1 and was later sanctioned by 
the totem  superstition4    ,as to      
brother and sister avoidance1 if there  
is an #8instinct1' as  ,westermarck     
thinks1 against marriage between near   
relations1 if #8close  living together  
inspires an aversion to intermarriage'  
7pp4 #ceb1 #ede71  then the avoidance of
 brother and sister would make them     
especially  apt to fall in love         
together4 ,but they don't4 ,brother and 
sister1  under the tabu1 are the        
greatest possible strangers to each     
other4  ,they have not #8lived in       
long-continued intimate relationship    
from a  period of life at which the     
action of desire is out of the question'
  7,westermarck1 p4 #cec74 ,they have   
done precisely the reverse4 ,so why     
they do not fall in love with each other
 is what we have still to  explain4 ,all

 the rigid systems of brother and sister
 avoidance exist1  it would seem1 to    
prevent what never would have occurred1 
had the young  people been allowed to   
grow up together4 ,for in that case they
 could  have had 7we are to fancy7 no   
erotic desires towards each other2 that 
is ,dr4 ,westermarck's idea4 ,but could 
they not8 ,he tells us that1 among  the 
,annamese1 #8no girl who is twelve years
 old and has a brother is a  virgin' 7p4
 #bib74 ,and the ,hottentots do not     
#8marry out of their own  kraals' 7p4   
#cdg74    ,then where are we1 exactly8  
,if there is #8a real powerful instinct'
  against love between persons who      
#8have lived in a long-continued        
intimate relationship' from             
childhood--why does the instinct fail to
  affect ,annamese and ,hottentots1 for 
instance8 ,and if to be absolute        
strangers to each other is apt to make  
two young people fall in love1  why do  
,new-,caledonian brothers and sisters   
never do it8 7,compare ,mr4  ,crawley1  

,the ,mystic ,rose1 pp4 #ddd-ddf47      
,footnote #a3 ,how do we know that homo 
was still alalus8--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote 
#b3 ,later1 as we further analyse the   
chords in the great hymn  of human      
existence1 we shall find that this first
 of all rules of  intelligent moral     
action1 however little it may have had  
of ethical  intention in its inception1 
will ever remain 7in its effects7 the   
fundamental note in the harmony of      
psychical life4 ,all succeeding  law is 
its inevitable corollary1 and vibrating 
in cadence with this  fundamental note4 
,,chapter ,v    ,,avoidances    ,results
 in strengthening the groups which admit
 several  adult males4--,disappearance  
of hostile band of exiled young         
males4--,relations of sire and female   
mates of young males now within  the    
group4--,father-in-law and              
daughter-in-law avoidance4--,rights as  
between two generations4--,elder brother
 and younger brother's wife             
avoidances4--,note on ,hostile ,capture4

      ,if we can admit the argument as  
to the sequence of incidents which  thus
 led to the primary amicable conjunction
 of two males within the  same group1 it
 is not necessary to enter very minutely
 into the exact  manner in which it     
would grow into a habit and spread      
throughout the  land4 ,we may surmise   
that1 in spite of the advantages        
presented1 its  progress would1 from the
 isolation of the groups1 and their     
mutual  hostility1 be very slow4 ,this  
would specially be the case if1 as with 
physical variations1 this point of      
departure in social development was  a  
purely individual one1 and so had to    
spread from a single centre by  natural 
selection acting through a beneficial   
variation4 ,it is1 in  fact1 difficult  
to conceive1 in view of the series of   
the abnormal  factors we have supposed  
necessary for the genesis of such       
evolution1  that any coincident         
departure of the same nature would be   
likely to  occur in any other centre4   

,it is even certain that the full       
possible  benefit of the innovation     
would not be able to make itself felt   
even  in the group of its creators4 ,it 
is easy to understand that1 in spite  of
 the shield-like love of the mother1    
there would be friction between  father 
and son in such unfamiliar              
circumstances1 not only novel to  the   
individual1 but unhabitual to the race4 
,in fact1 it may be taken  for granted  
that on the part of the father there was
 at first only a  sulky tolerance of the
 new arrangement1 a tacit but very      
unwilling  acquiescence in the presence 
of the son4    ,on the part of the son  
would exist a watchful reserve1 with an 
ever-haunting sense of insecurity1 born 
of a novel and precarious  situation4   
,even on such terms1 however1 and with  
what little might be  of conciliation   
between the two1 it is evident that a   
momentous forward  step has been taken3 
the powers of the group in offence and  
defence1  as against outsiders1 would be

 enormously increased2#a the fire of    
youth and the wisdom of old age for the 
first time joined forces1 and  paternal 
experience comes to the aid of filial   
courage and ardour4  ,on the death of   
the patriarch the family found a natural
 protector1  and what potential germs of
 advance1 material or spiritual1 had    
been  evolved1 would remain intact4     
,the real significance of the           
circumstance of such conjunction will1  
however1 be found to lie in the         
character of its consequences as        
entailing further progress4 ,thus we    
have suggested that the original        
innovation consisted in the toleration  
of the presence of a single male        
offspring4 ,but the way was evidently   
thus paved for the acceptance1 at  least
 in later generations1 of others of the 
young males1 although at  first only of 
those who1 not too much rivalling the   
fathers in power1  would offer least    
grounds for jealousy4 ,now if we may    
accept it as an  axiom in the matter of 

social progress in this race1 that      
everything  depended on aggregation of  
numbers in peaceful union1 then such    
renewed  inclusion presents itself in an
 important light4 ,when it grew into a  
habit1 the vast increase in power with  
every succeeding generation to a  group1
 which is implied in the fact of each   
male child counting as an  unit of      
strength1 becomes evident4 ,the new     
superiority to the original  ,cyclopean 
form of family1 with its solitary male  
head1 is enormous4 ,the  extinction of  
the latter type would only be a matter  
of time1 it would  finally result from  
the easy capture1 by better organised   
rivals1 of  their females4 ,with the    
gradual disappearance of those who clung
 to the  old order1 the leaven of       
progress would spread in permanence     
through  the whole mass4 ,it would      
eventually become the rule that all the 
male  offspring should remain within a  
group1 to form henceforth an integral   
part of it4    ,this result would be    

very important from another point of    
view4 ,such  retention of sons would    
lead to the elimination of one of the   
greatest  past elements of              
disorder--that band of exiled young     
males1 which we  found as a constantly  
menacing adjunct of the ,cyclopean      
family1 would  cease to exist4 ,but1    
again1 a very slight reflection will    
enable  us to perceive that such a      
modification as the presence of these   
celibate young males in the family      
circle must soon have entailed          
consequences in social evolution of a   
new and strange complexion1  thoroughly 
embarrassing1 in such an era1 to those  
interested4 ,primitive  social economy  
was now1 in fact1 to enter on phases    
presenting such  possibilities of       
complication and disruption as must     
forcibly have led  to the continued     
evolution of law in regulation4 ,such   
complications  will become at once      
apparent on an examination of the       
probable sequence  of events in the     

family life of the race4 ,such law in   
regulation will  be shown to have been  
evolved1 and1 as before1 to be still    
existent  as a rule of action in these  
latter days1 and with all those weird   
characteristics of mutism and general   
anomalism which prove its archaic       
origin4    ,granted a group consisting  
of a patriarch whose marital rights     
extend  over all its females1 and of    
young males whose attitude1#b from a    
sexual point of view1 is marked by the  
strict reserve ordained by the  primal  
law1 it by no means follows that such   
celibacy of the young  males would      
extend beyond the feminine element of   
their own troop4 ,on  the contrary1 the 
whole of the outside world remains free 
for them to  choose from4 ,in fact1 it  
is evident that it is there1 in the     
world  outside of the group1 that their 
future mates must be found4 ,on the     
component females of the parent horde a 
ban has been for ever laid1  but all    
else of womankind are free of the       

interdict2 they are beyond  the law1 and
 #8,sin is not imputed where there is no
 law4' ,here1 then1 in  the outer world1
 would their wives be sought4 ,the      
complication we have  mentioned would   
arise when1 after successful captures of
 females by the  young males1 captures  
which it is hardly necessary to state   
would have  been #8hostile1' the        
introduction of their captives within   
the parental  group took place4 ,the    
presence of females not to be his own   
within a  circle where all that was     
feminine had ever been his in undisputed
  right1 would certainly stir to its    
depths the soul of the ,cyclopean  type 
of parent4 ,such a situation must in its
 inception have caused a  friction full 
of menace to the new order of things4   
,the only solution would be1 as we have 
said1 in the further evolution  of law  
in remedy4 ,we shall1 as before1 expect 
to find the law ordaining  restrictions 
on intercourse between certain          
individuals1 and marked  with the       

archaic characteristic of mere visual   
action being sufficient  for its        
interpretation4 ,such1 then1 as it was1 
we still find it1 in the  habit still   
common with many races of avoidance     
between father-in-law  and              
daughter-in-law4 ,in mute avoidance     
between these two could peace  alone    
endure in the new crisis4 ,the new rule 
implied the development  of the same    
respect by the father for the marital   
rights of the son1  as we have seen the 
primal law to have had for effect as    
regards the  paternal prerogatives4     
,natural selection would come into play 
in the  consolidation of this new stage 
in legislative evolution4 ,for the      
group which first adopted such a modus  
vivendi would gain so great  an         
advantage with each generation1 in point
 of numbers alone1 as would  quickly    
give it supremacy4 ,on the other hand1  
the forcible infringement  by the father
 on the rights of possession by the sons
 in their  captives1 would simply result

 in the withdrawal of the sons and their
  women4 ,hence disruption of the group1
 and a fatal retrogression to the       
archaic type with all the weakness      
implied in a sole male component4       
,here then we find renewed1 in act of   
custom1 another bar to  intercourse     
between certain individuals of different
 sexes4 ,and not  only as a             
peace-conferring covenant would the     
fresh step in progress  be important4   
,it marks another stride in advance from
 brute to man1 in  the further          
recognition of points of difference     
between one female and  another from a  
sexual point of view1 the genetic       
evolution of which  sentiment1 in the   
primal law1 foreshadowed such latent    
potentiality  as already distinctive of 
mankind alone4 ,social advance to this  
stage  has entailed the genesis of law  
in definition of respective marital     
rights as between the two generations1  
viz4 fathers and sons1 but  further     
evolution in regulation of the          

individual right1 as within  the        
generation itself1 is evidently         
indicated4 ,for all members of  the     
latter1 as is the case to-day with many 
lower people1 would be  considered1 de  
facto1 a class1 in which all are        
regarded as  brothers1 own or tribal1   
whose interest in all things regarding  
their  classificatory rights would be in
 common4#c    ,such would be more       
especially the case in respect to female
 captives1  whose capture would be the  
act of all4 ,here sexual jealousy1 if   
uncontrolled1 would inevitably lead to  
repetitions of that violent  segregation
 of the members which occurred under the
 same circumstances  amidst their       
primitive prototypes--i4e4 that band of 
isolated young  males1 contemporaries of
 and exiles from some ,cyclopean family4
 ,we  may1 however1 surmise that1 now or
 soon1 the general development of       
intelligence and advance in social      
feeling would permit the action of  the 
necessary rule in remedy4 ,that rule    

would doubtless take the form  we still 
find existing to-day for regulation in  
parallel circumstances1  a rule which   
simply accords priority of right in     
accordance with  seniority in birth4    
,such right would in itself accrue      
naturally as  with other animals1 from  
the fact that superior strength is found
 with  greater age4 ,this prior         
possession is not incompatible with an  
amicable  recognition of the privilege  
of later participation by others4 ,if   
such  recognition took place in favour  
of the rights of the juniors1 whilst    
they again peacefully accepted the      
larger pretensions of the seniors       
within their class1 then natural        
selection would again act in their      
favour by the elimination of groups     
unable to abide such conditions4  ,the  
arrogation of sole possession could but 
lead to the disintegration  of the      
troop4#d    ,another solution of the    
problem of rights as between brothers   
may here  be noted3 it is that which is 

common to such widely separated spots as
  ,new ,caledonia and ,orissa1 viz4 the 
law of avoidance between an elder       
brother and a younger brother's wife4   
,it is one of the most strict and       
severe4 ,it is1 however1 incompatible   
with group marriage1 which we are  now  
dealing with4#e ,it marks the genetic   
stage of monandry4    ,so far1 then1 we 
have thus traced the evolutionary       
process of group  formation--and we seem
 to find confirmed that affirmation as  
to the  primordial order of succession  
in the genetic growth of custom which   
,i ventured to submit in my first pages1
 viz4 primo3 the existence of  an early 
idea of concupiscent lust1 distinctive  
of the male head of  a group1 which led 
to his pretensions in marital right over
 all its  component females in necessary
 incestuous union2 secundo1 the         
evolution  of the primal law 7with what 
little of originally ethical intention  
is now immaterial71 in protection of    
such right when threatened by           

intruders2 tertio1 its acceptance by the
 latter1 and1 as an inevitable  sequel1 
their indispensable capture of outside  
females as sole possible  mates4#f      
,but then this question of the absolute 
necessity of the rape of  strange       
females as mates by the young males of a
 group1 opens up  to view another       
remarkable coincidence of effect in     
custom1 still  enduring to our day4 ,as 
such it may furnish a clue to a feature 
in  savage habits1 to which we have     
already alluded as the cause of more    
discussion1 concerning its origin1 than 
any other4 ,for habitual  hostile       
capture of females outside a group by   
its male members1 with  a coincidental  
bar to sexual union with its component  
females1 seems  simply a definition of  
that habit among many actual peoples    
which has  been called ,exogamy by ,mr4 
,j4 ,f4 ,mc,lennan4 ,hence comes the    
evident  corollary to the argument that 
the primal law and exogamy stand to     
each other in the mutual relation of    

cause and effect4 ,we stated that  if   
this was in reality the case1 and if    
here we have the origin of  marriage    
outside the group1 then the novelty of  
the view1 and the fact  that it finds   
itself in opposition to other theories  
on the matter1  weighty from the        
eminence of their propounders1 would    
still require  the production of a clear
 series of proofs in its favour if it   
was to  be accepted4 ,such proofs1      
however1 we predicted1 would with       
research  be found abundantly4 ,we hope 
that already in our thesis1 as far as it
  has gone1 we may be considered to have
 advanced some such testimony  in the   
seemingly necessary identity of custom1 
in form at least1 in a  hypothetic      
ancient and an actual modern era4 ,there
 is surely here more  than mere         
fortuitous coincidence in social        
evolution4    ,it seems1 indeed1 a      
legitimate inference that the divers    
habits of  avoidance which we have      
cited1 intelligible only by their       

congruency  with such phases of genetic 
growth of custom as we have surmised1   
whilst presenting features utterly      
anomalous as latter-day creations1  are 
in reality of the archaic origin we     
would assign to them4  ,their           
extraordinary vitality1 which becomes   
almost bewildering to  contemplate1 may 
be explained by the fact that1 as the   
first steps in  progress1 they would be 
necessarily woven into the whole social 
fabric4    ,it remains to be seen if1 in
 further unravelling its tangled web1   
other  threads of actual custom may not 
be found as apparently eloquent of  a   
far distant1 unfamiliar past1 in their  
present abnormal features2  other usages
 in every-day lower 7savage7 life1 which
 in the light of  a primal law shall    
furnish an unexpected solution of many  
perplexing  problems in social          
evolution4 ,if it can be shown that     
their inception  would have been in     
happy accordance with the resolution of 
necessary  incidents in evolutionary    

progress1 may we not legitimately infer 
both  that such customs thus had their  
origin1 and again that these incidents  
really occurred8 ,our further research  
into the development of social          
institutions will point out             
indisputably1 that primitive society was
  now on the eve of a succession of     
events in social order1 presenting      
quite a series of menacing              
complications--their resolution will    
seemingly entail inevitably the         
continuous evolution of law in remedy1  
which law would have presented features 
identical with the actual laws  of      
avoidance and others4      ,footnote #a3
 ,it is clear that1 for this reason1    
natural selection would  favour the new 
kind of group4 ,the arrangement would be
 imitated4--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote #b3    
,with portentous endurance of custom    
towards these4    ,footnote #c3 ,herr   
,cunow1 as we showed1 regards the       
#8classes' 7not  the #8phratries'7 of   
,australian tribes as based on a rough  

and ready  calculation of               
non-intermarrying generations4--,a4 ,l4 
,footnote #d3 ,see also ,westermarck1   
pp4 #deh1 #dei1 on the ,khyoungtha1 a   
,chittagong hill tribe4 ,after marriage 
a younger brother is allowed to  touch  
the hand1 to speak and laugh with his   
elder brother's wife1 but  it is thought
 improper for the elder brother even to 
look at the wife  of his younger        
brother4 ,this is a custom more or less 
among all hill  tribes1 it is found     
carried to even a preposterous extent   
among the  ,santals4    ,footnote #e3   
,as a fact the #8classes' 7probably     
distinctions1  originally1 of           
generations7 do not1 ,i think1 indicate 
#8group  marriage4'--,a4 ,l4            
,footnote #f3 ,westermarck1 ut supra1   
pp4 #chg-chi1 #edf1 agrees4 ,for the    
opposite view1 cf4 ,crawley1 p4 #cfg4   
,westermarck does not seem very sure  of
 his own mind4--,a4 ,l4          ,,note 
,,to ,,chapter ,v    ,marriage by       
,hostile ,capture      ,mr4 ,atkinson   

accepts1 for the excessively early stage
 of semi-human  society with which his  
hypothesis deals1 the necessity of      
procuring  mates for the young bucks by 
capture from a hostile group4 ,now ,dr4 
,westermarck writes1 #8,mr4 ,mc,lennan  
thinks that marriage by capture arose   
from the rule of exogamy2' and ,mr4     
,atkinson holds that it arose from  the 
necessity of the case4 ,the old         
patriarch allowed no female born  within
 his group to be united to his sons4    
,dr4 ,westermarck says1 #8,it  seems to 
me extremely probable that the practice 
of capturing women  for wives is due    
chiefly to the aversion to close        
intermarrying 444  together with the    
difficulty a savage man has in procuring
 a wife in a  friendly manner1 without  
giving compensation for the loss he     
inflicts  on her father' 7,westermarck1 
#cfh-cfi74 ,he admits a period when     
#8the  idea of barter had hardly        
occurred to man's mind1' ,but ,mr4      
,atkinson  is thinking of a state of    

affairs in which the idea of barter had 
not  occurred at all4 ,even at ,dr4     
,westermarck's stage of the dawn of     
barter1  #8marriage by capture must have
 been very common4' ,but ,mr4 ,crawley  
argues that because1 in his opinion1    
#8types of formal and connubial         
capture' are not survivals from actual  
capture1 therefore #8the theory  that   
mankind 444 ever1 in normal             
circumstances1 were accustomed to       
obtain their wives by capture from other
 tribes1 may be regarded as  exploded'  
7,mystic ,rose1 p4 #cfg74 ,this dictum  
does not affect ,mr4  ,atkinson's       
theory4 ,semi-human beings1 in the      
conditions imagined by  him1 might be   
obliged to get their wives by capture1  
whether existing  types of so-called    
formal capture are survivals of actual  
hostile  capture or not4 ,if ,mr4       
,atkinson accepts the formal abductions 
as  survivals of real captures and so as
 proofs of his argument1 and if  such   
formal abductions are not survivals of  

real capture--still1 as ,dr4            
,westermarck says1 even after the       
supposed stage of semi-human life1      
#8marriages by capture must have been   
very common'--in ,mr4 ,atkinson's       
hypothetical still earlier stage1 they  
must have been universal4               
,,chapter ,,vi    ,,from ,,the ,,group  
,,to ,,the ,,tribe      ,resemblance of 
semi-brutal group1 at this stage1 to    
actual savage  tribe4--,resemblance     
merely superficial4--,in this           
hypothetical  semi-brutal group paternal
 incest survives4--,causes of its       
decline  and extinction4--,the ,sire's  
widows in the group4--,arrival of       
outside  suitors for them4--,brothers of
 wives of the group4--,new comers       
barred from marital rights over their   
daughters4--,jealousy of their  wives   
intervenes4--,value of sisters to be    
bartered for sisters  of another group  
discovered4--,consequent resistance to  
incest of  group sire4--,natural        
selection favours groups where          

resistance is  successful4--,cousinage  
recognised in practice4--,intermarrying 
sets  of cousins become                 
phratries4--,exceptional cases of       
permitted incest  in chiefs and         
kings4--,no known trace of avoidance    
between father and  daughter4--,progress
 had rendered such law superfluous4     
,a superficial view of the group we have
 examined might1 from its  general      
resemblance in custom to others among   
actual lower types of  man1 lead to a   
hasty conception of perfect identity1   
from a social  point of view1 in nearly 
all other respects4 ,we see that        
exogamy1  hostile capture1 group        
marriage1#a and obedience to certain    
accepted rules of avoidance1 are common 
to both1 to the hypothetical            
semi-bestial and to the actual savage   
groups4    ,the impression1 however1    
would be very erroneous4    ,in the     
former1 the hypothetical archaic stage1 
still lurked as a  festering canker1 an 
archaic element in marital prerogative1 

which  marks it as of an epoch in the   
life-history of our race when the brute 
still triumphed over the man1 an epoch  
far removed from our own4 ,it  possessed
 a feature in connubial relations as    
between certain group  members which    
placed a profound gulf between it and   
any existing form  of these days--a     
trait which1 whilst it endured1 would   
tend to render  all further social      
progress difficult1 if not impossible4  
,it barred the  road to that next great 
gradation in sociological evolution     
which is  implied in the friendly       
conjunction of groups in a tribe4 ,the  
latter  stage was a vast upward step1   
but still it was only one round in the  
ladder of ascent to man1 and indeed     
derived its chief importance from  this 
fact as such4 ,the tribe was the real   
goal2 there1 only1 could be  found the  
vital quality of social stability to be 
conferred by peaceful  connubium between
 united groups as opposed to hostile    
capture between  isolated families4     

,each group must come to be in itself   
complete1  and yet each must form the   
necessary complementary parts of the    
actual ,tribe common to all lower races1
 with its typical divisional            
inter-marriageable group classes        
#8phratries'4 ,the fatal bar to a       
higher platform was a heritage from the 
anthropoid ancestor1 and1 as  such1     
eminently characteristic of an animal   
stage4    ,this odious inheritance was  
the habit of incest between father and  
daughter1 which we have found to be     
common to all the mammalia as a         
dominant domestic feature4 ,as a factor 
in evolution we have seen that  it      
actually had as direct outcome the      
primal law itself1 and thus1  with a    
strange irony1 it may be said to have so
 laid the foundation of  an ultimate    
moral sense4 ,in such or other action in
 the past it had1  however1 served its  
useful purpose4 ,its operation in the   
future could  be but detrimental2 so    
opposed to all advance does it become1  

that1  as we shall find1 it is to be    
finally swept aside so completely as to 
permit to some students doubts of its   
existence1 though #8,in ,saturn's  time 
such mixture was not held a crime4'     
,leaving no traces of action in  actual 
usage save in such exceptions as prove  
the rule1 it will not be  difficult to  
show that1 in giving birth to the primal
 law1 it doomed  its own existence1 and 
this apart from any ethical connection4 
,the  continued progress of society led 
almost mechanically to developments     
eminently inimical to its continuance as
 a custom1 whilst again it  would be    
found even injurious to the order of    
things as constituted in  the earliest  
group-plus-tribe stage4 ,if we bear in  
mind the axiom  that1 other things being
 equal1 the largest assemblage of       
individuals  in amity would have the    
greatest chance of survival1 as         
possessing more  numerous units of      
strength1 then father-and-daughter      
marriage would be  pernicious by        

preventing an assembly from profiting to
 a full extent  by the productive powers
 of all its members4 ,for such incest   
implies  sole marital rights by a senior
 generation of males over a junior      
generation of females4 ,as the latter   
would always1 from mere disparity  of   
age1 outlive the former1 it follows     
that1 on the death of a father  the     
daughters would remain unproductive1 the
 only other males in the  family group  
being their own brothers1 and as such   
barred to them by  the primal law4      
,this situation1 in itself an element of
 weakness1 became doubly so1  if1 as is 
probable1 these young widowed females   
seceded to other and  hostile groups    
with whom union to them was free4 ,such 
groups would  in consequence be by so   
much strengthened1 at the expense of    
their  original circle4 ,if1 on the     
other hand1 these widows remained in    
their  own circle1 their presence as    
useless mouths would be embarrassing1   
and  a possible source of danger as a   

temptation to outside suitors4 ,again1  
celibacy being quite an anomaly in such 
an era1 complications might  arise from 
possible infractions of the primal law  
itself within a group4    ,but it is in 
special relation to the further movement
 in advance  implied in the friendly    
aggregation of groups into a tribe that 
the  effects of paternal incest would be
 most fatally felt4 ,for while it       
reigned as a custom and a father usurped
 sole marital right over the  whole     
feminine element1 the immigration into  
the group of outside  suitors for their 
hands would be impossible1 their        
possession by the  latter would be only 
possible after capture1 which1 being    
hostile1  would tend to keep asunder the
 different groups4 ,and yet in the next 
and higher stage of social evolution1 as
 presented in the amalgamation  of      
groups into a tribe1 the acceptation of 
these outside mates in  peaceful        
connubium is precisely the most         
characteristic feature4 ,in  later days 

they will be found as the male members  
of a certain #8class'  in one           
#8phratry1' and1 de facto1 eligible in  
group marriage with all  and certain    
females of the corresponding category as
 regards birth in  another phratry1     
within an all-embracing tribe4 ,as      
indeed with actual  ,australians1 where1
 by right of birth alone each #8class'  
contains the  natural born husbands of  
the wives of another #8class4' ,such    
connubium  is evidently impossible while
 incest flourished as a custom1 it could
  only arise after its decay4#b    ,it  
thus becomes necessary to study by what 
possible conjunction of  affairs so     
desirable a result was arrived at4 ,we  
will find that1  however fortuitous the 
event of the primary inclusion of an    
outside  possible suitor within a group1
 however timid and hesitating his entry1
  his presence there would be the signal
 of the beginning of the end4  ,now it  
is evidently hopeless to look for any   
voluntary acceptance of  his claims by  

the living father1 to whom the          
temptation to so easy  a procuring of an
 inmate of his harem as his own daughter
 would be  irresistible4 ,there would be
 also on his side all habit and         
tradition1  and with no direct group    
interest in opposition1 the brothers    
being  unconcerned4 ,the initiative in  
change must then arise irrespective  of 
him1 and without the obstacle of his    
presence4 ,this could only be  possible 
thus after his death4    ,now it is     
important to observe that precisely the 
embarrassment we  have seen arise after 
this event must be a means to the end of
 the  conjunction we seek4 ,we have     
noted the danger of the situation under 
such circumstances2 ineligible in union 
by the primal law with the  remaining   
male element1 which is composed of their
 own brothers1  temptations to its      
infraction would be as frequent as      
fatal1 on the  part of the early widowed
 sisters4 ,on the other hand1 the       
anomaly of  a celibate existence in the 

animal stage would tend to the secession
  of widows1 so to speak1 to hostile    
hordes1 or to constant attempts at      
hostile capture by the outside suitor4  
,but with the friendly entry of  the    
latter and his acceptance as a group    
member1 all these disturbing  influences
 would at once cease2 further1 the value
 of an extra unit of  strength in his   
presence would soon make itself felt4   
,let us then imagine a band of brothers 
willing to aid in the sustenance  of    
their widowed sisters1 strong enough to 
defy their capture by  others1 and      
determined to frustrate any attempt at  
escape on their  part4 ,the inevitable  
result would be the attraction within   
their own  circle of suitors for their  
hands4 ,now it is worthy of note that   
the  feasibility of the process of such 
attraction and inclusion becomes  more  
obvious when we reflect that if1 as is  
probable1 they belonged to  a           
neighbouring group1 they would thus by  
no means find themselves quite          

strangers in their new home4 ,for it is 
precisely from near neighbours  that    
their wives would have been captured by 
the males of the assembly  they have now
 joined4 ,these wives1 in fact1 would be
 probably own  sisters to the           
immigrants4 ,as such1 then1 we can      
understand an  easier tolerance of their
 presence by the resident males1 their  
new  brothers-in-law2 as brothers and   
sisters the primal law created such  a  
bar in division between their own wives 
and the new comers1 as put  aside any   
possible chance of friction in jealousy4
    ,now the significance of the entry  
of outside males would be vast1 from    
many points of view4 ,in a general sense
 we here find that further  aggregation 
of numbers in unison which we considered
 important1 as  prophetic of the present
 social condition of to-day4 ,again1    
there  arises a renewed distinction of  
that difference as between one female   
and another1 so peculiar to mankind4    
,for here we see that for the first     

time a sister no longer ranks in exactly
 the same line1 from a marital  point of
 view1 as a mother4 ,a daughter1 in     
fact1 may now evidently  have as mate   
other than the husband-father4 ,as the  
primitive mind  habituated itself to    
this idea1 the first serious blow was   
dealt at the  old parental prerogative4 
,again1 in other ways1 in other minds   
than  own brother and sister1 will this 
change in the old order of things be    
thus brought home--to no one more       
clearly than to the outside suitor      
himself1 when1 later1 he becomes a      
father2 the trains of circumstances     
leading to it are very curious1 but     
would arise in a perfectly natural      
manner4 ,the result in this connection  
would make itself felt by him  in the   
next generation1 with the advent to the 
adult stage of his own  female          
offspring4    ,is it credible1 indeed1  
that the original male members of a     
group who  had solely accepted his entry
 as mate for those ineligible females1  

their sisters1 would consent to his     
further participation in marital  right 
with other female group members8        
,evidently not3 for thus the  sexual    
prerogatives of the strangers would be  
much greater than their  own--for the   
resident males are barred by the primal 
law from the  wives of the new comers1  
who yet1 as resident females1 form      
probably  much the most numerous section
 of the feminine element in the horde4  
,if the new comers further inherited the
 ordinary right of intercourse  with    
their own daughters1 who would be       
correspondingly numerous1 then  the     
extent of their rights would entirely   
outbalance that of their                
brothers-in-law4 ,as original residents 
the latter would1 however1 be  the      
law-makers1 and we can have no doubt as 
to what form in such a case  law would  
take4#c ,thus is struck a blow again1   
however indirect1 to  incest as a       
custom1 a blow whose power would be the 
more effective1  insomuch as here it is 

the living father himself1 in the       
outside  suitor1 who would be in cause4 
,but even admitting that it is possible 
to conceive a complacency in regard to  
such participation in sexual  rights on 
the part of the brother1 there would    
still be another much  more formidable  
obstacle to incestuous license as       
regards his daughter  confronting the   
male intruder in the person of the      
precedent sister1  now his wife4    ,a  
psychological factor of enormous power  
was now for the first time  in the      
history of the world to make itself     
felt4 ,it would be the play  of the     
natural feeling of sexual jealousy on   
the part of his resident  female mate4  
,the jealousy of a woman1 in fact1 is at
 length able to  make its strength      
appear1 to some purpose4 ,as a wife who 
had not been  captured1 who1 in fact1 as
 an actual member of the group itself1  
was1  so to speak1 the capturer1 her    
position in regard to her dependent     
husband would be profoundly modified in 

comparison with that of the  ordinary   
captive female4 ,whereas such a captive1
 seized by the usual  process of hostile
 capture1 had been a mere chattel       
utterly without  power2 she1 as a free  
agent in her own home1 with her will    
backed by  that of her brothers1 could  
impose law on her subject spouse1 and   
such  law dictated by jealousy would    
undoubtedly ordain a bar to intercourse 
between him and her more youthful1 and  
hence more attractive1 daughter4    ,by 
these then1 and other incidents1 each of
 vast value1 we may  perceive how the   
primitive mind became gradually prepared
 for a change  so imperatively necessary
 for all future progress1 and how a     
habit  even so deeply ingrafted as      
incest may primarily have been forced to
  slacken its hold4 ,it is even possible
 to imagine how from such a point  of   
departure1 the custom might at once have
 entirely ceased among  all1 or at least
 a portion of1 mankind4 ,if we could    
conceive at this  stage a secession from

 their original group of its resident   
component  females1 accompanied by their
 outside mates1 with a continuance of   
the  acceptance of the subordinate      
strange suitors in future generations of
  the new colony1 then we could admit   
the probability of rapid evolution  in  
approach to a well-known actual group   
formation4 ,the persistent  importation 
of the always dependent outsider would  
accentuate the  movement already begun  
against incest--with two such           
associations in  unison1 cousinship     
would be recognised1 and peaceful       
connubium in  #8cross-cousin' marriage  
between groups would become a habit1 and
 female  descent the rule4#d ,but at    
such a stage in social evolution1 it is 
impossible to accept the dominance of   
the unsupported female or #8feme  sole4'
 ,gyncocracy1 if it has indeed ever     
existed1 is evidently as  yet           
incredible4 ,not thus was dealt the     
final fatal blow at this last  great    
trait of archaism4 ,we must rather seek 

it in the familiar economy  of the type 
of group we have left1 which is         
characterised1 as with  other animals1  
by the predominance of the male4    ,in 
our study of the various incidents in   
primitive social economy which  would   
have had effect in a sense inimical to  
the custom of incest1 we  have only     
considered the matter from the point of 
view of the entry  of the outside suitor
 after the death of the paternal tyrant4
 ,the  incestuous rights of the living  
group-fathers are thereby in no way     
directly affected4 ,in the absence of   
any direct personal interest  in the    
matter on the part of the group-sons1   
the only other male  components and     
law-makers might indeed continue to     
remain unopposed  indefinitely4 ,thus a 
resolution of the problem of decay of   
incest would  seem as far off as ever4  
,happily this is not in reality the     
case--the  real significance of the     
entry of the outsider1 even on such     
terms  as we have examined1 lay in the  

co-ordination of movement of these      
resultant primary checks1 and the       
inevitable synchronous evolution of  the
 most characteristic feature of the next
 and higher type of group1  as in itself
 a mere component of a tribe4 ,the      
outsider's admission1 in  fact1 really  
contained the germ of progress in group 
formation which  was to entail the total
 required decay of incest4    ,up to the
 present1 although the entire male      
element in a group was  divided into two
 classes1 by generations whose interests
 had little  in common1 between them no 
antagonism had arisen which could not be
  appeased by the evolution of such a   
law in remedy as we have noted4  ,the   
case would now be altered2 an           
irreconcilable breach was about to      
divide them4 ,it will be seen that the  
advent of the outsider had been  a real 
portent4 ,where1 for instance1 and under
 the circumstances we  have portrayed1  
he had become a more accustomed figure  
as an immigrant1  he would form a       

valuable connecting link between groups4
 ,each would  certainly possess some    
females seized from the other by more or
 less  forcible capture1 but each now   
possessed a certain proportion of these 
males1 brothers of those females1 whose 
intrusion had been peaceably  accepted4 
,with less strained relations and       
greater intercourse1 capture  would     
become a little more rare1 and a        
friendly interchange of women  more     
common4 ,there would be then discovered 
by the brother a hitherto  undreamt-of  
virtue in the young female1 his sister2 
in fact1 her value  as a negotiable     
article would appear4    ,as brothers   
and sisters1 and thus barred in union by
 the primal law1  their relative        
interest in each other had been of the  
feeblest in the  past4 ,the ultimate    
destiny of the sister might be a matter 
of the most  perfect indifference to the
 brother4 ,with the new order of things 
she  had suddenly become more precious4 
,as an object of barter for the  sister 

of another man1 she would show herself  
to be invaluable4 ,in view  of the      
difficulty and danger attending hostile 
capture1 the temptation  to such easy   
procuration of mates as sister-barter   
offered would be  irresistible4 ,coming 
at first into practice when only the    
death of  the father had left his       
widowed daughter free1 its advantages to
 the  sons would impose a gradual       
encroachment on the rights of possession
  by the living parent4 ,in prejudice to
 incest were now opposed the two  most  
powerful passions in human nature1      
sexual desire1 and a love of  material  
gain1 and the successful barter of a    
sister for another man's  sister        
satisfied both4 ,for attempts at capture
 might be unsuccessful1  and purchase   
might be more or less unsatisfactory4   
,and these passions  would be aroused in
 bosoms able to make their power felt4  
,the sons1 as  also resident males1     
would be among the law-makers4 ,however 
powerful  the father in past authority  

and tradition1 in the end the force  of 
numbers would tell4 ,however numerous   
the group of fathers1 they  would always
 be outnumbered by the group of brother 
sons1 and victory  would thus ultimately
 incline to these4#e ,however long and  
doubtful  the struggle1 as the latter   
possessed the longer lease of life1 the 
quantum of the exchange value of a      
sister would always finally be  made to 
show itself1 and the determination to   
profit thereby would be  more strongly  
impressed on each generation4           
,natural selection would again certainly
 come into play in favour  of such      
groups1 thus curtailing the monstrous   
prerogatives of the  old-world fathers1 
by dint of numbers alone4 ,the          
superiority which  would ensue with each
 generation1 would speedily ensure the  
triumph of  that assembly which could   
definitely accept the presence of the   
outside  suitor4 ,he would come as a    
multiple unit of strength1 a willing    
ally  who would otherwise have been an  

active enemy--the generator of the      
productive power to females who would   
either have remained as sterile         
residents1 or seceded to hostile hordes 
as breeders of new foes4    ,thus1 then1
 we may at length perceive how a custom 
even so deeply  ingrained in nascent man
 as paternal incest1 may finally have   
become  extinct as a custom4 ,in the    
action of such circumstances we can     
accept the idea of its ultimate decay   
and death4 ,by the numerical            
preponderance of the individuals within 
a group interested in its               
disappearance1 was alone such a result  
feasible4 ,this necessary  condition we 
here find fulfilled4    ,in opposition  
to the father we now see arrayed not    
only the  wife-mother jealous of her    
mate1 not only the daughter inclined    
instinctively to youth and the unknown1 
but1 most important of all1 the  son1   
now egged on by most powerful personal  
feelings and interests4 ,and  for these 
latter ones1 as we have seen1 time      

itself would fight2 to  youth each hour 
and day is a gain in strength1 to old   
age each moment  means a loss of power4 
,with the decay of the custom we see    
that the  way lies clear to progress in 
group formation4 ,sooner or later the   
presence of the offspring of the outside
 suitors in the formerly purely         
consanguine circle will be recognised1  
their recognition as cousins to  the    
younger resident members will be made1  
and the old type of horde by  a process 
of cleavage divides itself into two     
intermarriageable clans1  7phratries871 
and the savage tribe is created4#f      
,thus did the custom of paternal incest 
disappear1 and so completely as  not to 
leave a trace of its passage in         
recognised usage among actual  peoples4 
,but as an unauthorised habit it long   
existed1 nay1 it still  lurks1 and as   
such it is probably much more common    
among the lowest  classes of even most  
civilised peoples than is generally     
imagined4  ,the continual domiciliary   

propinquity of such close relatives     
makes  the crime easy#g and detection   
difficult4 ,amidst the savage races1    
although rare1 it is by no means        
unknown4 ,it is not a crime by the  laws
 of totem kinship with female descent1  
the daughter in such a case  being      
always of the same totem as her mother1 
and thus theoretically  eligible4 ,the  
only bar is the classificatory system   
which1 based on  sequence in birth1     
forbids all connection between those of 
different  generations4 ,thus this form 
of incest1 when it does occur1 in no    
way creates the utter horror which we   
find universal at any union  between    
brother and sister4 ,an old native chief
 whom ,i questioned on  the matter      
certainly spat with disgust at the idea1
 but again1 to my  own knowledge1 a case
 occurred where a girl bore a child to  
her own  father1 and when the fact was  
mentioned among the people1 it only     
caused coarse laughter4 ,it is true that
 in this case the culprit was  a great  

chief--it is possible that there would  
have been more adverse  comment if he   
had been a commoner4 ,it is certain that
 the betrayal  of the vested interests  
of the future husband 7for in ,new      
,caledonia  all children are betrothed  
at a very early age7 would have been    
more  resented in the latter case4 ,but 
license in sexual intercourse within    
forbidden relationships seems everywhere
 the privilege of irresponsible  rank1  
if we may judge by the ,kalmuck proverb1
 #8,great folk and the  beasts marry    
where they please4'    ,however1 its    
occurrence in such cases may be traced  
to sources which  show that here the    
exception proves the rule4 ,indeed1 the 
fact of its  occurring almost solely    
among the higher classes as among the   
,incas1  points clearly to a probable   
connection with an idea of pride of     
race1  or a question of inheritance4    
,now we may note that with descent in   
the  female line the right of direct    
succession to the paternal name1 or     

place of power1 or property1 is not in  
the gift of a father4 ,the only  legal  
conveyers of the blood right within him 
are females in whose  veins is to be    
found that same blood1 i4e4 his mother  
and sisters4  ,however regal a personage
 his child by a foreign woman1 it is cut
 off  from that heritage1 nor in        
connection with this offspring can pride
 of  race find a place4 ,thus1 then1 we 
may understand how union1 although      
illegal1 with a sister was so frequent  
in1 and even enjoined on1 the  royal    
race amidst certain peoples4 ,the purity
 of the royal blood thus  alone remained
 intact1 and from a king was born a     
king4 ,for it is a  remarkable fact     
which must be more than a coincidence   
that amongst  these very peoples1 such  
as the ancient ,egyptians1 ,persians1   
and  ,peruvians1 whose rulers were      
addicted to the habit1 female descent   
was the custom 84 ,at least ,i am not   
personally acquainted with any          
exception to the rule4 ,in consonance   

with this descent through females  only 
and where any approach has been made to 
gyncocracy1 we shall  expect to find    
that there would be only one legal wife4
 ,such was indeed  the case also in     
,ancient ,egypt1 there is no instance of
 two consorts  given in any of the      
inscriptions4 ,this fact1 taken in      
connection with  that which conduced to 
incestuous union under this form of     
descent1  invites us to make a          
digression in a curious reflection1 not 
however  entirely foreign to our general
 theme4 ,for the same effect as regards 
inheritance on the offspring which would
 be produced by union with a  sister1   
would also occur in marriage with a     
daughter whose parents  had been        
themselves brother and sister4 ,thus we 
may guess the lineage  of the unknown   
mother of the great royal wife          
,nefer-ari1 daughter  and consort of the
 ,pharaoh of the oppressive ,rameses the
 ,great4 ,this  daughter had1 in fact1  
been probably chosen among others for   

wife  precisely because her mother had  
herself been both his sister and his    
wife4#h    ,we may now renew our        
affirmation that paternal incest as a   
custom1 is  no longer generally         
recognised anywhere4 ,the primitive     
unquestioned  marital right in incest is
 quite unknown4 ,it has disappeared1 and
 so  completely have even traces of its 
past general occurrence faded1 that     
doubts of the reality of the fact may be
 pardonably entertained4 ,the  question 
is of importance in connection with our 
thesis1 for as may  be seen the whole   
theory of the primal law is based on the
 idea of  its primitive universal       
prevalence4 ,we hope1 however1 to have  
shown  the inherent possibility of the  
fact as being a habit common to all  the
 mammalia--and it has seemed against    
reason to suppose that man's  ancestor1 
whilst in the animal stage1 would be an 
exception to so  general a rule4 ,our   
further argument has adduced            
circumstances in  favour of a final     

decay so complete that oblivion could   
not but follow4    ,perhaps not the     
least remarkable fact to the            
anthropologist in  connection with its  
life and death1 is that only as between 
a father  and a daughter1 of all blood  
relationships1 do we find no trace among
  actual peoples of any law in          
,avoidance4 ,the fact is significant1 as
 we  may thus surmise that the process  
of decay was very long delayed1 in  fact
 to a time when such inchoate form of   
law as ,avoidance had become  an        
archaism1 or until general progress had 
rendered any law unnecessary4           
,footnote #a3 ,as to group marriage the 
editor cannot follow ,mr4  ,atkinson4   
,footnote #b3 ,i have here slightly     
altered ,mr4 ,atkinson's terminology4   
,as the passage stands in his manuscript
 he confuses totem kins with  the       
,australian intermarrying #8classes4'   
,in his manuscript the passage  runs    
thus3 #8,in later days they' 7the       
outside mates7 #8will be found as  the  

male members of a certain class         
generation in one group' 7by which  he  
means a #8class1' say ,ippai1 in a      
#8phratry1' say ,dilbi7 #8and1 de       
facto1 eligible in group marriage with  
all and certain females of the  same    
category as regards birth in another    
group4' ,here he obviously  should have 
written #8eligible in marriage with all 
females of the  corresponding category  
in the other 8phratry0 of an            
all-embracing  tribe4' #8,as indeed with
 actual ,australians where1 by right of 
birth  alone1 each totem group contains 
the natural born husbands and wives of  
another totem group4' ,this is not the  
case3 men of one totem kin are  not     
compelled to take wives from one other  
totem kin2 but men of one  #8class' must
 take wives of one other #8class1' and  
men of one #8phratry'  must take wives  
out of the other #8phratry4'4 ,to avoid 
confusion ,i have1  in the text1        
inserted the correct terminology4--,a4  
,l4    ,footnote #c3 ,all the younger   

generation of females would be reserved 
for themselves1 and thus not only their 
own daughters1 but the  daughters of    
their brothers-in-law1 who1 as of the   
same generation1  were all classed      
together as sisters4    ,footnote #d3   
,these groups would be phratries1 or the
 germs of  phratries4--,a4 ,l4          
,footnote #e3 ,the breach between father
 and sons could only be healed  by the  
submission of the fathers4 ,then        
prerogative in incest would  gradually  
decay1 for strange to say no vestige of 
law in avoidance can  be traced4        
,footnote #f3 ,it will be observed that 
,mr4 ,atkinson1 when he writes  of #8the
 cleavage of the old type of horde into 
two intermarriageable  clans1 creating  
the tribe1' differs from the opinions   
already expressed  by his editor4 ,by   
#8clans' ,mr4 ,atkinson here means      
#8phratries1' and we  have shown that   
phratries1 even now1 often bear totemic 
names1 and  probably were1 in origin1   
local totem groups2 each containing     

members  7by female descent7 of several 
other totem groups4 ,mr4 ,atkinson1 as  
far as his ,,ms4 goes1 appears to have  
given no attention to the origin  and   
evolution of totem names1 totem groups1 
and totem kins4 ,thus he  writes1 #8the 
presence of the offspring of the outside
 suitor in the  formerly purely         
consanguine circle will be recognised4' 
,but if the  heterogeneity in the circle
 was only recognised as marked by female
  descent1 and by the totem name of the 
female mate from without1 male          
parentage of #8the children of the      
outside suitor' would not come into  the
 purview of customary laws1 would not   
cause the #8cleavage into two           
intermarriageable clans1' or            
#8phratries4' ,there was no such        
#8cleavage1'  as we have argued1 and the
 permission of cross-cousin marriage is 
due  7,i suspect71 not to such early    
legal recognition of male descent1 but  
simply to the natural working of the    
totemic exogamy1 plus female  descent4  

,mr4 ,atkinson's theory of #8cleavage1' 
it will be remarked1 does not  involve  
the idea that the members of an         
#8undivided commune1' being  pricked in 
conscience1 bisected it for reformatory 
purposes4 ,he merely  suggests that his 
clients found1 in their group1 persons  
marriageable  according to their        
existing rules of the game1 and married 
them4 ,but  these persons are1 according
 to him1 recognised as the offspring of 
#8outside suitors' male1 and are also   
recognised as cousins1 on the  female   
side1 though even now no name for       
cousins exists in ,australian  society4 
,this involves counting both on the male
 and female sides1  which1 in practice1 
may have occurred4 ,but the theory of   
,mr4 ,atkinson  avoids all the problems 
of the different totemic names given    
both to  the born members of his        
original group1 and to other members    
thereof1  consisting of the offspring of
 the outside suitors4 ,if totemic group 
names already existed1 these suitors    

must have been of many totem group      
names4 ,whence1 then1 came the two      
different and distinct totemic group    
names of the two sets of                
cross-cousins--now phratries on ,mr4    
,atkinson's  theory8    ,give his       
original group a name1 say ,emu4 ,with  
,totemism it will contain  captive wives
 of various groups1 say ,bat1 ,cat1     
,rat4 ,it will also  contain outside    
suitors1 probably of the same names4    
,these men are  allowed to marry women  
of the group1 and1 by ,mr4 ,atkinson's  
theory1 the  offspring of these unions1 
or #8cross-cousins1' are allowed to     
marry the  children of their aunts      
within the group4 ,there are thus1      
within the  group1 two intermarrying    
#8sides of the house1' veve1 as in      
,melanesia4  ,but why or how do these   
sides of the house1 practically         
phratries1  now receive totemic names1  
say ,yungaru and ,wutaru1 or ,wolf and  
,raven8  ,perhaps ,mr4 ,atkinson would  
have replied1 #8by a mere extension of  

the  habit of adopting totemic names1'  
which1 of course1 involves the          
pre-existence of that habit4--,a4 ,l4   
,footnote #g3 ,but not tempting1        
according to ,dr4 ,westermarck6--,a4 ,l4
    ,footnote #h3 ,it will be           
interesting to see if research will     
bring to  light the fact that even with 
so irresponsible and imperious a dynasty
  as the ,ramesids some form of         
lustration was not considered necessary 
in the event of such unions4 ,this is   
the case with the people of  ,madagascar
 under similar circumstances4           
,,chapter ,,vii    ,,traces ,,of        
,,period ,,of ,,transition--,,avoidances
      ,survivals in custom testify to a 
long period of transition from group  to
 tribe4--,stealthy meetings of husband  
and wife4--,examples4--,evidence  to a  
past of jealousy of incestuous group    
sire4--,evidence from                   
,teknonymy4--,husband named as father of
 his child4--,formal capture  as a      
symbol of legal marriage4--,avoidance   

between father-in-law and               
son-in-law4--,arose in stage of         
transition4--,causes of mother-in-law   
and  son-in-law avoidance4--,influence  
of jealousy4--,examples4--,mr4 ,tylor's 
statistics4--,resentment of capture not 
primal cause of this avoidance4  --,note
 on avoidance4      ,with a custom so   
deeply ingrained as incest would be in  
the nature of  man's ancestor1 still    
doubtless vastly animal1 we may indeed  
surmise  that the process of its decay  
was long and tedious4 ,the temptation1  
as  we have said1 to such easy          
procuration of a mate in comparison with
 the  danger and comparatively scanty   
results of capture1 was very great1     
whilst the continual propinquity of     
father and daughter would tend  to      
constant recrudescence1 especially in   
default of any trace of law  against it4
 ,there must1 then1 evidently have been 
a transition era of  vast durance1      
between the type of the isolated        
consanguine group whose  only resource  

in matrimony was exogamic hostile       
capture1 as the outcome  of the         
incestuous lust of its solitary male    
head1 and the all-embracing  tribe      
composed of an aggregation of several   
groups1 and possessing thus  ipso facto 
all the necessary elements of an        
endogamic connubium quite  incompatible 
with such incest4 ,in such a tribe1 a   
group of women in  many cases formed the
 pivotal centre1 and capture was often  
found only  as a form in survival4 ,is  
it possible to retrace the main features
 of  an epoch of such evident importance
 in social evolution8 ,in view of  the  
fact that1 in the past course of our    
argument1 such law as would  seemingly  
have been necessarily evolved in        
regulation of each step in  primitive   
progress has been found identical in    
form with some actual  savage custom1   
may not a deeper investigation of savage
 custom disclose  further co-ordination1
 and prove equally fertile in           
interpretation of  the past8 ,whilst1   

again1 many obscure observances in      
actual lower life1  in consonance with  
such archaic genesis1 may take a        
rational form1  though the origin seems 
apparently lost for ever4    ,such      
research will1 ,i think1 clearly show   
that many social features  in modern    
savage habit afford internal evidence   
that1 as a fact1  they could only have  
arisen in such a transition era4 ,they  
also bear  marks of a very lengthened   
evolutionary process1 and thus confirm  
the  natural idea of a halt of          
portentous length at the threshold of   
the  present haven of comparative social
 rest4 ,we shall doubtless find that    
the door left ajar by the entrance of   
the outside suitor was not to  yield    
further with ease to the pressure of new
 needs1 half-hearted as  men would be1  
from the conservative force of old      
ideas1 of incest and  entire masculine  
dominance4    ,there is1 for instance1  
one curious trait in actual savage      
custom which  evidently dates from a    

very early stage of this epoch4 ,it is  
that of  the strange forms of           
#8stealthy' intercourse1 being the      
indispensable  preliminary symbols of   
the legality of an after marriage       
between the  resident female of a group 
and an outside male4 ,these forms are   
well  known to anthropologists as       
occurring among many lower peoples4     
,here we  find that the visits of the   
male suitor are supposed to be          
distinctly  clandestine1 taking place   
only by night1 although in reality the  
fact  is perfectly in the cognisance of 
the whole group4 ,now such fugitive  and
 secret meetings are exactly what would 
have taken place when a  group had      
arrived at a stage in which1 although   
filial incest was  decaying as a custom1
 there were still recognised certain    
marital  rights over his daughter by the
 living father2 when1 in fact1 tolerance
  of the presence of the outsider was   
yet in a tentative stage--and he  was   
still regarded with suspicion1 if not   

disfavour4#a    ,in consonance with the 
view we have advanced of the            
circumstances  attending the entry of an
 immigrant suitor1 it has seemed to     
ensue that  his position would have been
 quite dependent1 and himself considered
  as a foreign element4 ,that such was  
actually the case seems again  proved by
 another trait in modern custom1 whose  
genesis1 however1 was  of very much     
later date1 and when speech had made    
some progress4 ,in  our own day         
clandestine intercourse1 as above       
described1 may continue  to pregnancy4  
,on the birth of the child alone does   
the father become  recognised as part of
 the group4 ,but even so his            
nomenclatory power as  regards his      
offspring is absolutely nil4 ,far from  
giving a name to the  child1 his own is 
taken from his offspring4 ,till now1 in 
fact1 he has  been nameless2 in future  
he will be known as the father of       
so-and-so1  of ,telemachus1 in the case 
of ,odysseus4 ,to this point we will1   

however1  have to return when we arrive 
at the question of the evolution of     
personal descent from that of descent   
recognised by locality1 which we        
consider to have been the most primitive
 form4 ,mr4 ,atkinson probably  means   
descent from a local group1 say ,crow1  
not descent denoted by a  place name1 as
 #8de ,rutherford4'    ,there is another
 trait in actual custom which also could
 only have  acquired its most remarkable
 features in this era of change1 and    
that  is hostile capture itself1 in its 
legacy of those #8forms' of capture     
which we find connected with more       
peaceful connubium all over the  world4 
,such #8forms' have rightly been        
considered as mere survivals1 and  thus 
in agreement with our own theory capture
 is generally accepted  as the earliest 
form of outside marriage4#b ,but in some
 minds the  brutality necessarily       
attending real capture1 and its         
occurrence  solely among very low races 
with whom any idea of sexual restraint  

is  expected to be quite unfamiliar1 has
 simply connected the process with  the 
general lawlessness which1 amongst such 
peoples1 is supposed to  characterise   
the relations between the sexes4 ,its   
occurrence in form of  survival among   
higher races has been considered a      
meaningless ceremony1  and its evident  
symbolism in legality dismissed as      
incredible4 ,students  are1 however1    
aware how much in error is the idea of  
utter lawlessness  in connection with   
the marriage relationships of any savage
 race4 ,on  the contrary1 as is well    
known1 the list of prohibited kindred is
 not  only much wider than our own1 but 
no stage in the marital arrangements  is
 without irksome and minute legislative 
restraints1 strictly limiting  and      
defining the rights of each individual1 
male and female4    ,to other minds the 
fact that a #8hostile capture1'         
presenting as its  most characteristic  
feature an utter violence1 should ever  
have been  constituted into a symbol of 

legality in marriage1 has given rise to 
much perplexity4 ,mr4 ,mc,lennan in fact
 remarks--#8,it is impossible to        
believe that the mere lawlessness of    
savages should be consecrated  into a   
legal symbol'--an assertion which we may
 accept1 however little  we are prepared
 to accept his general views on early   
society4 ,it is  evident that the whole 
difficulty has arisen from the apparent 
complete  incompatibility of a seeming  
method in violence with a virtual act   
in law4 ,the hypothesis we have         
presented of the #8primal law1' and  its
 exogamous sequel1 would seem however to
 throw a new light on the  matter4 ,all 
unions within the group being by the    
action of primal  law1 as we have shown1
 considered incestuous and illicit1     
marriage  could only take place with an 
outside mate4 ,the presence of a        
captured  female within the camp would  
thus1 as we see1 actually constitute in 
itself a proof1 and the only one        
possible at the epoch1 of the legal     

consummation of marriage as ordained by 
the primal law4 ,it is thus  easy to see
 how a form of capture should be        
retained as a symbol of  legality in    
later connubium4 ,its continued vitality
 results from the  intense conservatism 
of lower peoples1 and from the fact of  
the halo  of prowess that surrounds it4 
,its evolution as a symbol only arose1  
however1 when1 during the  transition   
era1 by the conjunction of groups into a
 tribe1 friendly  unions were possible4 
,it would not have occurred with the    
earliest  forms of horde1 for these were
 isolated and hostile1 and real capture 
itself was the sole form of marriage2   
nor would it have occurred with  that   
later type1 in which1 with matriarchal  
descent1 the relative  positions of     
males and females were reversed1 as far 
at least as suit  in union is           
concerned4#c ,it took its rise with that
 other great  type of group             
characterised by patriarchal descent1   
which in all the  after history of the  

world 7for1 as we shall see1 their      
evolution was  coincident and had for   
cause the same factor7 was to dispute   
supremacy  with that which accepted     
uterine descent4 ,here1 as in the       
original  type1 the male continued to   
preserve his predominance and continued 
its  traditions of capture4#d    ,there 
remain other actual traits whose        
connection with this era is  equally    
evident4 ,for instance1 avoidance       
between father-in-law and  son-in-law   
could not have had its genesis in the   
very earliest type of  assembly4 ,whilst
 parental incest ruled as the custom1   
each group must  have been isolated from
 and hostile to every other4 ,these two 
could  never have been in habitual      
presence one of the other4 ,but1 again1 
the habit could not have arisen in the  
later form1 as represented by  a tribal 
horde with uterine descent1 as          
primitively composed of only  two       
intermarrying groups1 each of which     
formed a clan distinguished by  a       

different totem emblem4#e ,the relative 
clan-relationship of each  member of the
 horde would1 by the aid of this        
distinctive totem1 be  distinctly       
defined1 and1 with female descent1 the  
father-in-law and  son-in-law would find
 themselves members of the same clan    
phratry4  ,as thus being both males and 
of the same #8phratry1' there could not 
possibly be avoidance or enmity1 real or
 simulated1 between them4#f  ,by all the
 sacred ties of blood phratry they were 
conjoined in  offence and in defence4   
,further1 where descent is uterine we   
find that  the disposal of a daughter is
 in the hands of the mother or maternal 
uncle alone--the father has no voice    
whatever in the question1 nor  any part 
in her value as an object of barter or  
sale4 ,thus he is  perfectly            
disinterested in the matter of his      
children4 ,so far from  being in        
disunion with his son-in-law1 his       
sympathies1 in case of a  tribal        
quarrel1 would be certainly with him4   

,but the younger man1 in  internal      
quarrels1 might be found fighting to the
 death with his own  real father1 not   
7as ,i have seen it stated in mention of
 just such an  incident7#g because he   
has become part of his wife's clan1#h   
which  could never be1 but because1 with
 descent through the female1 his  father
 would be a member of the different     
group and of other blood to  himself1   
and to his father-in-law also4    ,the  
genesis of this particular avoidance    
7father-in-law and son-in-law7  took    
place during that stage of the          
transition era1 when1 incest still      
lingering1 the immigrant suitor was so  
far acknowledged that his entry  into a 
group was not always delayed till the   
death of his proposed  father-in-law4   
,as they were thus possible rivals there
 was a chance of  friction1 only to be  
averted by the law in question4         
,avoidance would  arise at the same time
 between mother-in-law and son-in-law1  
but this  time as a measure of          

protection for the marital rights of the
 husband  of the former4#i ,it could not
 have arisen in the early ,cyclopean    
era4  ,the son-in-law as such1 could    
evidently not have had existence when   
the  mother's daughter was the father's 
wife1 nor1 later1 when1 with the        
general recognition of the classifactory
 system1 there arose a strict           
interdiction of sexual union between    
members of different generations4       
,there would in such circumstances be no
 further risk of danger from  the       
jealousy of a father as regards his     
wife1 and the husband of his  daughter4 
,it had its origin in the fact that when
 the outside suitor  had originally been
 granted entry1 it would only have been 
after the  death of the patriarch sire1 
and as a mate for his widowed females4  
,but as these would include both mother 
and daughter1 there would  thereby be   
created a precedent1 so to speak1 which 
required regulation1  when later1 with  
the decay of incest1 the living father  

remained in  presence4 ,in fact1        
avoidance between mothers-in-law and    
sons-in-law  defined fathers-in-law's   
rights4    ,we may here again note      
another step in advance to purely human 
attributes in the fresh distinction     
between female and female1 which  has   
now again arisen as between a mother and
 her daughter as regards  the immigrant 
suitor4 ,but whereas with these1 as     
indeed with most of  the cases of       
avoidance we have studied1 sexual       
jealousy has been the  primary cause1 we
 may now trace the action of quite      
another factor1  which would certainly  
tend to a conservation of the habit1 and
 in a  manner intensify it4 ,this would 
be association of idea with hostile     
capture4    ,as regards the             
father-in-law1 however1 the custom1 as  
far as capture  is concerned1 would not 
occur with female descent1 for the      
reasons we  have already given of clan  
kinship in such a case4 ,it might1      
however1  be found as a factor to a     

certain extent with male kinship1 for   
here  it is the father-in-law who is of 
the same clan as his daughter1 and  thus
 interested in her negotiable value4    
,thus it is possible to  imagine enmity 
between him and her possible captor1 who
 is also of a  different clan from      
himself4 ,as regards avoidance of       
mother-in-law it  has again1 perhaps1   
been accentuated by forcible capture4   
,the effect1  however1 in relation to   
descent would be exactly the reverse of 
that  with the father4 ,with early male 
descent in the primitive tribe as       
composed of only two clan groups        
phratries1 it is she who would be  of   
the same stock as her daughter's        
husband1 and the habit would not  arise1
 the captor is1 in fact1 a member of the
 tribe from which she  herself has been 
stolen2 although later1 when more than  
two clans  were conjoined1#aj it might  
happen that her son-in-law belonged to  
another1 and here there might arise     
feelings of animosity4 ,with uterine    

descent the case is certainly altered4  
,as a mother1 and as member  of a clan  
different from that of the male suitor1 
the figure of the  son-in-law might be  
dreaded as a possible captor of her     
daughter and  other young female        
members4 ,but here again a difficulty   
arises1 for  when the capture becomes an
 accomplished fact1 the mother-in-law   
and  son-in-law would probably not meet 
again1 at least in primitive times3  he 
belonging to the group having           
patriarchal descent1 with capture  as   
the rule2 she1 to the matriarchal1 where
 the female is normally  immobile1      
between which two forms of group no     
friendly intercourse  could occur4 ,the 
fact of avoidance in any form presumes  
contiguity or  the habitual presence of 
the individuals concerned1 and this in  
such a  case could not arise4 ,so as in 
,tylor's figures we find that in ,w to  
,h1  as the latter is completely cut off
 from his family1 there is not one      
single case of avoidance between the    

wife and the husband's relatives4  ,it  
is evident that the same rarity of      
contiguity must have arisen also  with  
the father in male descent2 there is    
here certainly cause of  disagreement in
 the rape1 but if the parties see each  
other no more  there would be no        
necessity of evolution of avoidance to  
mark the fact4  ,indeed1 ,i cannot help 
thinking that the importance of         
association with  hostile capture has   
been much exaggerated as a factor in the
 evolution  of ,avoidance4 ,the question
 of #8residence' and #8descent' has not 
been  held sufficiently in account by   
those who insist on the capture as the  
sole cause of avoidance4 ,despite the   
eminence of the authors favouring  this 
view1 ,i would venture to submit that   
the balance of proof would  much favour 
sexual jealousy1 which we have          
heretofore found the sole  motive power 
in all changes4    ,those who would     
uphold anger roused by capture as the   
cause of  avoidance with the wife's     

relatives1 for instance1 must be        
prepared  to show that it would be      
strongest with the one who was most     
deeply  interested in the wife1 one     
whose voice in her destiny was of       
greater  power than her own mother's1   
and that was her maternal uncle1 the    
head  of her clan4 ,now ,i have failed  
as yet to find a single trace of such  a
 case as avoidance between the latter   
and his sister's daughter's  husband4   
,again1 jealousy1 or a desire for       
regulations in matters of sexual  union1
 will explain certain details in the    
accounts we have received  of individual
 cases which seem otherwise obscure or  
irrelevant4 ,these  have been           
overlooked1 as they are minute1 but from
 my point of view  are full of          
significance when closely examined4 ,mr4
 ,lubbock says1#aa  quoting ,franklin as
 to ,american ,indians3 #8,it is        
extremely improper  for a mother-in-law 
to speak or even look at him1 i4e4 her  
son-in-law4'  ,quoting ,baegert3 #8,the 

son-in-law was not allowed for some time
 to  look into the face of his          
mother-in-law4' ,further1 #8among the   
,mongols  a woman must not speak to her 
father-in-law1 nor sit down in his      
presence4 ,among the ,ostiaks1 ,une     
fille marie vite autant qu'il  lui est  
possible la prsence du pre de son mari  
tant qu'elle n'a  pas d'enfant1 et le   
mari pendant ce temps n'ose pas paratre 
devant  la mre de sa femme' 7,pallas74  
,in ,china the father-in-law after  the 
wedding-day never sees the face of his  
daughter-in-law again1  he never visits 
her1 and if they chance to meet he hides
 himself4  ,among the ,kaffirs a married
 woman is required to hlonipa#ab her    
father-in-law1 and all her husband's    
male relations in the ascending  line1  
i4e4 to be cut off from all intercourse 
with them4    ,again1 in ,australia1 it 
is compulsory on the mothers-in-law to  
avoid  the sight of their sons-in-law1  
by-making the former take a very        
circuitous route on all occasions1 to   

avoid being seen1 and they  hide the    
face or figure with the rug which the   
female carries with  her4 ,so strict is 
the rule1 that if married men are       
jealous of any  one1 they sometimes     
promise to give him a daughter in       
marriage4 ,this  places the married     
man's wife1 according to custom1 in the 
position  of mother-in-law1 and renders 
any communication between her and her   
future son-in-law a capital crime4#ac   
,also among the ,sioux or ,dacotas1     
,mr4 ,philander ,prescott remarks on the
 fear of uttering certain names4  ,the  
father and mother-in-law must not call  
their son-in-law by name1  and vice     
versa1 and there are other relationships
 to which the  prohibition applies4 ,he 
has known an infringement of this rule  
punished  by cutting the offender's     
clothes off his back and throwing them  
away4  ,harmon says #8that among the    
,indians east of the ,rocky ,mountains  
it is  indecent for the father or       
mother-in-law to look at or speak to the

  son or daughter-in-law4' ,among the   
,yakuts1 ,adolf ,erman noticed a more   
peculiar custom4 ,as in other northern  
regions the custom of wearing  but      
little clothing in the hot stifling     
interior of the huts is common  there1  
and the women often go about their      
domestic work stripped to  the waist1   
nor do they object to this disarray in  
the presence of  strangers2 but there   
are two persons before whom a ,yakut    
woman must  not appear in this guise1   
her father-in-law and her husband's     
elder  brother4 ,again1 quoting ,j4 ,g4 
,wood1 he says the native term for these
  customs of avoidance is1 #8being      
ashamed of the mother-in-law4' ,the     
,basuto custom forbids a wife to look in
 the face of her father-in-law  till the
 birth of her first child--and among the
 ,banyai a man must sit  with his knees 
bent in presence of his mother-in-law1  
and must not put  out his feet towards  
her4    ,now an important circumstance  
to be remarked in nearly all cases of   

,avoidance is1 that it principally      
exists between people of different      
sexes1--thus an a priori inference may  
be drawn that the primary  cause lay in 
some relation to the sexual question4   
,it is significant  that a woman's      
avoidance of her husband's relations is 
with those in  the ascending line1 i4e4 
with his seniors4 ,against his juniors  
he  can defend himself1 against his     
seniors he needs the protection of  law4
 ,in the cases we have cited1 it is     
significant that1 besides the           
father-in-law1 hlonipaed among the      
,kaffirs1 the woman must hlonipa  all   
her husband's male relations in the     
ascending line4 ,among the  ,yakuts she 
must not appear unclothed before her    
husband's elder brother4    ,among the  
,veddahs of ,ceylon a father will not   
see his daughter1 nor a  mother her son1
 after they have come to years of       
maturity4#ad    ,if we examine the words
 italicised in the quotations above1    
they  seem to convey more nearly an idea

 of impropriety in any approach  to     
intimacy than that of #8cutting' from   
enmity1 as ,dr4 ,tylor has  suggested4  
,indeed1 we observe here just the same  
horror that a too  familiar attitude    
between forbidden kindred1 as uncle and 
niece1 would  excite amongst ourselves1 
arising from the same idea of           
repugnance4    ,we see that various     
observers use the terms #8improper'     
7,franklin71  #8the fear of' 7,p4       
,prescott71 #8indecent' 7,harmon71 #8cut
 off from all  intercourse with them1'  
and no doubt they have#ae each expressed
 the  impression made on themselves in  
observation4 ,we note again that the    
only case where the native term in      
designation of the custom is given  that
 it means #8being ashamed4' ,the limit  
in time for the avoidance is  again     
significant4 #8,for some time1' ,baegart
 says2 #8tant qu'elle n'a  pas d'enfant'
 7,pallas74 #8,till the birth of the    
first child4' ,these  limitations in    
time would not exist if enmity because  

of capture was  the cause1 whereas we   
can quite understand them if1 the       
circumstances  now proving the          
consummation of marriage1 jealousy might
 then be  supposed to cease4 ,the       
reserve as to a too familiar attitude   
that this  idea of indecency would      
imply1 is shown where a ,mongol         
daughter-in-law  #8cannot sit down in   
the presence of the father-in-law1' and 
where  the ,banyai man #8must not put   
out his feet towards his mother-in-law1 
but sit with his knees bent in her      
presence4' ,in ,china it is the         
father-in-law who hides himself1 and    
this surely would hardly be the  act of 
a captor1 nor can we imagine a man      
having his clothes cut off  his back    
simply because he had not #8cut' some   
one sufficiently4    ,however1 in       
connection with our argument we have    
,adolf ,erman's account  of the custom  
among the ,yakuts1 and where we find the
 husbands elder  brother joined with the
 father-in-law in an avoidance1 there a 

distinct  feeling of impropriety in     
connection with these relations in law  
of the  wife is indicated4 ,the         
diffidence cited is exactly what would  
occur if  union was undesirable and yet 
not impossible1 between the persons in  
avoidance1 and hence temptation was to  
be avoided4 ,it is very important  to   
note that no idea of enmity from capture
 can be associated with  the husbands   
elder brother4 ,again1 the custom of    
avoidance with an  elder brother1 where 
its connection with jealousy is evident1
 is very  widespread1 and very strict in
 observance2 as we have already noted1  
it  occurs in ,orissa and among the     
,kyonthas in ,india1 whilst ,i have also
  observed it in practice in ,new       
,caledonia1 where it is most undoubtedly
  a means to an end1 to protect the     
younger brother's marital rights4 ,as   
to the significance of the fact         
mentioned in the case of the natives of 
,australia1 where1 as regards their     
wives1 they are jealous of a man--  and 

give him a daughter to place him in     
avoidance with her mother1  comment is  
unnecessary4    ,these facts seem to me 
to be conclusive2 but the question of   
the exact  origin of avoidance is so    
important to my general argument1 that  
,i  am glad to be able to find what ,i  
fancy is added proof from another       
source4 ,if this furnishes the requisite
 evidence that sexual jealousy  was the 
real factor1 and not hostile capture1   
our hypothesis of the  primal law       
acquires valuable inferential evidence  
in its favour4 ,such  added proof we    
hope to be able to show in ,dr4 ,tylor's
 figures4#af              ----          
,theory as         practice        --   
,in ,residence1 ,h to ,w3 #fe           
,avoidance ,h to ,w relations    7a7 #i 
cases       7b7 #ad cases    7,a7       
,avoidance ,w to ,h relations        #c 
0               #j  0       7,b7    ,in 
,residence1 ,w to ,h3       ,avoidance  
,w to ,h relations        #e  0         
#h  0       7,c7       ,avoidance ,h to 

,w relations       #ah  0               
#i  0       7,d7      ,these figures1   
which are extracted from ,dr4 ,tylor's  
work1 would seem to  be eloquent against
 hostile capture being the sole cause of
 ,avoidance4  ,they are derived from a  
comparison of ,avoidance as occurring1  
7a7  quite independent of residence1 and
 7b7 as actually resulting where        
coincidence of ,avoidance and residence 
is found4    ,now as regards the        
question of jealousy as cause of        
,avoidance1  residence and propinquity  
will evidently have a powerful effect4  
7,a7 ,as we have seen1 any ,avoidance   
under these circumstances would be      
remarkable without a prior stage in     
quite other conditions than those  found
 generally with ,h to ,w residence4 ,we 
note that whereas we might  expect under
 even the above conditions to find only 
#i1 there are #ad4  ,here sexual        
jealousy has been an important cause4   
,the ,avoidance of the ,mother-in-law   
7for1 of course1 there was none here    

with father-in-law1 who was a nonentity 
in such a family circle1 and  of the    
same clan as the son-in-law7 arose as a 
matter of protection  for the marital   
rights of the daughter as against her   
mother1 both  inhabiting the same large 
house common to matriarchal descent4    
7,b7 ,here1 again1 we expect to find #c1
 and see there are actually none1  from 
which it would seem to result that ,w   
capture had nothing whatever  to do with
 the origin of ,a1 ,h to ,w1 for1       
admitting the almost entire  separation 
of the ,w from ,h family1 which would   
make the case rarer1 a  tradition of    
capture would exist which would have    
effect when they were  later grouped    
together4 ,whereas the non-,avoidance is
 explained by lack  of jealousy1 from   
absence of male relations of ,h4    7,c7
 ,here it is again quite impossible to  
accept any idea of ,w capture  as the   
motive cause4 ,avoidance arose between  
,w and father-in-law to  protect rights 
of son-in-law and mother-in-law4 ,it was

 evolved1 as we  have seen1 as a measure
 of protection for that generation of   
males who  were the actual captors1 each
 generation by the classificatory system
  having individual rights4 ,that the   
necessity for such legislation was      
urgent we see in the proportion of the  
figures #e to #h4    ,here1 again1 the  
fallacy of capture as primal cause of   
,avoidance  is clearly evident4 ,if this
 was the case1 we might expect it to be 
almost universal1 whereas in reality1   
instead of the #ah cases which  the     
average should give us1 we find only #i4
 ,it really had its origin  in the      
reason we have already given1 of sexual 
jealousy as a primary  cause1 and was   
later augmented as serving to impress on
 many the  classificatory distinction   
between ,m and ,d1 who otherwise1 as far
 as  totems went1 were eligible to the  
same person4 ,where both father-in-law  
and mother-in-law are in avoidance1 we  
may surmise a change in descent  from   
the ,f to the ,m in the tribe1 the      

converse change of ,m to ,f of  course  
never occurring4 ,the question of change
 of descent will explain  problems in   
the nomenclature of ,morgan's tables as 
regards nephews and  sons1 which have   
been overlooked4#ag    ,,note ,,to      
,,chapter ,,vii    ,mr4 ,crawley reckons
 three interpretations of the origin of 
the  avoidance of mother-in-law and     
son-in-law4 #a4 ,fison 7,kamilaroi and  
,kurnai1 p4 #ajc71 #8,it is that the    
rule is due to a fear of intercourse    
which is unlawful1 though theoretically 
allowed on some classificatory          
systems4' ,mr4 ,crawley remarks1 #8this 
explanation is the one most  likely to  
occur to explorers who have personal    
knowledge of savages1'  which was ,mr4  
,atkinson's case4 ,mr4 ,crawley objects 
the antecedent  improbability of any    
man1 #8not to mention a savage1 ever    
falling in  love with a woman old enough
 to be his mother or mother-in-law1 and 
the improbability of so many peoples    
being afraid of this4' ,now #8in  love' 

is one thing1 and an access of lust is  
another4 ,moreover1 the  mother-in-law1 
in prospective1 not infrequently is her 
daughter's  rival1 even in modern life4 
,she has to be guarded against1 even if 
the son-in-law is less dangerous4 ,and  
he is very apt to be #8a general        
lover4' #8,theoretically the            
mother-in-law is marriageable in many   
systems1' says ,mr4 ,crawley1 #8and so  
there would be no incest 444' ,but  ,mr4
 ,atkinson is not contemplating the     
danger of incest as the cause  of       
mother-in-law avoidance2 his theory     
postulates jealousy--that of  the       
mother-in-law's husband1 and1 for what  
it is worth1 that of the                
mother-in-law's daughter4 ,mr4          
,crawley's objection1 ,i think1 does not
  invalidate ,mr4 ,atkinson's theory2   
especially as he does not reflect  that 
the possible mother-in-law may have a   
caprice for her son-in-law1  while the  
would-be son-in-law1 less frequently1   
may follow the course  of ,colonel      

,henry ,esmond4    #b4 ,sir ,john       
,lubbock's 7,lord ,avebury's7 theory1 of
 enmity caused by  capture1 ,mr4        
,atkinson has dealt with2 it is rejected
 by ,mr4 ,crawley4    #c4 ,mr4 ,tylor's 
theory 7,journal ,anthrop4 ,institute1  
xviii4 #bdg71 is  that of #8cutting'    
#8an outsider1' not one of the family1  
not recognised  till his first child is 
born4 ,for various reasons1 ,mr4        
,crawley rejects  this explanation1     
rightly1 ,i venture to think4 ,mr4      
,crawley holds that  the mother-in-law  
avoidance #8seems to be causally        
connected with  a man's avoidance of his
 own wife1' which he regards as only one
  aspect of the tabu between the two    
sexes1 superstitiously regarded as      
dangerous to each other4 ,but1 like ,mr4
 ,atkinson1 ,i much doubt whether  the  
#8avoidance1' as far as it goes1 of     
husband and wife is1 in the  main1 the  
result of this superstition1 though it  
plays its part on  special occasions1 as
 before the women sow the crops1 and    

before the  men go forth to war4 ,mr4   
,crawley's suggestion that1 as husband  
and wife  are perpetually breaking the  
alleged sexual tabu1 the mother-in-law  
becomes #8a substitute to receive the   
onus of tabu1' #8a good instance of     
savage make-believe' does not carry     
conviction4 ,mr4 ,atkinson's theory     
seems #8as good as a better' 7,mystic   
,rose1 pp4 #djj-dad74--;,a4 ,l4         
,footnote #a3 ,well-known instances of  
this marital shyness are the  ,spartan  
and ,red ,indian usage of only entering 
the wife's bower1  or wigwam1 under     
cover of darkness4 ,there are also      
,fijian and ,new  ,caledonian cases     
7,crawley1 pp4 #ci-dj74 ,mr4 ,crawley   
would regard these  as cases of #8sexual
 tabu1' but various other cases may be  
readily  conjectured4--,a4 ,l4          
,footnote #b3 ,see ,note at the end of  
chap4 ,v4    ,footnote #c3 ,with the    
consequent accession of power to the    
resident  female thus accruing1 capture 
would have become more rare4 ,in any    

case  it would certainly become         
connected in the minds of the more      
advanced  and powerful tribes with the  
rape of women1 other than their own1 and
  probably inferior in type1 mentally   
and physically2 the comparison  of this 
degraded captive in their midst with    
their own free females  would not be at 
all likely to have led in connection    
with her to any  spontaneous idea of    
symbolic consecration in marriage1 or   
aught else4    ,footnote #d3 ,when two  
groups1 despite the isolating tendency  
of the  habit of capture1 did at length 
form a union sufficiently close to      
permit of marriage by consent between   
the respective group members1  then1    
with capture as regards outsiders still 
rife amongst them1 we can  understand   
how the symbol would come to be attached
 to the peaceful  connubium4            
,footnote #e3 #8,phratries' are here    
meant1 where the word #8clan' is used1  
or local totem groups4--,a4 ,l4 ,cf4    
,note1 p4 #bfj4    ,footnote #f3 ,the   

exact relation of each to the females   
being defined by  the classificatory    
system by generations4    ,footnote #g3 
,as mentioned by ,tylor4    ,footnote   
#h3 ,here ,i really do not know what    
#8clan' is meant to  denote--#8phratry1'
 ,i think4--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote #i3    
,see ,mr4 ,crawley's #8,sexual tabu'    
theory of this avoidance1  ,mystic      
,rose1 pp4 #cii-dad4--;,a4 ,l4          
,footnote #aj3 ,apparently #8clans' here
  totem kins1 ,mr4 ,atkinson seems  to  
think that totem kins kept on being     
added to the two original               
#8phratries4'--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote #aa3
 ,lubbock1 ,origin of ,civilisation1 p4 
#ac et seq4    ,footnote #ab3 ,hlonipa1 
to avoid mention of his name1 c4        
,footnote #ac3 ,origin of ,civilisation1
 p4 #ad4 ,lubbock quoting #8,report  of 
,select ,committee on ,aborigines1'     
,vict4 #ahei1 p4 #gc4 ,tylor1 ,early    
,history of ,mankind1 p4 #bhh4          
,footnote #ad3 ,among the ,veddahs the  
fact that the avoidance begins  after   

puberty1 and in each case in relation to
 the opposite sex1 is  evidence that    
here the sexual feelings are concerned4 
,footnote #ae3 ,tylor1 ,early ,history  
of ,mankind1 p4 #bia4    ,footnote #af3 
,e4 ,b4 ,tylor4 ,on a method of         
investigating the development  of       
institutions3 applied to laws of        
marriage and descent4 ,j4 ,a4 ,i4       
#ahhi1 xviii4 ,no4 #c1 #bde-bfi4        
,footnote #ag3 ,the matter here is      
highly technical1 and must be  compared1
 if it is to be understood1 with ,mr4   
,tylor's essay1 cited in  the previous  
note4 ,w stands for ,wife1 ,h for       
,husband1 ,d is ,daughter1 ,f  is       
,female1 ,m is ,mother1 and is also     
,male6 ,a is ,avoidance4--,a4 ,l4       
,,chapter ,,viii    ,,the               
,,classificatory ,,system      ,the     
classificatory system4--,the author's   
theory is the opposite  of ,mr4         
,morgan's1 of original brother and      
sister marriage4--,that  theory is based
 on ,malayan terms of                   

relationship4--,nephew1  niece1 and     
cousin1 all named #8sons and            
daughters4'--,this fact of  nomenclature
 used as an argument for                
promiscuity4--,the author's             
theory4--,the names for relationship    
given as regards the group1  not the    
individual4--,the names and rules       
evolved in the respective  interests of 
three generations4--,they apply to food 
as well as to  marriage4--,each         
generation is a strictly defined        
class4--,terms  for relationship        
indicate1 not kinship1 but relative     
seniority  and rights in relation to the
 group4--,the distinction of age in     
generations breaks down in              
practice4--,methods of bilking the      
letter  of the law4--,communal          
marriage4--,outside suitors and         
cousinage4  --,the fact of cousinage    
unperceived and unnamed4--,cousins are  
still  called brothers and sisters2     
thus1 when a man styles his sister's    
son his son1 the fact does not prove1 as

 in ,mr4 ,morgan's theory1  that his    
sister is his wife4--,terms of address  
between brothers  and sisters4--,and    
between members of the same and of      
different  phratries4--,these           
corroborate the author's                
theory4--,distinction as  to sexual     
rights yields the classificatory        
system4--,progress outran  recognition  
and verbal expression4--,errors of ,mr4 
,morgan and ,mr4                        
,mc,lennan4--,conclusion4--,note4--'    
#8,group marriage4'      ,in the gradual
 evolution of the group into the tribe  
during the long  period of transition1  
the modifications in the internal       
organisation1  which took place as the  
necessary result in the march in        
progress1  should have left traces which
 we may also be able to follow in living
  custom4 ,the immigration of the       
outside suitor1 in its synchronism  with
 the decay of paternal incest1 must have
 entailed continual  complications      
demanding regulation1 and the resolution

 of each problem  would lead to an      
almost mechanical step in advance4 ,when
 by force of  circumstances of          
environment or others such a step became
 retrograde1  then we may expect an     
aberrant form whose very anomalism      
should lead  to a facile recognition1   
and prove equally fertile in            
interpretation4  ,indeed1 a curious     
vestige of the effect in action of the  
habit of  incest1 when brought into     
inevitable contact with progressive     
social  evolution1 is to be discerned in
 the nomenclature of that earliest      
phase of the classificatory system which
 ,mr4 ,l4 ,h4 ,morgan has called  the   
,malayan4 ,from the general prevalence  
among lower races of a  division into   
classes by generations of the members of
 group1 and  the deduction we see drawn 
in ,ancient ,society from the ,hawaiian 
terms of relationship therein detailed1 
as to a previous state of  general      
promiscuity1 it will be desirable       
thoroughly to examine the  whole        

question of the so-called classificatory
 system4 ,it is doubly  imperative in   
view of our own hypothesis1 which1 as   
regards the primary  origin of society1 
may be said to be exactly the reverse of
 that of ,mr4  ,morgan1 in as far as the
 sexual inter-relations of brother and  
sister  are concerned4    ,we have tried
 to portray the imperative evolution of 
a primal law as  the sole possible      
condition of the first steps in social  
progress1  a law which had so specially 
in view the bar to sexual intercourse   
between a brother and sister that it    
might1 if a name for it were  needed1 be
 called the anadelphogamous law4 ,mr4   
,atkinson wrote  #8asororogamic1' which 
is really too impossible a word for even
 science  to employ4 ,mr4 ,morgan1 on   
the contrary1 says1#a #8,the primitive  
or  consanguine family was founded upon 
the inter-marriage of brothers and      
sisters own and collateral in a group4' 
,he adds1#b #8,the ,malayan system      
defines the relationship that would     

exist in a consanguine family1  and it  
demands the existence of such a family  
to account for its own  existence4' ,and
 again1#c #8,it is impossible to explain
 the system as  a natural growth1 upon  
any other hypothesis than the one named1
 since  this form of marriage alone can 
furnish a key to its interpretation4'   
,he bases his argument on the fact      
that#d #8under the ,malayan system all  
consanguines1 near and remote1 fall     
within some one of the following        
relationships1 viz4 parent1 child1      
grandparent1 grandchild1 brother  and   
sister--no other blood relationships are
 recognised1' and says1  speaking of    
promiscuity1 that#e #8a man calls his   
brother's son1 his  son1 because his    
brother's wife is his wife as well as   
his brother's1  and his sister's son is 
also his son because his sister is his  
wife4'    ,now that a brother's son     
should be called a son is quite simple1 
as being a natural effect of the group  
marriage of brothers1 the  prevalence of

 which as a habit1 and its effects1     
,,mm4 ,lorimer and  ,fison so well show 
among the ,australians4#f ,but that a   
sister's son  should also be termed1 by 
her brother1 a #8son' is certainly a    
very  different thing indeed1 despite   
,mr4 ,mc,lennan's and other arguments   
to the contrary4 ,in this verbal detail 
lies the whole crux of the  matter as   
regards ,mr4 ,morgan4 ,that it should   
have given rise to such  diversity of   
opinion and suggested his theory of     
brother and sister  marriage need hardly
 be matter of surprise4 ,for it is at   
once1 evident  that a group holding such
 nomenclature ignored cousinship1 even  
if it  existed4 ,to all later seeming my
 sister's son must be nephew to ego     
quite necessarily4 ,that at any stage he
 should be unrecognised as such  seems  
the more astonishing1 as even in the    
very early times when totems  first     
arose1 and arose probably and precisely 
to distinguish cousins  as such1#g each 
cousin is of a different totem to the   

other1 and  thus not only eligible in   
marriage with another cousin1 but in    
many  lower races the born spouse each  
of the other4 ,the whole question thus  
resolves itself into the exact value of 
the term we find used in the  ,hawaiian 
designation of the sister's son by her  
brother4 ,now it is  important to note  
that two causes might have for effect   
the form of  nomenclature in which a    
brother and sister each call the child a
 son1  and thus ignore a possible       
cousinship4 ,one cause is that some     
factor  in self-interest or otherwise   
allowed such relationship to remain     
unrecognised1 although existent1 and    
another is that1 as cousinship  did not 
exist at all1 there could be no         
recognition1 or1 as ,mr4 ,morgan  puts  
it1 #8his sister's son is also his son  
because his sister is his  wife4' ,to   
determine which is correct certainly    
seems difficult1 and the  whole thing   
has evidently been considered a most    
stubborn fact for the  opponents of     

promiscuity4    ,that ,mr4 ,morgan      
should have seized it in support of his 
theory1 and  that the theory should be  
so largely accepted1 is not astonishing4
  ,happily the great value of his       
ensuing argument as regards tribal      
development is in no way impaired if it 
can be shown1 as we hope to do1  that   
there is no necessity for an hypothesis 
of promiscuity to explain  the terms in 
the ,malayan table1 which apparent need 
seems primarily to  have led ,mr4       
,morgan to evolve the idea of his       
primitive group4 ,in fact1  it becomes  
evident that1 if we can furnish a clue  
as to how a sister's  son came also to  
be a brother's son1 without having      
recourse to the  theory of an incestuous
 union of brothers and sisters1 we at   
least  discount the need of ,mr4        
,morgan's #8consanguine family1' in     
which such  incest is supposed to be a  
most characteristic and essential       
feature4  ,we hope to prove that the    
terms which misled him are more apparent

 than  real as proofs of any real       
affinity in blood1 and that the original
  conception in causal connection was   
something quite apart4    ,sir ,john    
,lubbock 7,lord ,avebury7 has observed  
that the lower the  milieu of a social  
status the less we see of the individual
 and the  more of the group4 ,in the    
case before us the individual as such   
does  not exist at all1 and there is    
only question of the group in its       
relation to its component classes4 ,to  
confound one with the other led  to ,mr4
 ,morgan's error4    ,there was much1 in
 fact1 in ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's shrewd      
remark in criticism  of ,mr4 ,morgan's  
theory that he did not seek the origin  
of the system  of nomenclature in the   
origin of the classification of the     
connected  persons1 and that he courted 
failure in attempting to solve the      
problem  by explaining the relationships
 comprised in the system in detail4'#h  
,but it seems to me that ,mr4 ,mc,lennan
 fell into the same error when he       

contented himself with the misleading   
analogies which a comparison  with the  
,nair family system presented4 ,these1  
however striking1 are1  as we shall     
find1 simply the result of the fact that
 class or communal  marriage was the    
common trait of the polyandrous and the 
,cyclopean  family1 nor can ,i see that 
,mr4 ,mc,lennan followed his own        
excellent  advice as regards the        
possible identity in origin of          
nomenclature and  classification2 if he 
had so done1 his acute mind could not   
have failed  in a resolution of the     
whole problem1 whereas his final resume 
of the  argument is in terms which ,i   
profess to be quite unable to grasp4    
,before entering into the matter        
ourselves1 we must keep in mind our     
affirmation as to the axiom which must1 
in my opinion1 guide us in  all research
 into the hidden causes of early social 
evolution4 ,all  innovations1 as we have
 said1 in the regulation of society1 all
 novel  legislative procedure so to     

speak1 will be found to have relation to
  the sexual feelings in jealousy4 ,this
 already is the genesis of the  primal  
law1 and1 in each case of avoidance1 we 
have found jealousy the  leading factor4
 ,it is the same in the case before us4 
,bearing this  in mind1 let us then     
follow ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's advice as to   
seeking the  origin of the              
classification of connected persons4    
,now what would be  the family economy  
of the primitive group1 and who are its 
component  individuals1 whose interests1
 in sexual matters1 are likely to clash1
  and whose mutual relationship in this 
respect demanded distinction in         
furtherance of regulation of their      
respective rights8    ,the original     
primitive type of family1 which we have 
called #8the  ,cyclopean1' has          
disappeared1 giving place to a higher   
form1 which1 by  the inclusion of male  
offspring1 has permitted the existence  
of several  generations in presence4    
,the component individuals1 speaking of 

one sex  only1 would be old males1      
males1 and young males representing     
three  generations4 ,it is the interests
 of these generations1 which1 in sexual 
matters and in choice of food1 c4 would 
be likely to clash1 for we  may be sure 
that the seniors1 as with actual        
savages1 would desire the  lion's share4
 ,distinction then being necessary1 it  
would naturally1  as with individuals1  
be based on relativity of age1 seniority
 within  certain limits confering       
priority4 ,thus gradually each          
generation1 as  indeed with actual lower
 races1 would1 qua generation1 come to  
be a  distinctly defined class with     
certain separate rights and obligations4
  ,in this simple necessity of a        
classification of the connected         
persons1 we see the origin of the       
classificatory system itself1 as an     
institution4 ,divers interests1 as      
between seniors and juniors1 demanded   
strict demarcation1 and the limits of a 
generation furnished the  required lines

 to mark them4    ,the very natural     
distinction by relativity of age was    
simply1 as with  individuals1 utilised  
as the requisite machinery in regulation
 of  mutual rights of the individual    
himself4 ,his rights are a matter of    
concern simply within his generation1 in
 which the relation is purely  paternal 
and communal1 with the sole reservation 
of rights conferred by  seniority4      
,even when later denominative expression
 was given to the idea of  a generation1
 terms almost identical of male1 old    
male1 and young  male are used1 as there
 is no desire to convey any idea of     
personal  kinship1 and there is merely  
in view reference to relativity of age  
of a class in relation to the group4    
,later1 as ,mr4 ,mc,lennan says 7p4     
#bgg73 #8,whatever class names          
primitively signified1 ,kiki would come 
to  mean child1 ,kina parent1 ,moopuna  
grandchild1 ,kapuna grandparent1 but    
originally no such idea of kinship was  
in view4' ,the classificatory  system   

evolved itself simply as the result of a
 desire to define  certain rights1 and  
the division by generations was the most
 natural  and feasible for the purpose4 
,but the very simplicity and paucity  of
 the original terms show that it was    
applied to any simple group  form4 ,in  
fact1 we are here dealing with that     
primitive form which  bound people      
together1 by the mere tie of residence  
and locality1 and  was purely exogamous 
in habit4 ,now when we consider that    
this fixed  relativity of age by        
generation was originally evolved in    
view of the  relations within such a    
family1 we can imagine that             
complications  might arise from such    
arbitrary definitions1 when1 later1 this
 family  expanded into the numerically  
large tribe composed of two             
intermarrying  totem clan groups        
phratries4    ,primitively1 doubtless1  
as between the classes1 the genetic idea
 as  regards sexual matters was 7as     
still with savages in questions of      

food7 to favour the seniors and defend  
their rights in defining each  one's    
status4 ,but actually1 with the decay of
 incest1 it would become  what it is as 
among lower races1 where nothing is more
 remarkable  than the strict interdict  
upon any union between members of       
different  generations4#i    ,it is     
evident that hence complications might  
arise perplexing to the  savage mind4   
,for instance1 we may expect to find    
cases where the niece  is an adult1     
whilst the aunt is still an infant1 and 
yet marriage  between the former and the
 son of the latter is obligatory1 as    
they  are cousins of the same           
generation4 ,here1 probably1 we have a  
clue to  one of the most bizarre facts  
in anthropology1 where the universal    
rule as to sexual connection between    
generations seems to be wantonly        
disobeyed1 although in reality the      
reverse may be seen to be the case  on  
examination4 ,it is recorded of the     
,keddies of ,southern ,india that  a    

very singular custom exists among them1 
a young woman of sixteen or  twenty     
years of age may be married to a boy of 
five or six years4 ,she1  however1 lives
 with some other adult male 7perhaps a  
maternal uncle or  cousin71 but is also 
allowed to form a connection with the   
father's  relatives1 occasionally it may
 be the boy's father himself1 i4e4 the  
woman's father-in-law6 ,should there be 
children from these liaisons1  they are 
fathered on the boy husband4 ,when the  
boy grows1 the wife is  either old or   
past child-bearing1 when he in turn     
takes some other  boy's wife in a manner
 precisely similar to that in his own   
case and  procreates children for the   
boy husband4    ,by the classificatory  
system1 as each in fact is a member of  
the  same generation1 they are born     
husbands and wives4 ,the enforced       
virginity of the wife1 implied under    
such conditions1 entailed a  celibacy   
incompatible with all lower ideas4 ,it  
is easy to imagine  the compromise      

between his conscience and his desires  
which a savage  would make in such a    
case when favoured 7or forced7 by       
circumstances  of environment1 for it is
 unknown elsewhere4 ,the infant nephew  
goes  through the ceremony of marriage1 
which1 by a fiction1 being thus  legally
 consummated1 the wife is left free to  
follow her desires4  ,these1 however1   
are by no means allowed to run riot4    
,they are regulated  in a fashion of    
which1 although the peculiarity is noted
 by the authors  of the extract1 the    
full significance can only be           
appreciated in  connection with our     
hypothesis4 ,she formed indeed          
connections outside  of her husband1 but
 solely with those of the legally       
eligible totem4  ,as ,i believe the     
,keddies have male descent1 these would 
be sons of the  father's sister1 or sons
 of the mother's brother1 or again with 
the  latter himself1 who was her        
father-in-law1 whereas union with the   
sons  of the father's brothers1 or of   

the mother's sisters1 as being of the   
same totem1 would not take place--and   
this we find to be the actual  fact1 as 
evidence proves4    ,but still other    
complications will be found to arise as 
the effect of  the original concept of  
the classificatory system when brought  
face  to face with new and advanced     
social order1 which will have closer    
relation to our present argument4 ,the  
distinctive feature in the  economy of  
the primitive group in its relation to  
all other groups  was mutual hostility4 
,the instinctive distrust of strangers  
would be  accentuated by the habitual   
hostile capture of females1 for such    
groups1 except in the case of the incest
 between father and daughter1  were yet 
purely exogamous4 ,but such mutual      
hostility implies isolation  of each    
community4 ,thus all law evolved1 as we 
have said1 would be  purely with a view 
to regulation of the internal economy of
 a single  consanguine group alone4 ,now
 in such a group1 the division into     

generations of old male1 male1 and young
 male implied 7although not as  yet     
understood as between generations7 the  
relationship of parents and  children4  
,each generation is either child or     
parent to the other4 ,as  marriage is   
communal1#aj all the fathers in one     
generation are fathers  to all the      
children in the next indiscriminately1  
and conversely these  children recognise
 as fathers all the males of the senior 
generation4  ,it follows that the       
relationship of all the members of a    
generation  is purely fraternal1 all are
 brothers and sisters to each other1 and
  in this consanguine family they were  
really either actually so1 or at  least 
half brothers and half sisters4         
,between these the primal law of        
celibacy between brother and sister  as 
such embraced the whole generation4 ,now
 as long as the family was  thus simply 
constituted1 no friction would arise4   
,the brothers1 in  common1 captured and 
married in common some outside          

female1#aa and  their children          
constituted solely the next generation4 
,the sisters were  either stolen or     
emigrated to other groups2 but we have  
seen that a  moment would come when this
 process ceased to be universal4 ,the   
sister  came to remain in her own group1
 and she was joined by some outside     
suitor2 with the advent of their        
children1 who are cousins to the        
others1 would arise dire perplexities1  
in view of the old law4    ,we may now  
begin to see more distinctly1 in the    
fact of the presence  of the cousins1   
the resolution of the problem as to how 
a sister's  son came to be also a       
brother's1 and we will find that ,mr4   
,morgan was  not the first to be baffled
 by the problem4 ,it was too intricate  
for  primitive man at any rate4 ,when   
first presented to him1 we may surmise  
that he1 in fact1 refused to recognise  
it as a problem at all4 ,since  the     
beginning of things in the group1 as    
constituted by all tradition1  the      

children of one generation were children
 of another simply1 and  nothing more4  
,that as a result of the presence of the
 outside male1  some intricate process  
of scission had occurred1 and things    
were not  as they seemed1 was an idea   
far too abstract to be readily seized4  
,all  in a generation had been ever1 to 
early man1 brother and sister1 and      
brother and sister they should continue4
    ,we have seen in a past chapter that
 it was actually to the interest of     
senior male group-members1 while incest 
reigned1 that this condition  of things 
should endure4 ,it put at their sole    
disposal the daughters  of their        
brothers-in-law1 and in the primal law  
placed a ban on  sexual intercourse     
between all the younger male and female 
members1  as constituting them brothers 
and sisters4 ,as a factor in this case1 
however1 the effect of incest was more  
or less temporary4 ,the real  agent in  
the tardy or non-recognition of the     
cousinship thus created1  was the       

conservative force of old habit and     
tradition4 ,we must remember  that1 in  
so early a group1 personal descent as   
such was in no way  recognised4 ,mere   
local contiguity alone constituted the  
sense of  relationship1 exogamy for     
instance took the form of local exogamy1
  for as all within a locality were     
7locally7 relations1 so all outside     
were1 as strangers1 free in marriage4   
,while then so strong a sense of  the   
value of contiguity continued1 and was  
in practice1 the evolution  of an idea  
of non-relationship of two individuals  
with a common  habitat would be too     
complex4 ,again1 a recognition in fact  
implies a  vast modification of the     
whole organisation of the group1 which  
thus  contains in cousins the elements  
of marriage within itself4 ,but this is 
the latest and highest type of group and
 constitutes the tribe4 ,we can         
understand that such a step was not     
taken at once by early man4 ,even  when 
recognised we know that definition lags 

behind the event4    ,thus in such a    
case as cited1 and at the stage we are  
studying1 if we  find two cousins in    
presence1 who are yet unrecognised as   
cousins1  then1 if nomenclature has     
taken place1 we should find exactly the 
terms  employed in the ,malayan table   
which misled ,mr4 ,morgan4 ,a sister's  
son  would be termed the brother's son1 
simply because the individual was  as   
yet ignored1 although existent1 as a    
cousin1 as members of the same          
generation they were brother and sister4
 ,classes by generations alone  were    
recognised4    ,now as regards the      
validity of our assumption that         
relativity in age  served as a means to 
determine privilege as to wedlock1 proof
 can be  furnished by certain           
nomenclatory features1 as between       
members of a  class or generation1 to be
 found in the ,malayan table in ,ancient
  ,society and elsewhere4 ,this will    
afford1 incidentally1 strong negative   
proof of our theory as to non-union     

between brother and sister4 ,it will    
also incidentally furnish the strongest 
negative evidence that1 so far  from    
brother and sister living in incest1 as 
,morgan holds1 brother and  sister were 
regarded as quite apart in the sense of 
any sexual relation  between them4 ,it  
will be seen that there is a profound   
distinction made  in address between    
inter-marriageable people and those     
between whom  celibacy is enjoined4     
,both ,mr4 ,morgan and ,mr4 ,mc,lennan  
have drawn attention to the             
peculiarities in the terms of address as
 between #8brothers' and as  between    
#8sisters4' ,it is curious that the full
 significance of the  phenomena therein 
presented escaped two such keen         
intellects4 ,we find  here that terms of
 address as between persons of the same 
sex and of  the same generation1 and    
ergo brothers or sisters1 present the   
very  remarkable features that    7#a7  
#8,the age of the person spoken to      
compared with that of the speaker  plays

 a very important part in the matter of 
denomination4'    7#b7 #8,such names    
refer not to the absolute age of the    
person addressed4'    7#c7 #8,the       
relationships of brother and sister are 
conceived in the  twofold form of elder 
and younger1 and not in the abstract1   
and there  are special terms for each   
among the ,seneca ,iroquois4'    7#d7   
#8,there is no name for brother and     
sister 7,malayan system74 ,on the  other
 hand1 there are a variety of names for 
use in salutations between  8brother0   
and 8sister0 according to the age and   
sex of the person  speaking in relation 
to the age and sex of the person        
addressed4'    7#e7 ,among the ,eskimo  
the form of the terms of relationship   
appears to  depend1 in some cases1 more 
on the sex of the speaker than on that  
of  the person to whom the term refers4 
7#f7 ,in ,eastern ,central ,africa1 if a
 man has a brother and a sister1 he  is 
called one thing by the brother1 but    
quite a different thing by the  sister4 

,we will now illustrate the idea more   
completely by an extract of terms  from 
the table of ,hawaiian relationships in 
,ancient ,society4 ,an older  or a      
younger brother is to a sister simply   
addressed or mentioned  by the general  
term ,kaiku nana1 but to her1 in address
 or mention  of an older or a younger   
sister1 they are respectively ,kaik     
a'ana  and ,kaika-i-na4 ,again1 an older
 or a younger sister is to a brother    
collectively ,kaikuwaheena1 but to him  
an elder or a younger brother is        
respectively ,kaiknana and ,kaikaina4   
,now in view of our argument as regards 
the origin of these diversities  in some
 sexual feelings1 it is a most          
significant feature in these  details of
 the terms of address that the          
expression of the relativity  of age    
between the speakers is confined solely 
to the intercourse  between members of  
the same sex4 ,that a brother is the    
senior or the  junior of ,ego is        
carefully noted1 but a sister is simply 

and vaguely  a sister4 ,why8 simply     
because whereas1 by virtue of the primal
 law1  no possible question whatever of 
mutual interest in sexual matters  could
 possibly arise between a brother and a 
sister1 on the other  hand friction     
might hourly occur between brothers or  
between sisters4  ,in fact1 if our      
theory is correct1 then1 as questions of
 sexual  privilege or precedence could  
cause jealousy between members of the   
same sex1 distinctions would be         
necessary by definition of seniority    
when address took place between these1  
and in these cases alone1 and  this     
indeed we find to be the fact4 ,as      
conclusive evidence we would  cite the  
further important fact that these very  
same distinctions of  senior and junior 
are used1 inter se1 between all those of
 the same  totem phratry as now         
existing1 but are never employed for    
their  tribal cousins of the other totem
 phratry4 ,and the reason is the  same4 
,the latter naturally do not marry 7in  

groups formed of only two  classes7     
phratries into the same totem phratry as
 the former1  and thus there is no cause
 for jealousy or necessity of           
definition1  whereas individuals of the 
same totem phratry are ipso facto group 
potential husbands of the same group    
potential wives1 or are at  least       
eligible in marriage with the same totem
 groups phratries1 and  hence necessity 
for the exact definition by age of each 
one's rights4    ,thus1 as with other   
laws or institutions we have traced1 we 
find  a desire for distinction as       
regards rights in sexual union to be    
the genetic cause of the classificatory 
system both as regards the  generation  
and its component members4    ,in all   
periods of transition which a process in
 change in progress  implies1 we expect 
to find cases where the conservative    
force of  tradition from the past has   
delayed recognition of the too novel    
present1 and we discover that           
circumstances have moved too rapidly for

  the intelligence of the times4 ,if we 
keep this fact in view1 we have  thus   
seemed to find a natural explanation of 
the knotty point which  was the cause of
 dispute between ,mr4 ,morgan and ,mr4  
,mc,lennan1#ab and  we may thus venture 
to say that each was both wrong and     
right in his  views of the              
classificatory system in general4 ,each 
has mistaken a part  for a whole1 and   
they were ignorant that they were       
upholding two sides  of the same        
question4 ,mr4 ,morgan was in error in  
assuming the system's  too intimate     
connection with a determination of      
affinities in blood1  in relation to    
which primarily1 as we hope to have     
shown1 it had  really neither purpose   
nor aim1 as also in his too hasty       
assumption of  a consanguine family     
founded on brother and sister incest1   
based on a  mere conjectural solution of
 a verbal detail1 an assumption which he
  himself acknowledges had no other     
foundation4    ,mr4 ,mc,lennan was in   

error in maintaining that the           
classificatory  system concerned terms  
of address alone4 ,to quote his own     
words3  #8,what duties or rights are    
affected by the 8relationships0         
comprised  in the classificatory system8
 ,absolutely none2 they are barren of   
consequences1 except indeed as          
comprising a code of courtesies and     
ceremonial addresses in social          
intercourse4' ,on the other hand1 as  we
 have tried to show1 the system had     
precisely both intention and  effect in 
regulation1 as regards sexual feeling1  
which is the strongest  passion in      
nature4 ,and yet each disputant again   
was right in a degree1  for1 in later   
times1 the classificatory distinctions  
really served  as terms of address as   
regards the clan tribe81 whilst again   
the  primitive terms1 which simply      
describe generations of persons in their
  relation to the group1 were           
afterwards1 by philological             
transmutation1  to come to have a more  

definite meaning expressing the sense of
 the  personal parent4      ,,note ,,to 
,,chapter ,,viii    ,group ,marriage    
,the idea that #8group marriage' exists 
among the dusky natives of  ,australia1 
and that #8the group is the social unit 
as regards marriage'  7as explained in  
the earlier part of this book71 was     
introduced by  ,messrs4 ,howitt and     
,fison in their ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai  
7#ahhj74  ,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen1
 in their ,natives of ,central          
,australia  7#ahii71 support the views  
of ,messrs4 ,fison and ,howitt4 #8,under
 certain  modifications group marriage  
still exists as an actual custom1       
regulated by fixed and well recognised  
rules1 amongst various  ,australian     
tribes' 7p4 #ef74 #8,individual marriage
 does not exist either  in name or      
practice in the ,urabunna tribe' 7p4    
#fc74 ,mr4 ,crawley  argues1 on the     
other hand1 that individual marriage    
does exist among  the ,urabunna1        
#8though slightly modified' 7,mystic    

,rose1 p4 #dhb74 ,for  each #8slight    
modification1' the husband's consent    
must be obtained4 ,the  system is       
regarded by ,mr4 ,crawley1 not as a     
survival of promiscuity1  more or less  
modified1 but as an #8abnormal          
development4' ,he believes in           
individual marriage1 as1 from the       
earliest known times1 #8the regular     
type of union of man and woman4' #8,one 
is struck by the high morality of       
primitive man' 7pp4 #dhc-dhd74    ,what 
,mr4 ,atkinson meant by saying that     
#8marriage is communal1' ,i do  not     
understand1 as1 on his theory1 sexual   
jealousy must have prevented  each man  
of a generation1 in a group1 from being 
equally the husband  of each woman1 not 
his sister4 ,the young braves are       
supposed to bring  in women captives    
from without1 and to marry them         
#8communally1' ,then  what becomes of   
jealousy8 ,they ought rather to have    
fought for their  captive1 on the       
principles of a golf tournament1 the    

survivor and  winner taking the bride4  
,mr4 ,atkinson never saw his work except
 in his  manuscript1 and might have made
 modifications on such points as this1  
where he seems to me to lose grasp of   
his idea1 as in his theory of           
recognition of the children of #8the    
outside suitor1' he seems to bring  male
 descent into action at a period when1  
as he asserts elsewhere1 it  was not yet
 recognised by customary law4 ,on the   
,keddies 7p4 #bhg7 ,i have  no          
information1 the author giving no       
reference4 ,a4 ,l4      ,footnote #a3   
,ancient ,society1 p4 #chd1 ,lewis ,h4  
,morgan4    ,footnote #b3 ,ibid4 p4     
#djb4    ,footnote #c3 ,ibid4 p4 #dji4  
,footnote #d3 ,ibid4 p4 #che4           
,footnote #e3 ,ancient ,society1 p4     
#cia1 ,lewis ,h4 ,morgan4    ,footnote  
#f3 ,kamilaroi and ,kurnai1 ,lorimer and
 ,fison4 ,cf4 note at end  of chapter4  
,i have already stated my objections to 
the theory of #8group  marriage4'--,a4  
,l4    ,footnote #g3 #8,totems arose to 

distinguish cousins as such4' ,this     
implies that the totem name was assigned
 to each group for a definite  social   
purpose1 the regulation of degrees of   
kin4 ,but1 on any feasible  theory of   
the #8totem' it #8came otherwise1' and  
was only used as a  mark of kinship     
after it had come1 just as a place name 
might have  been used1 had it been      
equally convenient4 ,on the system of   
descent  of the totem on the female     
side1 ,a 7man71 an ,emu1 marries ,b     
7woman71  a ,kangaroo4 ,their sons and  
daughters are ,kangaroos4 ,c1 one of the
  sisters1 marries ,d1 a ,witchetty     
,grub1 her children are ,kangaroos4 ,e1 
,c's brother1 marries ,f1 a ,frog1 his  
children are ,frogs1 and may1 as  far as
 the totem rule goes1 marry their       
cousins1 ,c's children1 who are         
,kangaroos4--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote #h3   
,studies in ,ancient ,history1          
,mc,lennan1 p4 #bfi et seq4    ,footnote
 #i3 ,the most distinctive feature      
to-day in the inter-relations  of       

generations is a most strict ordinance  
to celibacy between members  of         
different generations4    ,footnote #aj3
 ,how can marriage be communal1 granting
 ,mr4 ,atkinson's  views about sexual   
jealousy8--,a4 ,l4    ,footnote #aa3    
,where is sexual jealousy8--,a4 ,l4     
,footnote #ab3 ,cf4 ,mr4 ,tylor1 ,j4 ,a4
 ,i4 xviii4 #c1 #bfe1 who expresses  the
 same opinion4          ,,appendices    
,,appendix ,a    ,,origin ,,of          
,,totemism      ,in the following       
village sobriquets from the             
south-western counties of  ,england the 
people are styled #8eaters of' this or  
that4#a           ,,english ,,village   
,,sobriquets                     ,eaters
         ,ashreigney   --   ,dog-eaters 
,morchard     --   #8,burd'-eaters      
,roseash      --   ,whitpot-eaters      
,sandford     --   ,cheese-eaters       
,moreton      --   ,tatie-eaters        
,paignton     --   ,pudding-eaters      
,churston     --   ,liver-eaters        
,compare with these the following       

sobriquets of ,siouan old totem kins1   
counting descent in the male line4      
,,siouan ,,names ,,of ,,gentes          
,eaters            ,eat the scrapings of
 hides          ,eat dried venison      
,eat dung          ,eat raw food        
,among the ,sioux we have also noted the
 sobriquets        ,non-,eaters of      
,deer        ,buffalos        ,swans    
,cranes        ,blackbirds1 etc4        
,these sobriquets of non-eaters are     
probably totemic3 the ,deer kin does    
not eat deer1 nor does the ,crane kin   
eat cranes1 and so on4 ,totem kins  are 
named from what they do not eat2 many   
totem kins with male descent  are       
nicknamed from what they do eat1 or are 
alleged by their neighbours  to eat4    
,,group ,,sobriquets ,,in ,,orkney4     
,in the following letter1 which ,i owe  
to the kindness of ,mr4 ,duncan         
,robertson1 we read that1 in ,orkney and
 ,shetland1 local sobriquets are        
derived from what the people are alleged
 to eat4 ,the tradition is1 ,mr4        

,robertson informs me1 that each group  
is named after the edible plant  or     
animal which it brought when engaged in 
building the ,cathedral of  ,kirkwall4  
,crantit ,house1 ,st4 ,ola1 ,orkney1    
,jan4 #bi1 #aijc4            ,dear ,mr4 
,lang1--,my tyrannical doctor won't let 
me out          yet1 so that ,i have not
 been able to collect all the           
information ,i should like to get for   
you about the          ,orkney          
nicknames--or #8bye-names1' as they are 
called          here4            ,here  
follows the list as taken from ,tudor's 
,the ,orkneys          and ,shetland1   
with alterations3        ,i4 ,,mainland 
,,or ,,pomona        ,kirkwall          
,starlings      ,st4 ,andrews           
,skerry-scrapers      ,deemess          
,skate-rumples      ,holm               
,hobblers      ,orphir                  
,yearnings      ,firth                  
,oysters      ,stromness                
,bloody-puddings      ,sandwick         
,assie-pattles      ,harray             

,crabs 7of old1 sheep7      ,birsay     
,hoes  dog-fish      ,evie              
,cauld kail      ,rendall               
,sheep-thieves      ,,ii4 ,,south       
,,isles        ,hoy            ,hawks1  
,auks or ,tammynories      ,walls       
,lyars 7,manx ,sheer-water7      ,burray
         ,oily ,bogies  the skin        
buoys used for herring                  
nets    ,south ,ronaldshay        a4    
,grimness            ,gruties      b4   
,hope                ,scouties 7,skuas7 
c4  ,widewall            ,witches       
d4  ,herston             ,hogs      e4  
,sandwick            ,birkies      f4   
,south ,parish        ,teeacks          
7,lapwings7      ,,iii4  ,,north ,,isles
        ,gairsay                        
,buckies      ,wyre                     
,whelks      ,egilsay                   
,burstin ,lumps      ,rousay            
,mares      ,shapansey                  
,sheep      ,stronsay                   
,limpets      ,sanday                   
,gruelly ,belkies      ,north           

,ronaldshay         ,selkies  ,seals    
7also called                            
#8,tangie ,whessos'7 and #8,hides'      
,eday                     ,scarfs  ,shag
 or small ,cormorant      ,westray      
,auks  the common ,guillemot      ,papa 
,westray             ,doundies  spent   
,cod            ,these are all the names
 ,i know or can hear of in ,orkney4     
,i wrote to ,mr4 ,moodie ,heddle of     
,cletts on the subject1          as ,i  
knew him to take a great and intelligent
 interest          in all such topics2  
and ,i have a most interesting          
letter from him1 of which ,i shall give 
you the gist4          ,he says he has  
no doubt that the origin of the names   
is that which you suggest1 though some  
of the names do          not at first   
sight appear to bear this out4 ,kirkwall
          #8,starlings' are easily      
accounted for1 assuming that            
there have always been as many starlings
 about ,kirkwall          as there are  
now4 ,they may well have been eaten by  

the          townsfolk4 ,i have tried   
them1 and their breasts are not         
at all bad4                             
,skerry-scrapers4--,the allusion here is
 to men who          live off shell     
fish1 #8dilse1' etc4 off the skerries4  
,there are--or were--excellent oysters  
on the ,st4 ,andrews          skerries4 
,mr4 ,heddle tells me he has heard a    
woman          insulting a man by saying
 she supposed he would soon             
leave no limpets in a certain bay1      
meaning that he was          too lazy to
 work for his living4                   
,skate-rumple is1 of course1 the skate's
 tail4 ,deemess          is the nearest 
land to a famous piece of water for     
skate1 known as #8the skate-hole4'      
,holm #8,hobblers' ,i do not understand1
 but shall make          some further   
inquiries4 ,i have an idea it is a      
reference          to some bird2 ,mr4   
,heddle thinks it has something to do   
with seals1 but neither of us knows4    
,yearnings are1 of course1 the dried    

stomachs of calves          used for    
making cheese4                          
,oysters4--,the bay of ,firth was famous
 for its oysters          till the beds 
were overfished and destroyed some      
thirty          years ago4              
,stromness #8,bloody-puddings'--,mr4    
,heddle suggests that          the      
people bled their cattle twice or thrice
 a year and          made #8puddings' of
 the blood4 ,this1 of course1 was done  
in the ,highlands at one time4          
,assie-pattles4--,either those who lay  
in the ashes          or1 ,mr4 ,heddle  
suggests1 who ate cakes baked in the    
ashes4 ,before iron girdles came much   
into use cakes          were baked on   
flat stones2 and there is a hill1 known 
as #8,baking-stone ,hill1' where the    
people used to come          for stones 
that would not split in the fire4 ,the  
peats          used in ,sandwick have a 
very red ash1 which colours all         
persons and things near it4             
,harray #8,crabs4'--,harray is the only 

parish in ,orkney          which does   
not touch the sea1 and the name is given
 in          irony4 ,the old #8tee-name'
 is said to have been #8sheep4'         
,the story is told that some fishermen  
passing through          ,harray dropped
 a live crab4 ,the men of ,harray could 
not          make it out at all1 and    
sent for the oldest inhabitant1         
who was brought in a wheel-barrow4      
,after gazing at the          monster   
for a few moments he exclaimed3 #8,boys1
 hid's a          fiery draygon2 tak' me
 hame6'            ,i suspect there is  
some other tee-name than                
#8sheep-thieves' for the ,rendall       
people1 but will try to          find   
out and let you know4            ,hoy   
#8,hawks'--,mr4 ,heddle1 who was        
formerly proprietor          of ,hoy1   
says he thinks #8auks' must have been   
the          original word1 as he       
believes #8tammy-nories' was the old    
name4 #8,auk' is ,orcadian for the      
common guillemot1 and a                 

#8tammy-norie' is a puffin4 ,both of    
these birds abound in          ,hoy4    
,mr4 ,heddle also tells me that the old 
name of #8,lyars'          for the      
people of ,walls was to a great extent  
replaced          by #8,cockles4' ,the  
#8lyars' were very common in ,walls at  
one time1 and were esteemed a great     
delicacy1 but1 ,mr4          ,heddle    
tells me1 were to a great extent killed 
out by          the brown rat4 ,he      
himself remembers men being bitten by   
rats when putting their hands into holes
 to look for          young #8lyars4'   
,some three generations back enormous   
numbers of cockles were taken and eaten 
by the people of          ,walls1 and   
they seem to have been called           
#8,cockles'--or1          ,i presume1   
#8eaters of cockles'--in consequence4   
,oily ,bogies4--,i hardly see how this  
can have been          #8eaters of4'    
,there might have been some old story to
 the          effect that the ,burray   
men stole and ate these buoys1          

but ,i never heard it4            ,south
 ,ronaldshay has names for every        
district1 which no          other island
 but the ,mainland has4                 
,gruties is1 ,mr4 ,heddle says1         
equivalent to                           
#8,skerry-scrapers'--people who get     
their living from the          #8grut'  
or refuse left in bights by the tide4   
7#8,grut1'          see ,norse grde     
porridge or gruel47            ,scouties
 may be derived from the skua1 though   
,mr4          ,heddle gives an          
unpresentable derivation4 ,the word     
,birkies he did not know the meaning of1
 but asked two          or three people1
 who all said the ,sandwick people were 
so called #8because ,sandwick was such a
 place for tangles          coming      
ashore1 and the people had such a habit 
of eating          what they called     
8birken0 tangles1 i4e4 the stout or     
lower ends of the large thick tangles4' 
,burstin ,lumps are a sort of           
preparation of oatmeal1          once a 

very favourite dish in the ,isles4      
,rousay #8,mares'--,there is an old tale
 of a ,rousay man          who1 being a 
coward1 killed his mare and hid inside  
her          from his enemies4 ,mr4     
,heddle sends me an old rhyme on        
the subject3        ,as the ,rousay man 
said to his mare3      #8,i wish ,i were
 in thee1 for fear o' the war2      ,i  
wish ,i were in thee without any doubt1 
,were it ,martinmas ,day before ,i cam' 
out4'            ,the ,north ,ronaldshay
 people did eat seals4 ,why ,hides      
,i do not know4 ,mr4 ,heddle here       
suggests it may have had          to do 
with witchcraft1 in which skins and     
especially          seals' flippers were
 much used4 ,within the last ten        
years a man pulled down and rebuilt his 
byre because of          some #8ongoings
 with a selkie flipper4'            ,the
 names are very old and must be of      
,scandinavian          origin4          
,yours sincerely1                       
,,duncan ,j4 ,,robertson4      ,in      

addition to these names of #8eaters1'   
simple names of animals1 we  have shown 
in the text1 are as commonly given to   
,english villages as  totemic names are 
given to the totem groups of savages4   
,,ancient ,,hebrew ,,village ,,names    
,in ,robertson ,smith's ,kinship and    
,marriage in ,early ,arabia 7p4 #bai7   
he says3 #8,i have argued that many     
place-names formed from the names of    
animals are also to be regarded as      
having been originally taken from  the  
totem clans that inhabited them4' ,now  
where totemism is a living  institution 
,i know no instance in which a locality 
is named from #8the  totem clan that    
inhabits it4' ,the thing cannot be where
 female descent  prevails1 as many      
totems are then everywhere mixed in each
 local group4  ,where male descent      
prevails we do1 indeed1 get localities  
inhabited by  groups mainly of the same 
totem name4 ,but their tendency is to   
let the  totem name merge in the        
territorial title1 the name of the      

locality1 as  ,messrs4 ,spencer and     
,gillen prove for the ,arunta and ,mr4  
,dorsey for the  ,sioux4    ,having     
found no instance where a totemic group 
gives its totem name  to the locality   
which it inhabits1 ,i was struck by a   
remark of ,dean  ,stanley in his        
,lectures on the ,history of the ,jewish
 ,church 7p4 #cai1  #ahgj74 ,he there   
mentions the villages of ,judah which   
were the scenes  of some of ,samson's   
adventures 7,joshua xv4 #cb1 #cc2       
,judges i4 #ce74 ,the  villages of      
,lebaoth1 ,shaalbim1 ,zorah1            
respectively mean ,lions1 ,jackals1  and
 ,hornets4 ,nobody eats any of these    
three animals1 and they may be  names of
 totem groups transferred to            
localities--though of this usage  ,i    
know no example among savage            
totemists--or they may merely be old    
,hebrew village sobriquets1 as in       
,england and ,france4    ,on consulting 
the ,encyclopdia ,biblica1 under        
#8,names' 7vol4 iii4  #ccjh1 #ccaf7 we  

find that #8there can be no doubt that  
many place-names'  in ,palestine #8are  
identical with names of animals4' ,those
 #8applied to  towns' 7we may read      
villages probably7 are much more common 
in the  south than in the north4 ,we    
have ,stags1 ,lions1 ,leopards1         
,gazelles1  ,wild ,asses1 ,foxes1       
,hynas1 ,cows1 ,lizards1 ,hornets1      
,scorpions1 ,serpents1  and so on4      
,these may have been derived from old   
totem kins1 though  ,i think that theory
 improbable1 or from the frequency of   
hornets or  scorpions in this or that   
place1 or the villagers' sobriquet may  
have become the village name4 ,the last 
hypothesis has hitherto been            
overlooked4 ,the frequency of animal and
 plant names in the ,roman  gentes1     
,fabii 7,beans71 ,asinii 7,asses71      
,caninii 7,dogs71 is an instance  that  
readily occurs4 ,these may be survivals 
of totemism or of less  archaic         
sobriquets1 while the totem names       
themselves1 as we have  argued1 may have

 had their origin in sobriquets4        
,footnote #a3 ,western ,antiquary1 vol4 
ix41 pt4 ii41 p4 #cg1 ,august1  #ahii4  
,,appendix ,b    ,,the ,,ba ,,ronga     
,,terms ,,of ,,relationship      ,the   
hypothesis that the ,australian terms of
 relationship1 as they  now exist1      
really denote status in customary law1  
may perhaps derive  corroboration from  
the classificatory system as it appears 
among the  ,ba ,ronga1 near ,delagoa    
,bay4 ,here the natives are rich1       
industrial1  commercial1 and polygamous 
to the full extent of their available   
capital4 ,polygamy1 male kinship1 and   
wife purchase1 with elaborate  laws of  
dowry and divorce1 have modified and    
complicated the terms of  relationship4 
,they are described by an excellent     
authority1 ,m4 ,henri  ,junod1 a        
missionary4#a    ,m4 ,junod has         
obviously never heard of the            
#8classificatory system'  among other   
races1 and his explanation of certain   
#8avoidances1' such  as between the     

husband and his wife's brother1 father1 
and mother1 is  probably incorrect      
7turning1 as it does1 on the laws of    
wife-price  and divorce71 though it     
appears now to be accepted by the ,ba   
,ronga  themselves4 ,but what more      
concerns us is the nature of terms of   
relationship4 ,these terms denote status
 in customary law1 determined  by sex   
and seniority4 ,among the ,basuto1 #8a  
man is otherwise related  to his sister 
than to his brother2 his children are   
related to their  paternal otherwise    
than to their maternal uncles and       
aunts1' and to  their cousins in the    
same style4 ,relative seniority1        
entailing relative  social duties1 is   
also expressed in the terms of          
relationship4 ,the  maternal aunt1      
senior to the mother1 is #8grandmother4'
 ,the children of  my father's brother  
and of my mother's sister1 are my       
#8brothers' or  #8sisters2' the children
 of my maternal uncle and paternal aunt 
are not  my #8brothers' and #8sisters4' 

,the children of a man's inferior wives 
call the chief wife #8grandmother1' and 
the other wives1 not their  mother1     
#8maternal aunts4'#b ,the son of my     
wife's sister is my #8son1'  because ,i 
may succeed to her husband on his death1
 and his father  calls me #8brother4'   
,the maternal uncle is the mere butt of 
his nephew1  the uncle's wives are the  
nephew's potential wives3 he is one of  
the  heirs to them4 ,this kind of uncle 
7maternal7 is not one of the tribal     
#8fathers' of the nephew1 but the       
paternal uncle is1 and is treated with  
the utmost respect4 ,in brief1 each name
 for a #8relationship' is a name        
carrying certain social duties or       
privileges1 dependent on sex and        
seniority4    ,we have no such customary
 laws1 and need no such names--the names
 are  the result and expression of the  
,basuto customary laws4 ,had we such    
ideas of duty and privilege1 then they  
would be expressed in our terms  of     
relationship1 which would be numerous4  

,my maternal uncle would have  a name   
denoting the man with whose wife ,i may 
flirt4 ,the wife of my  brother-in-law  
is the woman whom ,i must treat with the
 most distant  respect4 ,if ,i am a     
woman1 my father's sister's husband 7my 
#8uncle by  marriage'7 is a man whose   
wife ,i may become1 and so forth        
endlessly4  ,consequently there is a    
wealth of terms of relationship1 just   
because  of the peculiarities of ,ba    
,ronga customary law4      ,footnote #a3
 ,les ,baronga1 ,attinger1 ,neufchtel1  
#ahih1 pp4 #hb-hg4    ,footnote #b3 ,op4
 cit4 pp4 #dhg-dhi4          ,,index    
,aboriginal man1 ,mr4 ,darwin's view of1
 #bji2        ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bbj   
,affinity1 degrees of1 prohibiting      
marriage1 #ahh2        most stringently 
applied by least civilised races1 #b2   
differences of opinion among students of
 the question1 #b2        existing laws 
not an indication of primitive rules1   
#b2        ,australian anomaly1 #hh     
,age distinction and the classificatory 

system1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bij         
,altruism1 possible germ of1 in nascent 
man1 #bcb      ,american ethnological   
terms1 #aj      ,andrews1 ,judge1 on    
,hawaiian marriage relationships1 #ih   
,animal guardians among savages1 #aca   
,annamese family relationships1 ,dr4    
,westermarck on1 #bdj      ,anomaly1    
totem1 among the ,arunta1 #he           
,anthropoid adult males unsocial1 #bbj  
,aristotle and early human society1 #g  
,arunta tribe of ,central ,australia1   
#b1 #aa2        descent reckoned in the 
male line1 #ae1 #fi2        supposed    
ignorance of procreation1 #bj2        a 
#8marriage ceremony1' #bd2              
reincarnation superstition1 #ca1 #aci2  
totem marriage-prohibition now extinct1 
#da2        totem common to both        
phratries1 #df1 #ef2        totem groups
 preceded phratries1 #fa2        ,mr4   
,spencer on the introduction of exogamy1
 #fa2        totem influence1 #fa2      
traditions as to change of custom1 #fg2 
,mr4 ,frazer's opinion of the tribe1    

#fh2        intermarry with the         
,urabunna1 #fi2        theory of        
evolution1 #gj2 totemism1 #gj2          
belief in reincarnation1 #ga2 totem     
eating1 #ga2        ,dr4 ,durkheim's    
views1 #gb2        opinion of ,spencer  
and ,gillen1 #gc2        marital        
relationship1 #gd2        relations of  
totems and phratries1 #gd2        myths1
 #ge2 ,dr4 ,durkheim on1 #ge2           
,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen's         
opinions1 #gf1 #gg2        institution  
of marriage regulations1 #gh2           
phratries and totems1 #ha2        ,dr4  
,durkheim's views on the phratry1 #hb2  
totemic divisions1 #hc2        origin of
 the anomalous marriage system1 #he2    
philosophy of souls1 #hf2               
relationships prohibiting marriage1 #hh2
        curiosities of affinity1 #hh2   
terms of relationship1 #ic2             
relationship customs1 #if2 legislation1 
#ajh2        legend regarding marriage  
limits1 #ajh2        class system with  
male descent1 #abj2        totems and   

magic1 #aif1 #aih      ,atkinson1 ,mr41 
his speculations on human origin1 #c2   
on primitive man's polygamy1 #d2        
his theories and the ,biblical account1 
#g2        disbelief in early           
promiscuity1 #i2        views on the    
effect of sexual jealousy1 #i1 #ah1 #cj2
        his opinion on exogamy and      
totemism1 #ag2        his exogamous     
marriage hypothesis1 #ah2        his    
#8primal law1' #ai2        on the origin
 of the #8classificatory system1' #ajh2 
on ,new ,caledonian totems1 #acf2       
and the custom of avoidance1 #bab1 #bfd2
        on the origin of exogamy1 #bab1 
#bch2        aboriginal man polygamous1 
#bbj2        man's distinction in the   
primal law1 #bbe2        prolonged      
infancy in nascent man1 #bcj2           
origin of maternal love1 #bca2          
possible germ of altruism1 #bcb2        
earliest evolution of law1 #bcf2        
wives procured by capture1 #bdd2        
editor's note thereon1 #bdh2            
development from the group to the tribe1

 #bej2        effect of female sexual   
jealousy1 #bef2        extinction of the
 patriarchal family1 #bfa2              
survivals of transition period1 #bfd2   
clan 7phratry7 relationship1 #bfi2      
editor's note on avoidances1 #bgh2      
the classificatory system1 #bhj1 #bhe2  
on the original purpose of totems1 #bhb2
        on local contiguity constituting
 relationship1 #bhi2        on age      
distinction and the classificatory      
system1 #bij2        on group marriage  
and the classificatory system1 #bib     
,attic plant names1 #bje                
,australia1 marriage divisions in1 #ch2 
consanguineous marriages forbidden1 #dj2
        tribal variations of custom1 #da
      ,australian group marriage1       
,messrs4 ,spencer and ,gillen on1 #bic  
,australian1 native1 society not        
primitive1 #c2        complexity of     
social rules1 #c1 #d2        low state  
of culture1 #d2 divinities1 #e2         
languages and customs1 #f2 commerce1 #f 
,australian tribal division1 ,mr4 ,fison

 on1 #db2        the author's view1 #dc 
,australian sex protectors1 #add        
,avebury1 ,lord1 on racial customs1 #ab2
 on totemism1 #abb2        on totem     
origin1 #abc2 on communal marriage1     
#abd2        vague terminology1 #abf1   
#acj2 on relationships1 #abh            
#8,avoidance1' custom of1 ,mr4 ,atkinson
 on1 #bab2 origin of1 #bgf              
,avoidance between father-in-law and    
son-in-law1 #bfh2 its origin1 #bfi      
,avoidance of mother-in-law1 #bgj1 #bgg2
 ,mr4 ,crawley on its origin1 #bgh      
,bachofen's views on maternal kin-names1
 #i      ,baiame1 ,australian divinity1 
#e1 #bi1 #ach1 #ahd      ,banks ,island1
 two class divisions in1 #agh      ,ba  
,ronga terms of relationship1 #cja      
,barter between ,australian tribes1 #f  
,basuto customary law1 #cja             
#8,bisection' a misleading term1 #cf    
,bishop1 ,rev4 ,a41 on ,hawaiian        
marriage relationships1 #ih      ,blood 
kinship implied by totem name1 #aic     
,breeding between sire and daughter1    

effect of1 #bbc      ,british ,columbia 
clan totems1 ,mr4 ,hill ,tout on1 #aeb  
,brother-and-sister #8avoidance1' #bac2 
in ,australia1 #baf                     
,brother-and-sister #8avoidance1' ,dr4  
,westermarck on1 #bdj                   
,brother-and-sister marriage1 primitive1
 ,mr4 ,morgan on1 #bha                  
,bull-roarer1 palolithic1 #e2 miniature1
 discovered in ,france1 #e2        ,mr4 
,frazer's bibliography of1 #e n         
,calabar #8bush-souls1' #adc            
,camerons of ,glen ,nevis properly      
,mac,sorlies1 #h4      ,chattan1 ,clan1 
crest of the1 #afc      ,clan1          
definition of1 #aa      ,clan 7phratry7 
relationship1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bfi   
,clandestine intercourse preliminary to 
marriage1 #bfe      ,class system1 the1 
#ce2 and ,mr4 ,morgan1 #hi      ,class  
system with male descent among the      
,arunta1 #abj      ,class and generation
 correspond1 #aab      ,class names1    
,herr ,cunow on1 #aac1 #aah2 ,dr4       
,durkheim on1 #aah2        ,mr4 ,mathews

 on1 #aai      ,classes1 ,mr4 ,morgan's 
view of their origin1 #ib               
,classificatory system1 ,mr4 ,atkinson  
on the1 #ajh1 #bhe2        division by  
generations the most natural one1 #bhf2 
age distinction1 #bij2 and group        
marriage1 #bib      ,classificatory     
terms1 #ajj      ,codrington1 ,dr41 and 
totem descent1 #ace2        on          
,melanesian ancestor-worship1 #aej2     
on social systems in ,melanesia1 #agg2  
his totem theory controverted1 #aha     
,commerce1 ,australian inter-tribal1 #f 
,communal marriage1 ,mr4 ,morgan's      
theory1 #ij2 ,lord ,avebury on1 #abd    
,consanguineous marriages forbidden     
among ,australian tribes1 #dj           
,contiguity1 local1 constituting        
relationship1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bhi   
,crawley1 ,mr41 on promiscuous sexual   
relationship1 #i2        on the origin  
of prohibited marriages1 #ah2        on 
jealousy in the family1 #ai2        on  
the matriarchal theory1 #bj2        his 
theory of exogamy1 #bc2        his view 

of marriage among savages1 #bd2         
on the prevention of incest1 #bf2       
on terms of relationship1 #ie2        on
 marriage by capture1 #bdi2        on   
mother-in-law avoidance1 #bgh      ,cult
 of the totem1 #acf      ,cunow's1      
,herr1 opinion on #8class' and          
#8phratry1' #cg1 #aab2        on class  
names1 #aac2        regards the #8horde'
 as the original stage of society1 #aad2
        his theory of exogamy1 #aae2    
on local totem groups1 #aaf2        his 
class-name theory opposed by ,dr4       
,durkheim1 #aah        ,daramulun1      
,australian divinity1 #e      ,darwin1  
,mr41 his theory of primitive polygamy1 
#d2        his views on sexual jealousy1
 #i2        opposed to theory of        
promiscuity1 #ii2        on primitive   
man1 #bji      ,dieri1 the1 #da2 myths1 
#fe1 #ff1 #ia1 #aci1 #aei1 #afc2        
piraura custom1 #ie1 #aje      ,diet1   
effect of1 on sexual appetite1 #bbg     
,distribution of totems in the          
#8phratries1' #ee      ,divine          

intervention1 savage and civilised      
ideas1 #ia      ,domesticated animals in
 palolithic age1 #d1 #e      ,dorsey1   
,mr41 his definition of clan1 #aa2      
on totem descent1 #ace2        and      
,north ,american ,indian group names1   
#agb      ,dual relationship1 tribal and
 individual1 #hh      ,durkheim1 ,dr41  
on marriage relationship1 #ai n2        
on blood and totem superstition1 #eg n2 
on ,arunta totemism1 #gb2        on     
,arunta #8phratries' and marriage1 #gc2 
on the relation of totem and phratry1   
#gd1 #hb2        on ,arunta legends1    
#ge2        on totemic divisions1 #hc2  
on ,arunta anomalous marriage system1   
#he2        opposes ,herr ,cunow's      
theory of class names1 #aah2        on  
totem descent1 #ace        ,early belief
 in mutual danger of mankind1 #bd       
,eguilles1 ,marquis d'1 and ,kanaka     
relationship names1 #acg      ,egypt1   
royal intermarriage1 #a1 #bfb           
,egyptian totemic myths1 #bja           
,endogamy1 meaning of1 #ab      ,english

 village sobriquets1 #agc1 #bie         
,erman1 ,adolf1 on ,yakut avoidance1    
#bge      ,euahlayi1 the1 #bi2 ,mrs4    
,langloh ,parker on the1 #ahf n2 myth1  
#ff      ,evolution of primal law of    
avoidance1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on the1 #baj  
,exchange1 commercial1 among ,australian
 tribes1 #f      ,exogamy1 meaning of   
the term1 #aj2        anterior to       
totems1 opinions on1 #ag2        ,mr4   
,mc,lennan's theory1 #ba2        ,mr4   
,crawley's theory1 #bc2        ,dr4     
,westermarck's theory1 #cc2        ,mr4 
,morgan's theory1 #cc2        the       
author's theory1 #cd2        the result 
of evolution1 #ec2        ,mr4 ,frazer's
 earlier ideas on1 #eg2                 
objections to1 #ei2 his later theory1   
#fb2        advantages of the system now
 proposed1 #fc2        ignored by       
theorists on group totemism1 #afj2      
,mr4 ,atkinson on origin of1 #bab1 #bch2
        earlier view quoted1 #bab       
,exogamy among the ,arunta1 #fa         
,exogamy and totemism1 ,mr4 ,taylor's   

view1 #ag      ,exogamy1 local1 origin  
of1 #ca        ,family1 the1 its        
antiquity1 #a2 secured by dread of      
aberrations1 #a2        laws and customs
 vary1 #a2 uncivilised races and        
prohibited         marriages1 #b2       
present-day institutions no guide to    
prehistoric customs1 #b2                
conjectures as to primitive state1 #d2  
patriarchal family the        original  
social unit1 #g2 descent counted through
 the maternal         line1 #h1 #ba2    
suggestions as to early promiscuity1 #i2
        promiscuity prevented by sexual 
jealousy1 #i2        totemism1 #ad2     
family group or #8fire circle1' #ad1    
#ag2        exogamous tendencies1 #ag2  
,mr4 ,crawley on the effect of jealousy1
         #ai2        matriarchal theory1
 #bj2 ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's theory of family
 exogamy1         #ba2        ,mr4      
,crawley's theory1 #bc                  
,father--and--daughter avoidance1       
,veddah1 #bgd      ,father-in-law and   
daughter-in-law1 customs concerning1    

#bgb1 #bge      ,father-in-law          
avoidance1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bfc1 #bgg
      ,female infanticide in first      
stages of society1 #ba      ,fijian     
#8totem gods1' #acg      ,fison1 ,mr41  
on ,kamilaroi marriage laws1 #bh2       
and the class system in ,australia1 #cg2
        on ,australian tribal division1 
#db2        controverted by the author1 
#dc2        on the origin of totems1    
#de2        on the change of totems1    
#dh2        on the origin of exogamy1   
#fe1 #ig2        his suggestion of      
,divine intervention1 #ia2        on    
terms of relationship1 #ie2             
quotes ,mr4 ,lance on communal marriage1
 #ajf      ,fison and ,howitt1 ,messrs41
 on totemism1 #af2        their theories
 insufficient1 #ea2        hypothesis as
 to ,greek totemism1 #bjc               
,fletcher1 ,miss ,alice1 on totem       
origin1 #aea2        on ,omaha magical  
societies1 #aih      ,folk-lore         
illustrative of totem group names1 #afi 
,france1 miniature palolithic           

bull-roarers found in1 #e      ,frazer1 
,mr41 bibliography of the bull-roarer1  
#e2        regards the ,arunta as       
primitive1 #bj1 #fh2        his early   
ideas of the exogamous phratry1 #eg2    
objections to them1 #ei2        his     
later theory of exogamy1 #fb2        his
 view that totems did not influence     
marriage1 #fh2        on the arrangement
 of totems in phratries1 #gd2        on 
,arunta legends1 #gf2        names      
several varieties of totem1 #acb2       
his theories as to totem origin1 #adc2  
on the group totem1 #add2        on the 
personal totem1 #ade      ,freeman1     
,mr41 and the patriarchal family1 #g    
,gaidoz and ,sbillot ,,mm41 on          
unfriendly sobriquets1 #afh             
,ganowanian gentes1 #ib                 
,ghost-worship1 ,melanesian1 #ahb       
,gillen1 ,mr41 see ,spencer             
,gournditch ,mara tribe1 #aie           
,greek totemic myths1 #bja      ,greek  
totemism1 ,messrs4 ,fison and ,howitt's 
hypothesis1 #bjc      ,grey1 ,sir       

,george1 on totems in ,western          
,australia1 #add      ,group marriage1  
#hi2 supposed survivals of1 #ajd        
,group marriage and the classificatory  
system1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bib2        
editor's comments1 #bic      ,group     
marriage1 ,australian1 ,messrs4 ,spencer
 and ,gillen on1 #bic      ,group names1
 theory as to1 #aff2        originated  
outside the group1 #afh1 #aga           
,group totem1 the hereditary1 #afj      
,group totems1 ,mr4 ,n4 ,w4 ,thomas on1 
#adh      ,guatemala ,indian nagual1    
#add        ,haddon1 ,mr41 on totem     
origin1 #aef      ,hawaiian marriage    
relationships1 #ih      ,hawaiian terms 
of relationship1 #ic      ,hebrew       
village names1 ancient1 #cjj            
,hesiod and early human society1 #g     
,horde1 the foundation of ,herr ,cunow's
 theory1 #aad2        its division1 #aae
      ,hose and ,mc,dougall1 ,messrs41  
on ,sarawak beliefs1 #aec               
,hottentot marriages1 ,dr4 ,westermarck 
on1 #bdj      ,howitt1 ,mr41 his        

ethnological nomenclature1 #aj n2       
and the class system in ,australia1 #cg2
        his opinion on ,australian      
marriage customs1 #da2        his views 
on the primary class divisions1 #df2    
considers totemism too old for          
theorising1 #di2        regards the     
undivided commune as a probable         
hypothesis1 #fe2        see also ,fison 
,human origin1 ,mr4 ,atkinson's         
speculations on1 #c2        ,biblical   
account differs from ,mr4 ,atkinson's1  
not from ,mr4 ,morgan's hypothesis1 #g  
,human society1 limit of historical     
research into origins of1 #b2           
progress of1 #c2 obscurity of the       
subject1 #c      ,hunter ,river totems1 
,mr4 ,rusden on1 #adh        ,incas of  
,peru1 royal intermarriage1 #a          
,incest to marry within totem name1 #af 
,incest1 prevention of1 ,mr4 ,crawley's 
theory1 #bf      ,individual totems1    
,mr4 ,n4 ,w4 ,thomas on1 #adh           
,infancy prolonged in nascent man1 ,mr4 
,atkinson on1 #bcj      ,infanticide1   

female1 and exogamy1 #ba                
,jealousy the cause of exogamy1 #ai     
,jealousy1 sexual1 the motive power in  
social changes1 #bgb      ,jevons1 ,mr41
 on totems1 #acd2 on the ,attic social  
system1 #bjf      ,junod1 ,m4 ,henri1   
and the ,baronga terms of relationship1 
#cja        ,kamilaroi1 the1 #ce n      
,kamilaroi group laws1 ,mr4 ,mathews on1
 #df      ,kamilaroi interphratry       
marriages1 #ef      ,kamilaroi marriage 
laws1 ,mr4 ,mathews on1 #bg2        ,mr4
 ,fison on1 #bh      ,keddies 7,southern
 ,india71 marriage custom among1 #bhf   
,kennedys of ,galloway1 #g      ,kin    
name1 maternal1 #h      ,kingsley1      
,miss1 on the ,calabar #8bush-souls1'   
#adc      ,kinship among the earliest   
human groups1 #ai      ,kurnai women and
 the sex totem1 #adf      ,kyontha      
social customs1 ,dr4 ,westermarck on1   
#bdf n      ,kyonthas1 avoidance among  
the1 #bge        ,lance1 ,mr41 on       
communal marriage survival1 #ajf        
,lang1 ,mr4 ,g4 ,s41 quoted by ,lord    

,avebury1 #abf      ,lifu terms of      
relationship1 #id1 #ajj      ,local     
exogamy1 its origin1 #ac      ,long's1  
,j41 mention of #8totam1' #aca n        
,macdonnells of ,moidart and ,glengarry1
 #g      ,mc,gee1 ,w4 ,j41 his          
ethnological terminology1 #aa n2        
his views on the evolution of society1  
#eb      ,mc,lennan1 ,mr4 ,daniel1 on   
the origin of exogamy1 #fc2        on   
the phratries of ,northern ,victoria    
tribes1 #fd      ,mc,lennan1 ,mr4       
,donald1 on exogamy and totemism1 #ad1  
#af1 #ag      ,mc,lennan1 ,mr4 ,j4 ,f41 
#c2        his views on maternal        
kin-names1 #i2        his definition of 
exogamy1 #aj1 #ab2        his view of   
the most archaic marriage law1 #ac2     
his opinion of kinship1 #ai1 #bj2       
his theory of exogamy1 #ba2        the  
theory untenable1 #bb2        his views 
of #8primitive groups1' #ca2        and 
exogamous phratries1 #cg2               
considers totemism anterior to exogamy1 
#dd2        on totem kins1 #ee2         

on terms of relationship1 #ie2        on
 marriage by capture1 #bfg2        his  
criticism of ,mr4 ,morgan's             
classification theory1 #bhd2            
remarks thereon by ,mr4 ,atkinson1 #bhd 
,mac,sorlies part of ,clan ,cameron1 #h 
,mc,ulrigs 7,kennedys7 of ,galloway1 #g 
,magical societies1 #aig      ,maine1   
,sir ,henry1 his #8,ancient ,law1' #g2  
on the evolution of tribes and states1  
#g      ,malayan relationship system1   
,mr4 ,morgan on1 #ij1 #bha              
,mandeville1 ,sir ,john1 referred to1   
#bd      ,man's distinction from other  
creatures1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bbe      
,marital relations among the ,arunta #gd
      ,marriage among savages1 ,mr4     
,crawley's view of1 #bd      ,marriage  
by capture1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bdd1    
#bff2        editor's remarks on ,mr4   
,atkinson's views1 #bdh2        ,mr4    
,mc,lennan on1 #bfg      ,marriage      
ceremony1 ,arunta1 #bd      ,marriage1  
communal1 ,mr4 ,morgan's theory1 #ij2   
,lord ,avebury on1 #abd      ,marriage  

custom of the ,keddies of ,southern     
,india1 #bhf      ,marriage divisions in
 ,australia1 #ch      ,marriage1 group1 
#hi2 supposed survivals of1 #ajd        
,marriage laws1 totemic and civilised1  
#hg      ,marriage regulations among the
 ,arunta1 #gh      ,marriage within the 
totem name prohibited1 #af              
,maternal kinship1 #h      ,maternal    
love1 origin of1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bca
      ,mathews1 ,mr4 ,john1 on          
aboriginal jealousy1 #i n      ,mathews1
 ,mr41 on ,australian inter-tribal      
barter1 #f2        on prohibited        
marriages1 #bg2        on group         
marriages1 #ce n2        on marriage    
divisions in ,australia1 #ch2        on 
class names1 #aai2 on totem names1 #abj 
,matriarchal theory1 #bj                
,melanesian ghost-worship1 #ahb2        
sacrifices1 #ahc      ,melanesian social
 system1 #agf      ,menomini myth1 #ff  
,mincopies 7,andamanese71 #i            
,modern theories of totem origin3 ,mr4  
,a4 ,h4 ,keane's theory1 #adj2          

,mr4 ,max ,mller's theory1 #ada2        
,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's theory1 #adb2  
,mr4 ,frazer's theories1 #adc2          
,mr4 ,n4 ,w4 ,thomas's theory1 #adh2    
,dr4 ,wilken's theory1 #aej2 ,miss      
,alice ,fletcher's theory1 #aea2        
,mr4 ,hill ,tout's theory1 #aeb2        
,messrs4 ,hose and ,mc,dougall's theory1
 #aec2        ,mr4 ,haddon's theory1    
#aef3        an objection to these      
theories1 #aei2        the author's     
conjecture1 #afa      ,modification of  
sexual habit1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bbg   
,morgan1 ,mr41 on human origin1 #g2     
his criticism of ,mr4 ,mc,lennan's      
terms1 #ac n2        his theory of      
exogamy1 #cc2        and exogamous      
phratries1 #cg2        his theory quoted
 by ,mr4 ,fison1 #fe2        and the    
class system1 #hi2        his theory of 
communal marriage1 #ij2        the      
theory inexplicable1 #ia2        his    
views on the origin of classes and      
totems1 #ib2        on terms of         
relationship1 #ic2        on communal   

marriage in ,hawaii1 #ih2        his    
theory opposed by ,darwin1 #ih2         
on primitive brother-and-sister         
marriage1 #bha      ,mother kin1 #bj    
,mother-and-son avoidance1 ,veddah1 #bgd
      ,mother-in-law1 #8avoidance' of1  
#bgg2        ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bac2   
,mr4 ,crawley on its origin1 #bgh       
,mother-in-law1 customs concerning1     
#bgb1 #bgc1 #bge      ,mller1 ,mr4 ,max1
 and totem origin1 #ada                 
,mungun-ngaur1 ,australian divinity1 #e 
,munro1 ,dr41 on primitive man1 #d      
,myth1 savage1 and scientific           
hypothesis1 coincidence of1 #gf         
,myths1 ,arunta1 #ge2        ,greek and 
,egyptian totemic1 #bja        ,nairs of
 ,malabar1 #bb      ,narrinyeri totem   
eaters1 #agi      ,nascent man a        
solitary polygamous male1 #bbj2         
younger males expelled from family1     
#bbj2        absence of a paring season1
 #bbf2        effect of diet on sexual  
function1 #bbg2        prolonged        
infancy1 #bcj2        maternal love1    

#bca2        retention of adult son in  
family1 #bcb2        distinction between
 females in the family circle1 #bcf2    
rule of #8avoidance1' #bcg2             
primal law the parent of exogamy1 #bch2 
the editor's view1 #bch2        sexual  
relations between sire and daughter1    
#bea2        widows of the polygamous   
husband1 #beb2        introduction of   
outside males1 #bed2        effect of   
female sexual jealousy1 #bef2           
recognition of cousinship1 #beg2        
interchange of sisters1 #beh2           
division of the group1 #bfj             
,nature-worship1 ,lord ,avebury's       
synonym of totemism1 #abb      ,new     
,caledonia1 separation of brother and   
sister1 #bad2        infanticide of     
twins1 #bae2 avoidance in1 #bge         
,new ,caledonia totems1 #acf      ,new  
,caledonian totem belief1 #adc      ,new
 ,caledonian tribes1 hostility between1 
#afg      ,new ,hebrides1 ,north1 class 
divisions in1 #agh      ,nooreli1       
,australian divinity1 #e1 #ach          

,north ,american ,indian group names1   
#agb      ,northern ,victoria1 tribal   
tradition of1 #fd      ,nyarongs1       
,sarawak1 #aec        ,omaha magical    
societies1 #aig2 ,miss ,alice ,fletcher 
on1 #aih      ,omaha manitus1 ,miss     
,fletcher on1 #aeb      ,omaha totem    
groups1 #aif      ,origin of avoidance1 
,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bgf      ,origin of 
classes and totems1 ,mr4 ,morgan's view1
 #ib      ,origin of totemism1 theories 
regarding the1 #di1 #ej2        ,lord   
,avebury on1 #abc      ,orissa1         
avoidance in #bge      ,orkney1 group   
sobriquets in1 #bif        ,palolithic  
man1 ,dr4 ,munro on1 #d1 #e2            
possessed religous belief1 #e           
,palolithic remains found in ,france1 #e
      ,parker1 ,mrs4 ,langloh1 on the   
,euahlayi1 #ahf n4      ,patriarchal    
family first social unit1 #g2           
,sir ,henry ,maine's opinion1 #g2       
,mr4 ,freeman's concurrence1 #g2        
absent from #8non-,aryan' races1 #h     
,persian royal marriages1 #bfb          

,peruvian ,incas' marriages1 #a1 #bfb   
,pfeil1 ,count von1 on inter-tribal     
hostility1 #afh      ,phratria1 the     
,attic1 #bje      ,phratries1 #ce2      
intended to produce exogamy1 #ec        
,phratries and totem groups1 relative   
antiquity1 #ce      ,phratries and      
totems of the ,arunta1 #ha              
,phratries and totems1 relations of1 #gd
      ,phratry1 ,herr ,cunow on the     
development of1 #aaf      ,phratry names
 usually totemic1 #aaf      ,phratry1   
origin of the1 ,mr4 ,mc,gee's view1 #eb2
        ,mr4 ,howitt's theory1 #ec2     
,mr4 ,frazer's ideas1 #eg      ,piets1  
royal1 counted descent through female   
line1 #ba      ,pinaru1 ,dieri headman's
 title1 #aje      ,piraungaru           
arrangement1 #aje2 among the ,urabunna1 
#ajf      ,pirmaheal1 ,australian       
divinity1 #e      ,plant names1 ,attic1 
#bje      ,pollux on the ,attic genos1  
#bjf      ,polyandry in ,malabar1 #bb   
,polyandry supposed origin of maternal  
kin-name1 #i      ,polygamy probable    

institution of primitive man1 #d        
,polygyny and monogamy1 ,mr4 ,darwin's  
group basis1 #fd      ,powell's1 ,major1
 ethnological terminology1 #aj n2       
use of the word #8totem1' #acb          
#8,primary divisions' totemic and       
exogamous1 #dc2        ,mr4 ,howitt's   
hypothesis1 #df2        probably the    
result of amalgamation1 #aha            
,primitive brother-and-sister marriage1 
,mr4 ,morgan on1 #bha      ,primitive   
man1 opinions on1 #d      ,pristine     
groups necessarily small1 #afd2         
governed by sexual jealousy1 #afe       
,prohibited marriages1 ,arunta1 by      
affinity1 #hh      ,pundjel1 ,australian
 divinity1 #e        ,qat1 ,melanesian  
object of prayer1 #ahd                  
,relationship by generations1 #ij2      
,mr4 ,morgan's theory1 #ic              
,relationship constituted by local      
contiguity1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bhi     
,relationship terms1 origin of1 #ajb2   
difference of meaning between savage and
 civilised1 #ajb2        family and     

tribal significance1 #ajc2              
express status1 #abi                    
,relationships1 ,lord ,avebury on1 #abh 
,relationships1 ,arunta1 which preclude 
marriage1 #hh2        curious           
distinctions1 #hh      #8,religion1'    
,mr4 ,crawley's definition of1 #bc      
,reverence for totems1 nyarongs1 and    
naguals1 #ahf      ,ridley1 ,rev4 ,w41  
and ,australian exogamous phratries1 #cg
      ,robertson1 ,mr4 ,duncan1 on group
 sobriquets in ,orkney1 #bif      ,roman
 traditions as to tribal origin1 #h     
,roth1 ,dr41 and ,australian native     
customs1 #f n2        on the evolution  
of classes1 #aad      ,rusden1 ,mr41 on 
the ,hunter ,river totems1 #adh         
,sacred animals in savage society1 #aca 
,sacrifices1 ,melanesian1 #ahc          
,samoan #8totem gods1' #acg             
,sarawak1 nyarongs in1 #aec             
#8,second master1' ,urabunna wife's1    
#ajd2        not a survival of communal 
marriage1 #aje      ,selwyn1 ,bishop1   
quoted as to ,melanesian ghost-worship1 

#ahb      ,sex protector1 ,australian1  
#add      ,sex totem1 killing a1 #adf   
,sexes mutually dangerous1 savage       
beliefs1 #ai1 #bd      ,sexual family   
relations common to all animals1 #bbd   
,sexual functions1 modification of1 ,mr4
 ,atkinson on1 #bbg      ,sexual        
jealousy1 ,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bbj1 #bgb1
 #bgf      ,sexual jealousy the pause of
 exogamous marriage1 #ah      ,siouan   
gentes1 ,mr4 ,dorsey on1 #agb           
,siouan gentes1 names of1 #bie2 probably
 totemic1 #age      ,siouan tribes1 #aa 
,smith1 ,mr4 ,robertson1 and totemism1  
#ag2        on prohibited marriages1 #bg
      ,sobriquets1 ,english village1    
#bie2        ,siouan1 #bie2 ,orkney and 
,shetland1 #bif2        ,ancient        
,jewish1 #cjj      ,social changes the  
result of sexual jealousy1 ,mr4         
,atkinson on1 #bgb      ,social rules1  
growth of1 in the tribe1 #ajg           
,social system of ,melanesia1 #agf      
,solomon ,islands1 no division into     
kindreds1 #agh2        exogamous groups1

 #agi      ,son-in-law1 customs         
concerning1 #bgb1 #bgc1 #bge            
,spencer1 ,mr41 on the origin of        
totemism1 #fj1 #adb2        on exogamous
 groups in the ,arunta tribe1 #fa2      
his reason for their introduction1 #fb2 
inconclusive statements1 #fb2        his
 latest hypothesis regarding totemism1  
#fh      ,spencer and ,gillen on        
aboriginal jealousy1 #i2        on totem
 groups1 #ae n1 #af2        on ,urabunna
 descent1 #bj2        and the ,arunta   
marriage ceremony1 #bd2        on the   
class system in ,australia1 #cg2        
on changes of tribal custom1 #fg2       
and #8communal marriage1' #fi2        on
 ,arunta totem eating1 #gc2        on   
,arunta marital relations1 #gd2         
on totems and phratries1 #gd2        on 
,arunta legends1 #gf1 #gg2        on    
marriage regulations1 #gh2        on    
tribal and individual relationships1    
#hi2        on terms of relationship1   
#ie2        on #8classificatory' terms1 
#ajj2        on ,urabunna customs1 #aja2

        on totem origin1 #ada2        on
 brother-and-sister #8avoidance1' #baf2 
on ,australian group marriage1 #bic     
,state1 origin of the1 ,sir ,h4 ,maine  
on1 #g      ,status implied by          
relationship terms1 #aja                
#8,stealthy' intercourse preliminary to 
marriage1 #bfe      ,supremacy of women1
 supposed period of1 #i      ,sutherland
 crest1 #afc        ,tankerville1 ,lord1
 on the ,chillingham ,park bulls1 #bbb  
,terminology1 the author's1 #cg n2 ,mr4 
,fison's1 #ch n      ,terminology1      
confusing1 #aj1 #dd1 #abf1 #acj         
,terms of relationship1 ,mr4 ,morgan on1
 #ic2        origin of1 #ajb2           
family and tribal significance1 #ajc    
,thlinket ideas of totems1 #aci         
,thomas1 ,mr4 ,n4 ,w41 on totemism1 #adh
      ,totem1 restricted meaning of the 
word1 #acc2        original word        
doubtful1 #ace2        cult1 the1 #acf2 
origin probably not religious1 #acg     
,totem alliance1 ,mr4 ,jevons on1 #acd  
,totem eating1 ,arunta1 #ga      ,totem 

group names1 folk-lore illustrative of1 
#afi1      ,totem groups1 local1 #ae2   
heterogeneous1 #cj2        ,mr4 ,morgan 
on the origin of1 #ib      ,totem groups
 and magic1 ,arunta1 #aif1 #aih         
,totem groups and phratries1 relative   
antiquity1 #ce      ,totem influence    
among the ,arunta1 #fa      ,totem      
kindreds1 #aj1 #ab      ,totem name a   
bar to marriage1 #af2        liable to  
change1 #dh2        origin forgotten1   
#ahd2        implies blood kinship1 #aic
      ,totem prohibition of tribal      
marriage1 #ce      ,totemic divisions of
 the ,arunta1 #hc      ,totemic         
influence on the ,keddies' marriage     
customs1 #bhg      ,totemic myths1      
ancient ,greek and ,egyptian1 #bja      
,totemic rules differ from civilised    
marriage laws1 #hg      ,totemic system 
and exogamy1 #hj      ,totemism1 ,lord  
,avebury on1 #abb      ,totemism among  
the ,arunta1 #fh      ,totemism and     
exogamy1 #af      ,totemism dying in    
,melanesia1 #ahd      ,totemism1 group1 

exogamous1 the author's conjecture1 #afa
      ,totemism1 origin of1 #ad1 #aca2  
theories regarding1 #di1 #ej2           
,mr4 ,spencer on1 #fj      ,totems and  
phratries1 relations of1 #gd            
,totems1 classification of1 by ,mr4     
,frazer1 #acb      ,totems1 distribution
 of1 in the #8phratries1' #ee           
,totems1 ,mr4 ,fison on the origin of1  
#de      ,totems1 original purpose of1  
,mr4 ,atkinson on1 #bhb      ,tout1 ,mr4
 ,hill1 on totem origin1 #aeb           
,tribal and individual relationship1 #hh
      ,tribal custom1 ,messrs4 ,spencer 
and ,gillen on1 #fg      ,tribal        
divisions totemic in origin1 #ed        
,tribal heterogeneousness1 #h           
,tribe1 origin of the1 ,sir ,h4 ,maine  
on1 #g2        definition of the word1  
#aa2        an aggregation1 not a       
division1 #ih2        not a primitive   
institution1 #ajc2        growth of     
social rules in the1 #ajg      ,turanian
 gentes1 #ib      ,tylor1 ,mr41 on      
exogamy and totemism1 #ag2              

considers descent through female line   
the more archaic1 #ba2        his       
researches into laws of marriage and    
descent1 #aji2        on the word       
#8totem1' #aca n2        on ,fijian and 
,samoan totemism1 #acg2        supports 
,dr4 ,wilken's theory of totem origin1  
#aej        ,urabunna tribe of ,central 
,australia1 #a1 #aj2 tribal divisions1  
#aa2        marriage restrictions1 #ab2 
descent through the female line1 #bj1   
#fi2        exogamous and totemic       
division1 #ed2 intermarry with the      
,arunta1         #fi2        communal   
marriage among1 #fi2 less developed than
 the ,arunta1 #ge2        terms of      
relationship1 #ic2 status implied by    
relationship terms1         #aja2       
,spencer and ,gillen on customs1 #aja2  
marriage laws1 #ajd2        #8second    
masters' of married women1 #ajd2        
,piraungaru custom1 #aje                
,veddahs1 avoidance of father and       
daughter1 #bgd2 of mother and son1      
#bgd      ,victoria1 ,northern1 tribal  

tradition of1 #fd      ,village names1  
ancient ,hebrew1 #cjj      ,village     
sobriquets1 ,english1 #agc1 #bie        
,westermarck1 ,dr41 on promiscuous      
sexual relationship1 #i2        on the  
matriarchal theory1 #bj2        on ape  
etiquette1 #be2        his theory of    
exogamy1 #cc2        on terms of        
relationship1 #ie2        on            
brother-and-sister avoidance1 #bdj2     
on ,annamese and ,hottentot             
relationships1 #bdj2        on marriage 
by ,rapture1 #bdh      ,western         
,australia totem1 ,sir ,george ,grey on1
 #add      ,wilken's1 ,dr41 theory of   
totemic origin1 #aej2        depends on 
the patriarchal theory1 #aea            
,witchetty ,grub1 ,australian totem1    
#agj      ,woeworung1 the1 #da2 myths1  
#ff1 #aci1 #aei1 #afc      ,women1      
supremacy of1 supposed period of1 #i    
,women1 dominion of1 #bj        ,yakuts1
 avoidance among the1 #bge              
,zapotecs and their tona1 #add          
,zulu superstition1 #acf1 #adc