THE JOURNAL OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. DECEMBER 9TH, 1884. Professor W. H. FLOWER, LL.D., F.R.S., President, in the Chair. The Minutes of the last meeting were read and signed. The following presents were announced, and thanks voted to the respective donors: FOR THE LIBRARY. From the KONG. VITTERHETS HISTORIE OCH ANTIQVITETS AKADEMIEN.- From the ACADEMY.-Nova Acta Academiæ Cæsarem Leopoldino- From the SOCIETY.-Proceedings of the Royal Society. No. 233. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society. December, 1884. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Journal of the Society of Arts. Nos. 1670-1672. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou. VOL. XIV. X From the EDITORS.-Ignis; Ouvrage Couronné par l'Académie From the EDITOR." Nature." Nos. 787,788. Revue d'Ethnographie. No. 4, 1884. Revue Scientifique. Tom. XXXIV, Nos. 22, 23. Revue Politique. Tom. XXXIV, Nos. 22, 23. The election of Miss H. MÜLLER, B.A., M.L.S.B., was announced. The following paper was read by the author: On the CUSTOMS of MARRIAGE and SYSTEMS of RELATIONSHIP among the AUSTRALIANS. By Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., M.P., F.R.S., D.C.L., LL.D. OUR ideas of marriage and relationship seem so natural and obvious that we have only of late years realised that, so far from being general to mankind, they may be said to be quite exceptional, and that even as regards ourselves there is reason to consider them as of comparatively recent origin. I do not propose on the present occasion to enter into the whole question, or to recapitulate the views of Bachofen, McLennan, Morgan, Tylor, and others, whose researches have thrown much light on the question; nor to indicate where I venture to differ from them. My object is to discuss the present state of our knowledge with reference to the customs of marriage and system of relationship among the aborigines of Australia, especially with reference to the valuable and interesting work on the "Kamilaroi and Kŭrnai," by Messrs. Fison and Howitt, and their bearing on the view which I have advocated in the "Origin of Civilisation." The evidence which has gradually accumulated has satisfied most of those who have specially studied the subject that there was a time when individual marriage did not exist, when every man in turn was admitted to have a right to take (if he could) every woman whom he fancied, and when descent was traced exclusively through the mother. The question then is, how did the custom of individual marriage arise? and under what circumstances was the descent through the mother replaced by that through the father? The theory I have ventured to suggest as regards the former question is, that originally no man could appropriate any woman of his own tribe exclusively to himself, nor could any woman dedicate herself to one man, without infringing tribal rights; but that, on the other hand, if a man captured a woman belonging to another tribe he thereby acquired an individnal and peculiar right to her, and she became his exclusively, no one else having any claim to or property in her. Thus, then, the women in such a community would fall into two classes. The one, subject no doubt to the disadvantage of being aliens, and so to say slaves, but yet enjoying the protection, and in many cases having secured the affection, of one man. The other, nominally no doubt free, but in the first place subject to the attentions of all their tribesmen-attentions no doubt often very unwelcome, but yet which could not be rejected without giving bitter offence; and in the second without any claim on any one specially for food, shelter, and protection. It seems to me that under such circumstances many women belonging to the latter class would long to exchange their nominal freedom, and hazardous privileges, for the comparative peace and security of the former; while, on the other hand, many men would desire to appropriate exclusively to themselves some woman of their own tribe by whom they were specially attracted. Hence would naturally arise a desire on the part of many to extend the right of capture which originally had reference only to women of a different tribe, and to apply it all to those belonging to their own. Messrs. Fison and Howitt reject this view, but I must observe at starting that they use the words husband and wife in two very different senses. For instance "In the following pages," says Mr. Fison,' "the words marriage, husband, wife, and indeed all the terms of kinship, are used in a certain accommodated sense. Husband and wife are not necessarily man and wife according to our ideas. 'My husband,' for instance, among tribes such as the Australian, does not necessarily single out any one man in particular. A woman may apply it to any one of a group of tribal brothers who have the right of taking her to wife." Such arrangements may be, and in some tribes no doubt are, the nearest approach to what we call marriage, but a husband in this sense is very different from a husband in ours. He has not the exclusive right to a particular woman which is in our idea the essence of matrimony, and the existence of which is just what we have to account for. We nowhere at present find in Australia any tribe in which unrestricted "communal marriage," as I have ventured to call it, still exists. But we do find a very general custom that the tribes are divided into "gentes," or classes, and that all the men 1 Page 28. of each class are regarded as possessing marital rights over all the women of some one, or more, of the other classes. Side by side, however, with this communal marriage state, as I have ventured to call it, we also find individual marriage; one man and one woman especially connected together as in more civilised communities. Messrs. Fison and Howitt apply the words husband and wife to both of these cases. I do not blame them for doing so; but at the same time, whether we apply the same word in both cases or not, we must not lose sight of the fact that the two relationships are by no means identical.1 is this latter or true marriage to which my suggestion refers, in criticising which Messrs. Fison and Howitt confuse, as it seems to me, the two different relations. It "The simplest, and probably the earliest, form of the class division amongst the Australian aborigines, "says Mr. Fison," "is the separation of a community into two intermarrying classes, each having a distinctive title, which is taken by every one of its members. This form has been found from South Australia to Northern Queensland, as well as among the islands." Among the Mount Gambier (South Australia) tribes, for instance, every man is either a Kumite or a Kroki, every woman is either a Kumitegor or a Krokigor. No Kumite may marry a Kumitegor, nor a Kroki a Krokigor. In many cases the divisions are more complex, but the principle is the same, namely, that any man may consort with any woman belonging to another class or gens, but that no man may take a woman belonging to his own division. Sometimes when there are several divisions he is restricted to one of them. For instance, the Kamilaroi are divided into four classes: Ipai, Muri, Kumbi, and Kubi; of which the women are Ippatha, Mutha (short for Muritha), Butha (short for Kumbutha) and Kubitha. Ipai marries Kubitha, and Kubi marries Ippatha; or rather Ipai and Kubitha, Kubi and Ippatha, are regarded respectively as husbands and wives, just as Ipai and Ippatha, Kubi and Kubitha, are brother and sister.3 "If a Kubi meets a stranger Ippatha, they address each other as spouse. A Kubi thus meeting an Ippatha, though she were of another tribe, would treat her as his wife, and his right to do so would be recognised by her tribe.”4 1 It would be convenient, I think, to use some such term as the New Zealand noa," ," in the former case, and to say, for instance, that a woman was "noa" to a particular gens or gentes, and wife to a particular man. 2 Page 33. 3 In one other tribe these gentes are still further divided and (loc. cit., p. 64) an Ipai may marry an Ippatha, provided that she has not the same name or totem. 4 Page 53. Messrs. Fison and Howitt quote1 from the Rev. John Bulmer rather a striking illustration of this. "When," he says, "I first went among the Murray blacks, one of the young men attached himself to me. He said we must be brothers, and as he was a Kilparra man, I was of course the same. I one day said to his wife, I am John's brother; you are my sister.' The idea was, to her, most ridiculous. With a laugh she said, 'No, you are my husband."" It must not, however, be considered that the right to take any woman belonging to another class was originally a concession. The true process was in the reverse order, and the forbidding to take a woman of the man's own class must be regarded as a restriction. There are not wanting traditions of a time when this restriction did not exist. But, however this may be, we have complete and conclusive evidence that in large portions of Australia every man had the privileges of a husband over every woman not belonging to his own gens; sharing of course those privileges with every other man belonging to the same class or "gens" as himself. But although we may call this "marriage "—and it is a right which in old times was, and to a certain extent still is, recognised as perfectly legal and respectable-it does not help us to the origin of individual marriage. Granting the old individual commune," says Mr. Fison," "his (Sir John Lubbock's) whole theory rests upon the assumption that a warrior has a sole right, as against his tribe, to a captive taken by him in war. In support of this right Sir John advances nothing whatever beyond the assertion that it would be likely to accrue. On the contrary, it appears to me in the highest degree unlikely, because among savages the individual has no rights as distinct from the group to which he belongs; and, moreover, it is directly contradicted by evidence which can be tested at the present day." I have read this passage with surprise, because so far from having given none, I have brought forward a great deal, and as it seems to me very strong, evidence in support of my suggestion. In addition to the 1,000 miles of wives so forcibly described by Messrs. Fison and Howitt, the Australian had his own individual wife. How does he acquire a special right to her? I have argued that this was originally by right of capture, and Messrs. Fison and Howitt categorically deny this. But let us see what they say themselves a few pages further on. In describing the habits of the Kurnai they come to his marriage. 1 Page 289. 2 Loc. cit., page 151. How does |