Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia | Page 8

eanda, and consequently
descends to the sister's son. The other--the _oruzo_--descends in the
male line; it is concerned with chieftainship and priesthood, which
remain in the same oruzo, and the heir is the brother's son.[9]
This dual rule of descent brings us face to face with the question of
how membership of kinship groups is determined.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Howitt, _N.T._, p. 225.
[2] Cf. Owen, Musquakie Indians, p. 122; Lahontan, Voyages, II, 203-4;
Morgan, Ancient Society, p. 81.
[3] Two kinds of kinship are recognised in Australian tribes--(_a_)
totem and (_b_) phratry or class--but the precise relationship of one to
the other is far from clear. Nor is there much information as to what
terms of kinship are used within the totem kin. It is certain that neither
set of terms includes the other, for the totem kin extends beyond the
tribe or may do so, and there is more than one in each phratry.
[4] For the facts see Frazer, Totemism, and cf. p. 31 infra.
[5] MS. note from Dr Seligmann's unpublished _Report of
Cook-Daniels Expedition; Camb. Univ. Torres Sts Exped._, V, 172;
Man, 1904, no. 18.
[6] _J.A.I._ XVIII, 282.
[7] Man, 1903, no. 97.
[8] New, Travels, p. 274.
[9] Ausland, 1856, p. 45, 1882, p. 834; _Allg. Miss. Zts._ V, 354; _Zts.
Vgl. Rechtswiss._ XIV, 295; _Mitt. Orient. Seminar_, III, 73, V, 109.
The recent work of Irle is inaccurate and confused.
CHAPTER II.
DESCENT.
Descent of kinship, origin and primitive form. Matriliny in Australia.
Relation to potestas, position of widow, etc. Change of rule of descent;
relation to potestas, inheritance and local organisation.
In discussions of the origin and evolution of kinship organisations, we

are necessarily concerned not only with their forms but also with the
rules of descent which regulate membership of them. Until recently the
main questions at issue were twofold: (1) the priority or otherwise of
female descent; (2) the causes of the transition from one form of
descent to another. Of late the question has been raised whether in the
beginning hereditary kinship groups existed at all, or whether
membership was not rather determined by considerations of an entirely
different order. Dr Frazer, who has enunciated this view, maintains that
totemism rests on a primitive theory of conception, due to savage
ignorance of the facts of procreation.[10] But his theory is based
exclusively on the foundation of the beliefs of the Central Australians
and seems to neglect more than one important point which goes to
show that the Arunta have evolved their totemic system from the more
ordinary hereditary form. Whether this be so or not, it is difficult to see
how any idea of kinship could arise from such a condition of nescience.
If we take the analogous case of the nagual or "individual totem" there
seems to be no trace of any belief in the kinship of those who have the
same animal as their nagual, but are otherwise bound by no tie of
relationship. Yet if Dr Frazer's theory were correct, this is precisely
what we ought to find.
This is, however, no reason for rejecting the general proposition that
kinship, at its origin, was not hereditary; or, more exactly, that the
beginnings of the kinship groups found at the present day may be
traced back to a point at which the hereditary principle virtually
disappears, although the bond of union and perhaps the totem name
already existed. If, as suggested by Mr Lang, man was originally
distributed in small communities, known by names which ultimately
came to be those of the totem kins, we may suppose that daily
association would not fail to bring about that sense of solidarity in its
members which it is found to produce in more advanced communities.
In the case of the tribe an even feebler bond, the possession of a
common language, seems to give the tribesmen a sense of the unity of
the tribe, though perhaps other explanations may be suggested, such as
the possession in common of the tribal land, or the origin of the tribe
from a single blood-related group. However this may be, it seems
reasonable to look for one factor of the first bond of union in the

influence of the daily and hourly association of group-mates. On the
other hand, if, as Mr Lang supposes, the original group was a
consanguine one, the claims of the factor of consanguinity and perhaps
of foster brotherhood and motherhood cannot be neglected. It may be
true, as Dr Frazer argues, that man was originally and still is in some
cases ignorant of physiological facts. But all races of man and a great
part of the rest of the animal kingdom show us the phenomena of
parental affection, of care for offspring and sometimes of union for
their defence. This does