I feel that if we admit that the later stages of social develop-
ment and of increasing prohibition have been the result of deliberate
intention, why should we hold that the original bissection of what I
have termed the "undivided commune" should not have been made delib-
erately and with intention to prohibit the intermarriage of those "of
the same flesh?" Why, because there was then no
reason for it. Why impose legislation

I do not say that there may not habe been amalgamation of
two tribes from time to time, but I see no evidence to justify the con-
clusion that such was the beginning og the "class division" system
of Australia.

I hope that I have been able to give you some idea of the facts
that have influenced my judgment. I may suggest that it might perhaps
be well to withhold your final decision until my novel is published.
I hope to complete it by the end of this year.

I remain my dear Sir

Yours faithfully

A. Howitt

If there was any motive for [this-crossed out] in Howitt's series of segmentations,
that motive, apparently, must have been the desire to introduce exogamy.
But why introduce exogamy? That system must have been a thing of grad-
ual growth, not the result of a sudden segmentation. Once introduced
it might be reflected upon, and improved upon, as it has been, but why was it ever in-
troduced? Moreover, there was not even this motivefor the subdivision
into totem groups [within - crossed out] of each exogamous moiety: The people within
(p1. stay)

[written in left side margin]

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page