each moiety were exogamous already, the totemic subdivision did not
make them more exogamous: (The totems never
occured in both phratries)


The primary divisions, say Yungaru and Wutaru, may be ex-
plained, and the totem groups may be explained, without the hypothesis
of a series of deliberate segmentations into totems, "In many Australian tribes,"
says Mr. Fison, "we find four classes, which can be shown to be subdi-
visions of two primary classes." But he simultaneously remarks "it is
possible that the four classes may have been formed by the amalgama-
tion of two tribes, each of which was divided into classes." (*)

Now my object is to avoid an arrangement so artificial,
for primeval times, and apparently so motiveless, as a series of de-
liberate segmentations, first of an "undivided commune" into two exog-
amous moieties, next, of each moiety into a set of totem groups. Why
not, then, adopt, for the two primary phyatries [classes - crossed out], the theory applied by Mr.
, as an alternative hypothesis to the two secondary classes, which,
in some tribes, make excluding the phyatries four classes or eight in all. Mr. Fison's theory was merely
that tribes, each consisting of two exogamous classes, (Phyatries) amalgamated, and
the resulting tribe had, therefore, four classes. There was, by this theory, no "fur-
ther segmentation" of one two-class tribe into a four-class tribe, as on
[this - crossed out] an alternative theory of Mr. Fison's. yet he cleaves to the faith
that the two primary classes were the result of "the separation of a
community into two intermarrying classes," and that the totem kins
(he says gentes) in each class are subdivisions" of the original

(*) Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p.35, and Note, pp. 70 - 72.

[written in left side margin]
But have all four classes totemic names as
the two "phratries" have? I think not

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page