Status: Needs Review


Mr Mathews summarises his conclusions ^as to the tribe of [.......]
['at p 145' crossed out] in his [....] ['paper' crossed out] communication
(p 145) as follows: "The man of a phratry marry
the woman of the opposite one, or else the woman
of their own, according to their pedigree. These
facts are tantamount to the statement that
the aggregate of men in the phratry can
marry all the women of the tribe."

Before ['considering' crossed out] dealing with these Statements ['there' crossed out] I must
give some consideration to three others which I
think cast a side light upon the
practise Mr Mathews has assumed.

The first is at p 85 where in speaking of the
Kurmu rules of marriage he gives an
instance which he terms "['the' crossed out] normal or
direct rule of marriage". ['This' crossed out ^The first case is in fact
the ^rule of marriage which I have ['described' crossed out] [.........]
in my "Native tribes", for instance at p.
where I describe the Dieri marriage rule of
the "noa" relationship. Mr Mathews explains it
thus "a brother's daughter's son mates with a
Sisters daughter's daughter".

He also gives another instance which may
be stated as follows: "a mother's daughters son
mates with a Sisters sons daughter and
remarks (p 85). In the former case a humari
marries a woman of the opposite phratry, but
in the latter case he takes a wife from his own
phratry, which [contradicts?] the fallacy of all the old
school theories respecting exogamy among the
Australian tribes".

at p 86 ['in speaking' crossed out] of the Kamilaror tribe ['rule' crossed out]
['of marriage Mr Mathews then in the following passage' crossed out]
Mr Mathews speaks of two rules of marriage being

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page