Status: Needs Review

16 ['18' crossed out]

The "rule" against the marriage of cousins required
some remark. When I was investigating the customs
and beliefs of the Tribes of Western Victoria ^in 1885 I
made use of some old men who were young when their ['whose memory went back' crossed out]
['to the time' crossed out] country was ['occupied' crossed out] taken in the years 1837-47.

I then found that there was an objection to the marriage
of those whom we designate "['first' crossed out] cousins". (N. T. p 241)

Our term ['cousin' crossed out] "first cousin" includes two relationships
which in Australian tribes are absolutely distinct.
For instance all the children of two or more brothers, or of
two or more Sisters are ^in the relation of brothers and sisters, but the
children of a man on one side and of his Sister on the
other are not so for ['the' crossed out] a reason which the [sub....d]
two diagrams will make clear. I use the class names
of the Wobjoballuk tribe of North western Victoria for this

1 M. Krokitch
2 f Gamutch-gurk
3 m & 3 f Gamutch & Gamutch gurk

4 m Gamutch
5 f. Krokitch-gurk
5 m & f. Krokitch & Krokitchgurk

The son- 3. m. Gamutch is according to us the first cousin of
the daughter 6 f Krokitchgurk. The belong to the two ^intermarrying segments
of the tribe but under the rule of the ^tribe, if Woltovalluk Nation
are not [allowed?] to marry

It is to be noted that in the case of the
tribes of Western Victoria not only have diminished

[Left margin:]

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page