Here you can see all page revisions and compare the changes have been made in each revision. Left column shows the page title and transcription in the selected revision, right column shows what have been changed. Unchanged text is highlighted in white, deleted text is highlighted in red, and inserted text is highlighted in green color.

2 revisions
Lucio Alvarez at Jun 26, 2022 02:00 PM


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:]