Status: Complete

§ 3
The primary class divisions were once totems. [Heading underlined]
I have elsewhere assumed that the class systems
as we now find them are the result of a process
of development by which the primary social divisions
were subdivided. (1) This does not attempt to

[Left margin note: (1) sub.]

explain why it is that the primary class
divisions have names which in certain
cases have no other meaning as words while
in others they are clearly the analogue of the
totems or apparently their prototypes.

It might be reasonably expected that of the
class systems have been subject to a process of
development extending necessarily over great
periods of time that the changes which [crossed out - this] language
underwent should leave some traces in the
names of the classes, which would be likely to
remain long after the language had altered.
They might be perpetuated as names not having
any meaning apart from the classes. This seems
to me to be [crossed out - the meaning of the fact] indicated by the fact that over a
large part of [crossed out - South] Eastern Australia the
names of the primary classes and sub classes are the same under
slight variations, whereas the language of the
tribes using them are [crossed out - so much] more or less
divergent and often so much so as to be
unintelligible to any but the tribe using them
or to the few linguists who are found in each tribe.

In a large area of country wherein the
four sub classes [crossed out - do not occur] are not found, the primary
classes have names which carry a meaning
as [names?] independently of their signification
as class names. They are in fact in such

[Left margin note crossed out :
Probably because
the class names are
words as [about?] the
their meaning maybe lost]

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page