Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
PROXIMUS
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: PRE-PYR
del.icio.us it!
|
PROXIMUS • FAMILIAM • HABETO, and sI AGNATUS • NEC • ESCIT GENTILIS • FAMILIAM • NANCITOR; that is, if a See also:man See also:die intestate, leaving no natural See also:heir who had been under his potestas, the nearest agnate, or relative tracing his connexion with the deceased exclusively through See also:males, is to inherit the familia, or See also:family See also:fortune of every sort . Failing an agnate, a member of the geiis of the dead man is to inherit . In ,a third sense, familia was applied to all the persons who could prove themselves to be descended from the same ancestor, and thus the word almost corresponded to our own use of it in the widest meaning, as when we say that a See also:person is " of a See also:good family " (See also:Ulpian, Dig . 50, 16, 195 fin.) . 1 . Leaving for awhile the See also:Roman terms, to which it will be necessary to return, we may provisionally define Family, in the See also:modern sense, as the small community formed by the See also:union of one man with one woman, and by the increase of See also:children See also:born to them . These in modern times, and in most See also:European countries, constitute the See also:household, and it has been almost universally supposed that little natural associations of this sort are the germ-See also:cell of See also:early society . The See also:Bible presents the growth of the Jewish nation from the one household of See also:Abraham . His patriarchal family differed from the modern family in being polygamous, but, as See also:female chastity was one of the conditions of the patriarchal family, and as descent through males was therefore recognized as certain, the See also:plurality of wives makes no real difference to the See also:argument . In the same way the earliest formal records of See also:Indian, See also:Greek and Roman society See also:present the family as firmly established, and generally regarded as the most See also:primitive of human associations . Thus, See also:Aristotle derives the first household (oiiia 7rpcar77) from the See also:combination of man's See also:possession of See also:property—in the slave or in domesticated animals—with man's relation to woman, and he quotes See also:Hesiod: orlon, L P 7rptbrwra yvva2Ka re f3ovv r' aporipa (Politics, i . 2 .
5)
.
The See also:village, again, with him is a See also:colony or offshoot of the household, and monarchical See also:government in states is derived from the See also:monarchy of the eldest male member of the family
.
Now, though certain See also:ancient terms, introduced by Aristotle in the chapters to which we refer, might have led him to imagine a very different origin of society, his theory is, on the See also:face of it, natural and plausible, and it has been almost universally accepted
.
The beginning of society, it has been said a thousand times, is the family, a natural association of kindred by See also:blood, composed of See also:father, See also:mother and their descendants
.
In this family, the father is See also:absolute See also:master of his wife, his children and the goods of the little community; at his See also:death his eldest son succeeds him; and in course of See also:time this association of kindred, by natural increase and by See also:adoption, develops into the See also:clan, gees, or yivor
.
As generations multiply, the more distant relations split off into other clans, and these clans, which have not lost the sense of primitive kinship, unite once more into tribes
.
The tribes again, as See also:civilization advances, ac-knowledge themselves to be subjects of a See also:
The former usage he attributed to archaic uncertainty as to fatherhood; the natural result of absolute sexual promiscuity, or of See also:Polyandry (q.v.)
.
Either practice is inconsistent, prima facie, with the primitive existence of the Family, whether polygamous or monogamous, whether patriarchal or modern
.
The custom of Exogamy, again,—here taken to mean the unwritten law which makes it See also:incest, and acapital offence, to marry within the real or supposed See also:kin denoted by the common name of the kinship,—pointed to an archaic See also:condition of family affairs all unlike our Table of prohibited degrees
.
This law of Exogamy was found, among many See also:savage races, associated with Totems, that is plants,animals and other natural See also:objects which give names to the various kinships, and are themselves, in various degrees, reverenced by members of the kinships
.
(See TOTEM AND See also:TOTEMISM.) Traces of such kinships, and of Totemism, also of alleged promiscuity in ancient times, were detected by McLennan in the legends, folk-See also:lore and institutions of See also:Greece, See also:Rome and See also:India
.
Later, Prof
.
See also:Robertson See also:
Meanwhile, owing to scarcity of women, one woman would be the See also:mate of many husbands (polyandry); hence, paternity being undetermined, descent would be reckoned through mothers
.
Such are the outlines of McLennan's theory, which, as a whole, has been attacked by many writers, and is now, perhaps, accepted by none
.
McLennan's was the most brilliant
See also:loner See also:work; but his See also:supply of facts was relatively
' value
.
scanty, and his friend See also: He was the discoverer of a custom very important in its bearing on the history of society . In about two-thirds of the globe, persons Mor Lewis gan . in addressing a kinsman do not discriminate between grades of relationship . All these grades are merged in large categories . Thus, in what Morgan calls the " Malayan See also:system," " all consanguinei, near or far, fall within one of these relationships—grandparent, See also:parent, See also:brother, See also:sister, See also:child and See also:grand-child." No other blood-relationships are recognized (Ancient Society) . This at once reminds us of the Platonic See also:Republic . " We devised means that no one should ever be able to know his own child, but that all should imagine themselves to be of one family, and should regard as See also:brothers and sisters those who were within a certain limit of See also:age; and those who were of an See also:elder See also:generation they were to regard as parents and grandparents, and those who were of a younger generation as children and grandchildren " (See also:Timaeus, 18, See also:Jowett's See also:translation, first edition, vol. ii., 1871) . This system prevails in the Polynesian groups and in New See also:Zealand . Next comes what Morgan chooses to See also:call the Turanian system . " It was universal among the See also:North See also:American See also:aborigines," whom he styles Ganowanians . " Traces of it have been found in parts of See also:Africa " (Ancient Society), and " it still prevails in See also:South India among the See also:Hindus, who speak the See also:Dravidian See also:language," and also in North India, among other Hindus . The system, Morgan says, " is simply stupendous." It is not exactly the same among all his See also:miscellaneous " Turanians," but, on the whole, assumes the following shapes . Suppose the See also:speaker to be a male, he will See also:style his See also:nephew and . Old theory . niece in the male line, his brother's children, " son " and " daughter," and his grand-nephews and grand-nieces in the male line, "See also:grandson" and "granddaughter." Here the Turanian and the Malayan systems agree . But See also:change the See also:sex; let the male speaker address his nephews and nieces in the female line,—the children of his sister,—he salutes them as "nephew" and "niece,' and they See also:hail him as "See also:uncle." Now, in the See also:Malay system, nephews and nieces on both sides, brother's children or sisters, are alike named "children" of the uncle . If the speaker be a female, using the Turanian style, these terms are reversed . Her sister's sons and daughters are saluted by her as " son " and " daughter," her brother's children she calls " nephew " and " niece." Yet the children of the persons thus styled " nephew " and niece " are not recognized in conversation as " grand-nephew " and " grand-niece," but as " grandson " and "granddaughter." It is impossible here to do more than indicate these features of the classificatory nomenclature, from which the others may be inferred . The reader is referred for particula ,s to Morgan's Systems of See also:Consanguinity and See also:Affinity of the Human See also:Race . The existence of the classificatory system is not an entirely novel See also:discovery . Nicolaus Damascenus, one of the inquirers into early society, who lived in the first See also:century of our era, noticed this mode of address among the Galactophagi . Lafitau found it among the See also:Iroquois . To Morgan's See also:perception of the importance of the facts, and to his energetic collection of reports, we owe our knowledge of the wide prevalence of the system . From an examination of the degrees of kindred which seem to be indicated by the " Malayan " and " Turanian " modes of address, he has worked out a theory of the See also:evolution of the modern family . A brief comparison of this with other modern theories will See also:close our See also:account of the family . The See also:main points of the theory are shortly stated in Systems of Consanguinity, &h., and in Ancient Society . From the latter work we quote the following description of the five different and successive forms of the family: " I . The Consanguine Family.—It was founded upon the inter-marriage of brothers and sisters, own and See also:collateral, in a group . " II . The Punaluan Family.—It was founded upon the inter-marriage of several sisters, own and collateral, with each others' husbands, in a group—the See also:joint husbands not being necessarily kinsmen of each other; also, on the intermarriage of several brothers, own and collateral, with each others' wives in a group—these wives not being necessarily of kin to each other, although often the See also:case in both instances (sic) . In each case the group of men were conjointly married to the group of women . " III . The Syndyasmian or Pairing Family.—It was founded upon marriage between single pairs, but without an exclusive cohabitation . The marriage continued during the See also:pleasure of the parties . " IV . The Patriarchal Family.—It was founded upon the marriage of one man with several wives, followed in See also:general by the seclusion of the wives . ` V . The Monogamian Family.—It was founded upon marriage between single pairs with an exclusive cohabitation . " Three of these forms, namely, the first, second, and fifth, were See also:radical, because they were sufficiently general . and influential to create three distinct systems of consanguinity, all of which still exist in living forms . Conversely, these systems are sufficient of themselves to prove the antecedent existence of the forms of the family and of marriage with which they severally stand connected." Morgan makes the systems of nomenclature proofs of the existence of the Consanguine and Punaluan families . Unhappily, there is no other See also:proof, and the same systems have been explained on a very different principle (McLennan, Studies in Ancient History) . Looking at facts, we find the Consanguine family nowhere, and cannot easily imagine how early groups abstained from infringing on each other, and created a systematic marriage of brothers and sisters . St See also:Augustine, however (De civ . Dei, xv . 16), and Archinus in his Thessalica (Odyssey, xi . 7, scholia B, Q) agree more or less with Morgan . Next, how did the Consanguine family change into the Punaluan ? Morgan says (Ancient Society) brothers ceased to marry their sisters, because "the evils of it could not for ever See also:escape human observation." Thus the Punaluan family was See also:hit upon, and " created a distinct system of consanguinity " (Ancient Society), the Turanian . Again, " marriages in Punaluan groups explaih the relationships in the system." But Morgan provides himself with another explanation, " the Turanian system owes its origin to marriage in the group and to the See also:gentile organization." He calls exogamy " the gentile organization," though, in point of fact, the only gentes we know, the Roman gentes, show scarcely a trace of exogamy . Again, " the change of relationships which resulted from substituting Punaluan in the See also:place of Consanguine marriage turns the Malayan into the Turanian system." On the same See also:page Morgan attributes the change to the " gentile organization," and, still on the same page, uses both factors in his working out of the problem . Now, if the Punaluan marriage is a sufficient explanation, we do not need the " gentile organization." Both, in M.See also:organ's opinion, were efforts of conscious moral reform . In Systems of Consanguinity the gentile organization (there called tribal), that is, exogamy, is said to have been designed to work out a See also:reformation in the intermarriage of brothers and sisters." But the Punaluan marriage had done that, otherwise it would not have produced (as Morgan says it did) the change from the Malayan to the Turanian system, the difference in the two systems, as exemplified in See also:Seneca and Tamil, being " in the relationships which depended on the intermarriage or non-intermarriage of brothers and sisters" (Ancient Society) . Yet the Punaluan family, though itself a reform in morals and in " breeding," "did not furnish adequate motives to reform the Malay system," which, as we have seen, it did reform . The Punaluan family, it is suspected, " frequently involved own brothers and sisters "; had it not been so, there would have been no need of a fresh moral reformation,—" the gentile organization." Yet even in the Punaluan family (Ancient Society) "1[-See also:ethers ceased to marry their own sisters." What, then, did the " gentile organization" do for men ? As they had already ceased to marry their own sisters, and as, under the gentile organization, they were still able to marry their See also:half-sisters, the reformatory "ingenuity" of the inventors of the organizations was at once superfluous and useless . It is impossible to understand the Punaluan system . Its existence is inferred from a system of nomenclature which it does (and does not) produce; it admits (and excludes) own brothers and sisters . Morgan has intended, apparently, to represent the Punaluan marriage as a See also:long transition to the definite custom of exogamy, but it will he seen that his language is not very clear nor his positions assured . He doesotiot adduce sufficient proof that the Punaluan family ever existed as an institution, eVen in See also:Hawaii . There is, if possible, a greater See also:absence of See also:historical testimony to the existence of the See also:Con-sanguine family . It is difficult to believe that exogamy was a conscious moral and social reformation, because, ex hypothesi, the savages had no moral data, nothing to cause disgust at relations which seem revolting to us . It is as improbable that they discovered the supposed See also:physical evils of breeding in and in . That discovery could only have been made after a long experience, and in the Consanguine family that experience was impossible . Thus, setting moral reform aside as inconceivable, we cannot understand how the Consanguine families ever See also:broke up . Morgan's ingenious speculations as to a transitional step•towards the gens (as he calls what we style the totem-kindred), supposed to be found in the " classes " and marriage See also:laws of the Kamilaroi, are vitiated by the weakness and contradictory nature of the See also:evidence (see See also:Pritchard; J . D . See also:Lang's See also:Queensland, Appendix; Proceedings of American See also:Academy of Arts, &c., vol. viii . 412; Nature, See also:October 29, 1874) . Further, though Morgan calls the Australian "gentile organization " " incipient," he admits (Ancient Society) that the Narrinyeri have totem groups, in which " the children are of the clan of the father.'' Far from being " incipient," the gens of the Narrinyeri is on the footing of the ghotra of See also:Hindu custom . Lastly, though Morgan frequently declares that the Polynesians have not the gens (for he thinks them not sufficiently advanced), W . W . Gill (Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, See also:London, 1876) has shown that unmistakable traces of the totem survive in Polynesian See also:mythology . 4 . Morgan's theory was opposed by McLennan (Studies in Ancient History, 1876); who maintained that the names for relationships, in the " classificatory system," were merely terms of address, as among ourselves when a preacher calls any adult male " brother," when an old woman is addressed as See also:Rival "mother," when an elder man calls a junior "my theories . son." He also showed that his own system accounted for the terms . The controversy is still alive; one set of writers regarding the savage terms of relationship as indicating a See also:state of things in which human beings dwelt in a " See also:horde," with promiscuous intercourse; another set holding that the terms do not indicate consanguineous kinship, but degrees of age, status, and reciprocal obligations in a See also:local tribe, and therefore that they do See also:riot yield any presumption that there was a past of promiscuity or of what is called " group marriage." On Morgan's side (not of course accepting all his details) are L . Fison and A . W . Howitt, and See also:Baldwin Spencer and F . J . Gillen . Against him are Starcke, Westermarck, A . Lang, Dr Durkheim, apparently, Crawley and many others . 5 . A second presumption in favourof original promiscuity has been See also:drawn by the eminent Australian students, Baldwin Evidence Spencer and F . J . Gillen, and by A . W . Howitt, from of original the customs of some Australian aborigines . In each PfOmis" tribe, owing to customary laws which are to be c'rgy' examined later, only men and women of a given status are intermarriageable (nupa, noa, unawa) with each other . Though child-betrothals are usual, and though the woman is specialized to one man, who protects and nourishes her and all her children, and though their union is immediately preceded by an extended See also:jus primae noctis (such as See also:Herodotus describes among the Nasamones), yet, among certain tribes, the following custom prevails . At See also:great meetings the tribal leaders assign a woman as paramour (with what amount of permanence remains obscure) to a man (pirrauru); one woman may have several pirrauru men, one man several pirrauru women, in addition to their regularly betrothed (tippa malku) wives and husbands . The See also:husband occasionally shows fight, and See also:bitter jealousies prevail, but, at the great ceremonial meetings, complaisance is enforced under See also:penalty of strangling . Thenceforth, if the husband permits, the male pirrauru has matrimonial rights over the other man's tippa malku wife when they meet . A symbolic ceremony of union precedes the junction of the pirrauru See also:people . This institution, as far as reported, is See also:peculiar to a group of tribes near See also:Lake See also:Eyre, the Dieri, Urabunna, and their congeners,—or perhaps 'to all who have the same "phratry " names as the Dieri and Urabunna (Kiraru and Mattera, in various See also:dialectic forms) . Elsewhere the pirrauru custom is not known: but almost everywhere there are licentious festivals, in which all marriage rules except those which forbid incest (in our sense of the word, namely between the closest relations) are thrown to the winds . Also a native travelling among See also:alien tribes is See also:lent women of the status into which he may legally marry . Baldwin Spencer and F . J . Gillen, and A . W . Howitt, regard pirrauru as " group marriage " and as a proof that, at one time, all intermarriageable people were actually husbands See also:croup and wives, while the other examples of See also:licence are also marriage . survivals, in a later stage of decay, of promiscuity, and " group marriage." To this it is replied that " group marriage " is a misnomer; that if pirrauru be in a sense marriage it is status, not group marriage . Again, it is urged, pirrauru is a modification of tippa malku, which comes first; a woman is " specialized " to a man before she can be made pirrauru to another, and her tippa malku husband continues to support her, and to recognize her children as his own, after she has become pirrauru to another man or other inen . Without the foregoing tippa malku union, the pirrauru unions are not conceivable; they are See also:mere legalized paramourships, modifying the tippa malku marriage (like the See also:Italian cicisbeism); procuring a See also:protector for a woman in her husband's absence, and' supplying legal loves for bachelors . The custom is peculiar to a given set of kindred tribes . The festivals are the legalized, restricted and more or less permanent modification of the casual orgies of feasts of licence, or Saturnalia, which have their analogies among many people, ancient and modern . Pirrauru is 'no more a survival x . 6of and a proof of primitive promiscuity, than is the legalized incest of ancient See also:Egypt or ancient See also:Peru . If these views be correct the argument for primitive promiscuity derived from pirrauru falls to the ground . 6 . The questions at issue obviously are, was mankind originally promiscuous, with no objections to marriage between persons of the nearest kin; and was the first step in advance The the See also:prohibition of marriage (or of amatory intercourse) historical between brothers and sisters; or did mankind origin- problem. ally live in very small groups, under a jealous sire, who imposed restrictions on intercourse between the See also:young males, his sons, and all the See also:females of the " See also:hearth-circle," who constituted his See also:harem ? The problem has been studied, first, in the institutions of savages, notably of the most backward savages, the See also:black natives of See also:Australia; and next, in the See also:light of the habits of the higher See also:mammalia . As regards Australian matrimonial institutions, it has been known since the date of the See also:Journals of two Expeditions of Discovery, by See also:Sir See also:George See also:Grey (1837-1839), that they are very complex and peculiar, in points strongly resembling the customary laws of the more backward Red Indian tribes of North See also:America . See also:Information came in, while McLennan was working, from G . Taplin (The Narrinyeri, 1874), from A . W . Howitt and L . Fison, and many other inquirers (in See also:Brough See also:Smyth's Aborigines of See also:Victoria, 1878), from Howitt and Fison again (in Kamilaroi and Kurnai, 188o), and many essays by these authors, and finally, in Native Tribes of Central Australia (1899) and See also:Northern Tribes of Central Australia (1904), by Baldwin Spencer and F . J . Gillen; and in Howitt's Native Tribes of South-See also:East Australia (19o4), with R . See also:Roth's North-See also:West Central Queensland Aborigines (1897) . All of these are works of very high merit . Knowledge is now much more wide, See also:minute and securely based than it was when McLennan's Studies in Ancient History, second series, was posthumously published (1896) . We know with certainty that in Australia, among archaic savages who have neither metals, See also:agriculture, pottery nor domesticated animals, a graduated See also:scale of matrimonial institutions exists . First there are local tribes, each tribe having its own See also:dialect; holding a recognized See also:area of territory; and living on friendly terms with neighbouring tribes . Territorial See also:conquest is never attempted . In many cases a See also:knot of tribes of allied dialects and kindred See also:rites may be, or at least is, spoken of as a " nation " by our authorities . 7 . Customary law is administered by the Seniors, the See also:wise, the magically skilled, who in many cases are " headmen " of local groups or of sets of kindred . As to marriage, prtmirne persons may wed within the local tribe, or into a restrict. neighbouring local tribe, at will, provided that they bons" obey the restrictions of customary law . The local marriage. tribe is neither exogamous nor endogamous, any more than is an See also:English See also:county . The restrictions, except where they have become obsolete, fall into six main categories: (1) In the most primitive, each tribe consists of two inter-marrying and exogamous divisions, which are often styled phratries . Each such See also:division has a name, which, when it can be translated, is the name of an See also:animal: in the See also:majority of cases, however, the meaning of the phratry name is lost . In one instance, that of the Euahlayi tribe of north-west New South See also:Wales, the phratry names are said (by Mrs Langloh See also:Parker) to mean " Light Blood "and " Dark Blood." This, as in the theory of the Rev . J . See also:Mathews, See also:Eagle and See also:Crow, might be taken to indicate a blending of two distinct races . Taking, for the See also:sake of clearness, tribes whose phratry names mean Crow " and " Eagle See also:Hawk," every member of the tribe belongs either to Eagle Hawk phratry or to Crow phratry: if to Crow, the man or woman can only marry an Eagle Hawk, if to Eagle Hawk, can only marry a Crow . The children invariably belong to the phratry of the mother, in this most primitive type . Within Eagle Hawk phratry is one set of totem kins, named usually after various See also:species of animals and plants; within Crow phratry is another set of totem kins, named always (except in one region of Central Australia) after a different set of plants and animals . With the exception mentioned (that of the Arunta II " nation "), in no tribe does the same totem ever occur in both phratries . Totems and totem names are inherited by the children from the mother, in this primitive type . Thus a man, Eagle Hawk by phratry, See also:Snipe by totem, marries a woman Crow by phratry, Black See also:Duck by totem . His children by her are of phratry Crow, of totem Black Duck . Obviously no person can marry another of his or her own totem, because, in the phratry into which he or she must marry, no man or woman of his or her totem exists . The prohibition extends to members of alien and remote tribes, if of the same totem name . The same rules exist in the more primitive North American tribes, but as the phratry there has generally, though not always, decayed, the See also:rule, where this has occurred, merely forbids marriage within the totem kin . (2) We find this type of organization, where the child inherits phratry and totem from the father, not from the mother . (3) We find tribes in which phratry and totem are inherited from the mother, but an additional rule prevails: the rule of " Matrimonial Classes." By this See also:device, in phratry " Dilbi," there are two ' classes, " See also:Muri " and " Kubi." In phratry " Kupathin " are two classes, " Ipai " and " Kumbo " (all these names are of unknown meaning) . Each child inherits its mother's phratry name and totem name, and also the name of that class of the two in the mother's phratry to which the mother does not belong . No person may marry into his or her own class—practically into his or her own generation: the rule makes parental and filial marriages impossible,—but these never occur even among more primitive tribes which have not the institution of classes . Suppose that the class names are really names of animals and other objects in nature—as in a few cases they actually are . Then the rules, where classes exist, would amount to this: no person may marry another who, by phratry, totem or generation, owns the same hereditary animal name as himself or herself . In practice, where phratries exist, a man who knows a woman's phratry name knows whether or not he may marry her . Where class names exist (even though the phratry- name be lost), a man who knows a woman's class name knows whether or not he may marry her . Nothing can be simpler in practice . (4) The same rules as under (3) exist, but the phratry, totem and class are inherited through the father: the class of the child of course not being the father's, but the linked class in his phratry . 15) In the fifth See also:category (Central North Australia), while phratry name (if not lost) and totem name are inherited from the father, by a refinement of law which is spreading southwards there are four classes in each phratry (or main exogamous division unnamed), and the choice of a partner in See also:life is thus more restricted than in more primitive tribes . (6) Finally we reach the institutions of the group of tribes called, from the name of the most powerful tribe in the set, " the Arunta nation." They occupy the See also:Macdonnell Arunta Ranges and other territory in the very centre of customs . Australia . The Arunta reckon kinship in the male line: their phratry names they have forgotten, in place of phratries eight matrimonial classes regulate marriage . In these respects they resemble most of the central and northern tribes, but present this unique peculiarity, that the same totems may and do exist in both of the opposed intermarrying exogamous divisions consisting of four classes each . It thus results that a man, in the Arunta tribe, may marry a woman of his own totem, if she be in the class with which he may intermarry . This licence is unknown in every other See also:part of the totemic See also:world, and even in the Kaitish tribe of the Arunta nation intertotemic marriages, in practice, almost never occur . Among the Arunta the totems are only prominent in magical ceremonies, unknown in South-Eastern Australia . At these ceremonies (Intichiuma) the men of the totem do co-operative magic for the benefit of their plant or animal, as part of the tribal See also:food-supply . The members of the totem See also:taste it sparingly on these occasions, apparently under the belief that to do so increases their magical See also:power: the See also:rest of the tribe eat freely . But, as far as denoting kinship or regulating marriage is con-cerned, the totems, among the Arunta, have no legally important existence . Men and women of the same totem may intermarry. their children need not belong to the totem of either father or mother . The See also:process by which Arunta totems came thus to differ from those of all other savages is easily understood . Like the other tribes from the centre to the north (including the Urabunna nation, which reckons descent through women), the Arunta believe that the souls of the primal semi-bestial ancestors of the Alcheringa or " See also:dream time " are perpetually reincarnated . This opinion does not affect by itself the usual exogamous See also:character of totemism among the other tribes . The Arunta nation, however, cultivates an additional myth, namely that the primal ancestors, when they sank into the ground, See also:left behind them certain See also: |