Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 9, 1898.djvu/348

 320 that these early explorers misunderstood the facts, or were misled. Natives of many tribes appear to claim individual rights to collect the grubs in certain grass-trees. But the claimant would have discovered the grubs in a broken tree, or he would himself have topped the tree to induce the decay in which the grubs are found. Nor has he, so far as we can gather, any actual property in the tree. The same observation applies to the discovery of wild honey in a tree. The tree is marked by the discoverer; and he is entitled to get the honey, to the exclusion of others. Here of course we have the rude beginnings of individual ownership, but nothing more.

The chief permanent property of an Australian native is in the rug which covers him, and the tools and weapons by which he maintains himself. These he does not share with his friends. As little evidence is there that he shares the shells, the hair, the feathers, wherewith he is wont to adorn himself. The precept alludes most probably to the proceeds of the chase and other kinds of food. With regard to these, there are precise and detailed rules that specify the manner of distribution and the persons among whom the food is to be divided. The rules differ among different tribes. Those of the Kurnai, and the tribes of Maneroo, in New South Wales, have been given at length by Mr. Howitt, who says that in every case "the cooked food was divided by the procurer into certain portions, which were allotted by custom to various members of his family group."

I cannot find at the reference given by Mr. Lang (p. 195) the quotation he makes from Mr. Howitt, to the effect that "the old men deemed that through intercourse with whites 'the lads had become selfish, and no longer inclined to share that which they had obtained by their own exertions, or had given them, with their friends.'" "No doubt I have overlooked it. But I see no reason to suppose that it