Page:Native Tribes of South-East Australia.djvu/229

V In one of the Kamilaroi tribes there is a remarkable innovation on the usual marriages in the sub-classes, and a table showing these marriages is given further on. It was noted in the first instance by Mr. T. E. Lance, who observed the facts among the Kamilaroi in the district where he lived. He informed the Rev. William Ridley, who communicated it to Dr. Lorimer Fison as "a half-sister marriage," and we adopted the term in our work Kamilaroi and Kuniai for the sake of convenience. However, extended inquiries failed to give us any other instances of this particular marriage. Further consideration of the facts, in comparison with other marriage rules of tribes adjacent to the Kamilaroi, has shown that the term is incorrect and objectionable. In this view Dr. Lorimer Fison concurs.

To look upon this as a half-sister marriage is to see it from the standpoint of the white man. But considering it from the native's point of view, we see that it is altogether different.

From the native's point of view all the members of a totem, in the same level of a generation, are in the relation of brother and sister. Thus in the totem Emu, of the tribe in question, Ipai-emu is the brother of Ipatha-emu, and could not marry her. But he is not the brother of Ipatha-black-snake, because they are not of the same totem.

This seems to me to be the principle upon which these marriages have been arranged, and the remark made by one of Mr. Lance's native informants is much to the point. It was in reply to an objection by Mr. Lance that he said, "What for you stupid like it that! This feller Ipatha not Emu like it that other feller Ipai; this one Blacksnake."

It is the totem which has in this case apparently been kept in view, and the relationship of the sub-class has been disregarded. The table given below was compiled by Mr. Ridley, and shows that Ipai is not the exception to a general