To those engaged in the attempt to trace out the history of social institutions among people of rude culture, the myths and traditions of the people themselves form a natural and attractive field of inquiry. At the present time, however, there is the widest divergence of opinion as to the value of this kind of knowledge. By some workers such narratives are used as evidence without hesitation, while by others they are put wholly on one side as the pure fruit of imagination, having no relevance where facts are concerned.
A striking example of this divergence of treatment is to be found in the utilisation of Arunta narratives by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen[2] and Dr. Frazer,[3] and their scant rejection by Mr. Andrew Lang[4] as traditions "dictated by the logic of fancy," and therefore, it is assumed, of no value as evidence. It does not seem to have occurred to these workers,[5] nor, so far as I am aware, has it occurred to others,
- ↑ I am indebted to Miss C. S. Burne, Miss Jane Harrison, and Mr. H. M. Chadwick for suggestions which have led me to add to, or modify, this paper since it was read before the Folk-Lore Society.
- ↑ The Native Tribes of Central Australia, pp. 207, 209, and The Northern Tribes of Central Australia, p. 320.
- ↑ Totemism and Exogamy, vol. i., p. 238.
- ↑ Man, vol. x. (1910), p. 119.
- ↑ Except in so far as Messrs. Spencer and Gillen lay stress on the divergence of tradition from present customs.
