Open main menu

Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 17, 1906.djvu/119

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.


CORRESPONDENCE.

The Native Tribes of South-East Australia.

(Vol. xvi., p. 101.)

I have much pleasure in falling in with the suggestion made by Mr. E. Sidney Hartland in his review of my work on the Native Tribes of South-East Australia which appeared in Folk-Lore of 25th March, 1905.

I have to thank Mr. Hartland for thus bringing into notice the want of clearness, on my part, in explaining the meaning of the terms "own" and "tribal" relationships, as I use them.

I think that the best way to make clear the difference which I see between "own" and "tribal" relationships, will be to consider them somewhat in detail before proceeding to reply to the queries to which Mr. Hartland has raised.

I use the term "own" as including the children of both the "Tippa-malku" and "Pirrauru" marriages. In other words, the children of two or more brothers, or of two or more sisters, who are respectively "own" ngaperi and ngandri of the former. To these may be added the kaia-kaia, nadada, yenku, kanini, kami, kadi, and papa, and the reciprocal terms, provided that none of them are murdu relations. Such terms also as paiara, kalari, taru, and others similar which attach to the above "own" relations, I also include with them.

I hold the "tribal" relations to be those {a) which are merely "murdu" relations, being of two kinds, one of the class, and the other of the totem, the members of which are, for instance, brother and sister. The difference between them is, that the class relation includes members of all the totems, while that of the totem only includes its members.