[Footnote 9: There is a tradition of an aboriginal Adam, who had two wives, Kilpara and Mukwara, these being the names of two phratries. On this showing brothers married paternal half-sisters (_Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 33).] [Footnote 10: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 40.] [Footnote 11: _J. A. I._ xiv. 142.] [Footnote 12: _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xviii. 264.] [Footnote 13: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 107.] [Footnote 14: _Op. cit._ p. 41.] [Footnote 15: _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxi. 162.] [Footnote 16: _On the Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p. 129; _Transactions of Royal Society of Victoria_, 1889.] [Footnote 17: The natives retain sacred songs to Daramulun, but cannot (or will not?) translate them. _Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W._ xxxiv. 280.] [Footnote 18: Spencer and Gillen, p. 152.] [Footnote 19: Howitt, _J. A. I._ xviii. 37-39.] [Footnote 20: _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 235, note.] [Footnote 21: _Op. cit._ pp. 59, 62, 63, 66.] [Footnote 22: New marriage prohibitions may have been, and, I believe, were added, but the divisions thus made were not, I think, totemistic.] [Footnote 23: _Organisation of Australian Tribes_, p. 136.] [Footnote 24: Harpocration _s.v._ γεννῆται.] [Footnote 25: _J. A. I._ xiv. 160.] [Footnote 26: Spencer and Gillen, pp. 72, 420.] CHAPTER III TOTEMS WITHIN THE PHRATRIES AMERICAN SUPPORT OF THE AUTHOR’S HYPOTHESIS The system which I advocate here, as to the smallness of the original human groups, and their later combination into larger unions, seems to have, as regards America, the support of the late Major Powell, the Director of the Bureau of Ethnology, and of Mr. McGee of the same department. This gentleman writes, ‘Two postulates concerning primitive society, adopted by various ethnologic students of other countries, have been erroneously applied to the American aborigines ... The first postulate is that primitive men were originally assembled in chaotic hordes, and that organised society was developed out of the chaotic mass _by the segregation of groups_ ...’ This appears to be Mr. Hewitt’s doctrine. In fact, Mr. McGee says, American research points, not to a primal horde, ‘bisected’ and ‘subdivided’ into an organised community, but to an early condition ‘directly antithetic to the postulated horde, in which the scant population was segregated in small discrete bodies, probably family groups....’ The process of advance was one of ‘progressive combination rather than of continued differentiation.... It would appear that the original definitely organised groups occasionally coalesced with other groups, both simple and compound, whereby they were elaborated in structure....’ Mr. McGee adds, ‘always with some loss in definiteness and permanence.’ As far as concerns Australia, I do not feel sure that the last remark applies, but, on the whole, Mr. McGee’s observations, couched in abstract terms, appear to fit what I have written, in concrete terms, about the