[Footnote 32: _Totemism_, p. 83.] [Footnote 33: _L’Année Sociologique_, v. 92.] [Footnote 34: Spencer and Gillen, p. 419.] [Footnote 35: _J. A. I._, N.S., i. 285.] [Footnote 36: Spencer and Gillen, p. 120.] [Footnote 37: _J. A. I._, N.S., i., nos. 3, 4, p. 276.] [Footnote 38: _J. A. I._, N.S., i. 276-277.] [Footnote 39: _Native Tribes of Australia_, pp. 396-402, 421.] [Footnote 40: _Native Tribes of Australia_, p. 418.] [Footnote 41: _Op. cit._ p 279.] CHAPTER IV ARUNTA PHRATRIES AND TOTEMS The essential question is, why, among the more archaic Urabunna, do the large exogamous divisions never include the same totems, whereas, among the more highly developed Arunta, they do? If we can show how the Arunta, if once organised on the Urabunna and North American model, came to slip out of it; while we cannot show how the Urabunna, and most other tribes, if once on the Arunta model, came to desert it (as they must have done), then it will seem probable that the Urabunna organisation, the regular universal Australian organisation, is the older. The sequence of events, as understood by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, was this, or, at least, may thus be conceived. We take two tribes, say Urabunna and Arunta. They both have many totem groups, totemic, because (on this theory) each group had, for its ‘primary function,’ the working of magic for the object which was its totem. The totem had primarily, on this theory, no relation to marriage rules. It is ‘quite possible’ that certain persons then deliberately introduced exogamous divisions.... ‘so as to regulate marital relations.’ The exact purpose, however, is unknown; ‘it can only be said that far back in the early history of mankind, there was felt the need of some form of organisation, and that this gradually resulted in the development of exogamic groups.’ This position I have already criticised; it is not intelligible to me. However--the exogamous division was made, and then all the totems might be arranged separately in the two divisions, by the Urabunna, ‘and perhaps the majority of Australian tribes’ (and the American tribes) or, ‘this was not done,’ as by the Arunta. Consequently, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen think, the rule which prevents an Urabunna man from marrying a woman of his own totem, has nothing, primarily, to do with the totem, but is a mere inevitable consequence of the system which, among all tribes but the Arunta, excluded each totem from one of the two exogamous divisions, and placed it (not among the Arunta) in the other. My own system--I need not reiterate it--is the reverse of all this. The Arunta, I contend, probably had, originally, the usual organisation, but have lost it for obvious reasons, so that now the same totem may occur in both of the large exogamous divisions, and persons of the same totem may now intermarry.