[340] _Nor. Tr._, p. 140. The same insufficiency of reasoning is shown by Howitt. He says in one place[341] that there is individual as well as group marriage among the Australian aborigines. But under the word marriage he understands the right of sexual access. And on this ground he asserts that among the Kurnai there existed individual marriages exclusively; and among the Dieri there was also group marriage. It is characteristic that no one of these writers tried to give any explicit definition of marriage; but from what I have quoted it appears quite clearly how one-sidedly and narrowly they conceived marriage.[342] And this conception was not only fatal to the theories and views held by them on the question, but it vitiated to a certain extent also the information they gave us about these facts. For they did not try to ascertain and to inform us about the most important particulars, which were perhaps not quite out of the reach of their investigation.[343] [341] _Trans. R.S.V._, p. 115. [342] In order to appreciate my argument, the reader is requested to peruse the passages referred to from the works of Howitt, and from Spencer and Gillen, and judge from their full text whether I am not right. The full quotations of these passages would have encumbered the present work. As polemics are always rather barren, I preferred to abstain from them. [343] This is an instance of the general truth that descriptive ethnography is highly dependent on the theories known and accepted by the investigator, and that information may be useful or useless according to whether the theoretical principles are correct or not. It is impossible for an observer to go below the surface if he does not discuss the phenomena and theorize on them. On the other hand such speculations, if carried on by the untrained faculties and unaided efforts of the writers, or under the influence of a theoretical prepossession, may be entirely misleading.