standing, arising through the mistakes of those who have gathered information, without due knowledge, and have confused the native terms with ours.
This is strongly brought out in the late Mr. E. M. Curr's work The Australian Race,[1] where it is stated that there are terms in the native tribes which are the equivalents of our collective terms, such as "uncle," "aunt," "nephew," "niece," "sister-in-law," and "son-in-law."
An examination of the table given at p. 141 of his work shows that the compilers were ignorant of the meaning of the terms they gave, as well as of the principles of the classificatory system. They seem to have endeavoured to give a term as near as possible to the "collective terms," in Mr. Curr's circular; but one contributor (the late Rev. George Taplin) takes the trouble to distinguish between the paternal and maternal uncles. It greatly detracts from the usefulness and value of Mr. Curr's work that he did not make himself aware of the native system of relationships. His work requires to be read with knowledge, in order for it to be a safe guide in Australian anthropology.
A mere list of the terms of relationship would not give all that I desire to make clear regarding the system in use by the aborigines. Deductions from such lists of terms are always open to the objection of being more or less theoretical, although to those who have a personal knowledge of the Australian savages and their customs, no further evidence is now necessary to prove that the terms represent a great living fact.
The Dieri System
In order to bring into view the relationships of an existing people, in present and past generations, I requested Mr. Siebert to be so good as to tabulate four generations of the Dieri tribe, taking as the starting-point the marriages of two brothers and their two sisters, and their descendants down to the great-grandchildren. He most kindly not only did this, but also tabulated a number of cases illustrating points which arose in the critical examination of the results.
- ↑ Vol. i. p. 140.
