these controversies, and of the probable light thrown on them by the
full description of the Euahlayi tribe. The two chief points in dispute
are (1) the nature and origin of the marriage laws of the Australians;
and (2) the nature and origin of such among their ideas and practices
as may be styled 'religious.' As far as what we commonly call material
civilisation is concerned, the natives of the Australian continent are
probably the most backward of mankind, having no agriculture, no
domestic animals, and no knowledge of metal-working. Their weapons and
implements are of wood, stone, and bone, and they have not even the
rudest kind of pottery. But though the natives are all, in their
natural state, on or about this common low level, their customary laws,
ceremonials, and beliefs are rich in variety.

As regards marriage rules they are in several apparently ascending
grades of progress. First we have tribes in which each person is born
into one or other of two social divisions usually called 'phratries.'
Say that the names of the phratries mean Eagle Hawk and Crow. Each

born Crow must marry an Eagle Hawk; each born Eagle Hawk must marry a
Crow. The names are derived through the mothers. One obvious result is
that no two persons, brother and sister maternal, can intermarry; but
the rule also excludes from intermarriage great numbers of persons in
no way akin to each other by blood, who merely share the common phratry
name, Crow or Eagle Hawk.

In each phratry are smaller sets of persons, each set distinguished by
the name of some animal or other natural object, their 'totem.' The
same totem is never found in both phratries. Thus a person marrying out
of his or her phratry, as all must do, necessarily marries out of his
or her totem.