PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. LXVII 



object. I do not propose to deal with the totemic side of organi- 

 zation further than to say that in some tribes there is no restric- 

 tion in regard to the marriage of a man of one totem with a 

 woman of the same, and that it is quite possible, judging by 

 tradition, that in the early far-back days such was the normal 

 state, but that now, in the great majority, the marriage of indivi- 

 duals of the same totem is strictly forbidden. 



In some tribes the children inherit the totem of their father, 

 in others that of their mother; in others, the totems are so 

 arranged amongst the classes or sub-classes that they cannot 

 inherit either their father's or their mother's, whilst in others, 

 such as the Arunta, every individual is supposed to be the rein- 

 carnation of a particular ancestor whose totem he or she therefore 

 inherits. 



It must be remembered that Australia is of great extent. The 

 I^orthern Territory alone is four and a half times the size of 

 Great Britain. We may therefore expect to find considerable 

 differences amongst tribes spread over such a vast area in regard 

 to their customs and beliefs. Though this is so, yet we find, on 

 the other hand, a wonderful agreement in regard to the funda- 

 mental features of totemism and exogamy, and of the classificatory 

 system associated with the latter. 



I propose to deal only with the classificatory system, which can 

 be studied quite apart from totemism, though the latter has become 

 tacked on to it in various ways. 



With the rare exception of a few highly modified coastal tribes, 

 every one has a definite class organization. In the first place, 

 there is always a primary bisection of the tribe into two main 

 exogamous divisions; these may each again divide into two, and 

 each of these once more. This dichotomous division is the 

 characteristic and dominant feature of the organization of Aus- 

 tralian tribes. Various writers have applied different names to 

 the two primary divisions, such as phratry, class, and moiety. In 

 view of the fact that amongst American tribes the term phratry 

 has been applied to divisions, which may vary in number from 

 two to ten, and need not be even numbers, it is advisable to use, in 

 regard to Australian tribes, a term indicative of the fact that 

 there are two, and only two, primary divisions. For these, the 

 most suitable term is moiety, which emphasizes the dichotomy 

 without implying that each division is precisely equal in regard 

 to the number of its component members. The two divisions of 

 each moiety may conveniently be called classes and the divisions 

 o± these sub-classes. These three terms— moietv, class, and sub- 

 class—are simple, and cannot possibly be misleadino- 



