THE KEGULATION OF NUMBEES 203 



degree of co-operation. It remains to show that these races are 

 all, without exception, divided into groups which are strictly 

 limited to definite areas contrary to the still common notion 

 that they wander where they please and we may further note 

 that the inhabitants of these areas co-operate to a greater or less 

 degree in the search for food, and that there is a social obligation 

 upon each man to do his share. We may review the evidence, 

 beginning with the first point, which is of such importance that 

 it may be treated at some length. 



It is both misleading and dangerous to apply terms carrying 

 modern legal conceptions to these races ; unfortunately, any 

 terms that may be used are to some extent biased. We have, 

 however, somehow to describe the results of investigation into 

 the customs of these races, and it has been found that among 

 all these races, without exception, groups of men are recognized 

 as, if not owning, then as enjoying the usufruct of certain very 

 clearly defined areas. According to Ling Both it is not clear 

 whether the Tasmanian tribes had any definite hunting grounds 

 or not. 1 Bonwick confidently asserts that it was so, 2 and Wheeler 

 thinks that the conditions in Tasmania were probably the same 

 as in Australia. 3 From Australia we have abundant evidence ; 

 the facts recorded from different parts of the continent vary 

 considerably, and we must either believe that customs differed 

 from place to place, which is not at all unlikely, or that many 

 observers are mistaken, which, considering the positive nature 

 of their assertions, is not very probable. Wheeler has reviewed 

 the evidence and sums up his conclusions as follows : * Our 

 information shows the existence in some, at any rate, of the 

 areas of Australia of what must be held to be private ownership 

 in land, but it does not follow that the whole of the tribal territory 

 was so allotted. The unit would generally be the individual 

 family, but there are a few indications that the ownership might 

 even be vested in single persons within the family, other than 

 the head. The clearest mentions of individual or of family 

 ownership seem to come from the south-eastern area, where the 

 physiographic conditions are most varied, and where, in con- 

 sequence, fishing rights become important. But it seems likewise 

 that the rights of families or of individuals, as also those of local 



1 Ling Roth, Tasmania, p. 116. 2 Bonwick, loc. cit., p. 83. 3 Wheeler, 



Tribe in Australia, p. 35. 



