PIRRAURU.
Theories of group marriage. Meaning of group. Dieri customs. Tippa-malku
marriage. Obscure points. _Pirrauru._ Obscure points. Relation of
_pirrauru_ to _tippa-malku_ unions. Kurnandaburi. Wakelbura customs.
Kurnai organisation. Position of widow. _Piraungaru_ of Urabunna.
_Pirrauru_ and group marriage. _Pirrauru_ not a survival. Result of
scarcity of women. Duties of _Pirrauru_ spouses. _Piraungaru_:
obscure points.
We now come to the marriage customs of the Australian natives of the
present day and the supposed survivals of group marriage. In dealing
with the question of group marriage we are met with a preliminary
difficulty. No one has formulated a definition of this state, and the
interpretations of the term are very diverse.
Fison, for example, says[152] group marriage does not necessarily imply
actual giving in marriage or cohabitation; all it means is a marital
right or rather qualification which comes by birth. He argues however on
a later page[153] that Nair polyandry, which is more properly termed
promiscuity, is group marriage. Much the same view is taken by A.H.
Post[154], who regards the theory of pure promiscuity and the undivided
commune as untenable.
Kohler, on the other hand[155], speaks of group marriage as existing
among the Omahas, a patrilineal tribe, be it remarked; but means by that
no more than adelphic polygyny.
Spencer and Gillen criticise Westermarck's use of the term "pretended
group marriage" and assert it to be a fact among the Urabunna. On the
very next page group marriage is spoken of as having preceded the
present state of things. Both statements cannot be true.
For the purposes of the present work I understand group marriage to mean
promiscuity limited by regulations based on organisations such as
age-grades, phratries, totem-kins, or local groups.
The fact is that Spencer and Gillen and other writers on Australia use
the term group merely as a noun of multitude. They do not mean by group,
in one sense, anything more than a number of persons. In this sense they
speak of group marriage (=polygamy) at the present day--a fact which is
not peculiar to Australia and which no one is concerned to deny. By a
quite illegitimate transformation of meaning they also apply the term
group to a portion of a tribe distinguished by a class name and (or or)
term of relationship and mean by group marriage class promiscuity. They
do not even perceive that they make this transition, for otherwise
Messrs Spencer and Gillen could hardly assail Dr Westermarck for using
the term "pretended group marriage" which is quite accurate as a
description of group (=class) marriage or promiscuity. Even if there
were justification for assuming that group marriage (=polygamy) is a
lineal descendant of group marriage (=class promiscuity), nothing would
be gained by using the term group marriage of both. In the subsequent
discussion it will be made clear that whatever their causal connection,
there is hardly a single point of similarity between them beyond the
fact that the sexual relations are in neither case monogamous. It is
therefore to be hoped that the supporters of the hypothesis of group
marriage will in the future encourage clear thinking by not using the
same term for different forms of sexual union.
I now proceed to discuss the alleged survival of group marriage and
other Australian marriage customs.
Taking the Dieri tribe as our example the following state of things is
found to prevail. The tribe is divided into exogamous moieties, Matteri
and Kararu; subject to restrictions dependent on kinship, with which we
are not immediately concerned, any Matteri may marry any Kararu. A
reciprocal term, _noa_[156], is in use to denote the status of those who
may marry each other. This _noa_ relationship is sometimes cited as a
proof of the existence of group marriage. As a matter of fact it is no
more evidence of group marriage than the fact that a man is _noa_ to all
the unmarried women of England except a few, is proof of the existence
of group marriage in England; or the fact that _femme_ in French means
both wife and woman is an argument for the existence of promiscuity in
France in Roman or post-Roman times.
A ceremony, usually performed in infancy or childhood, changes the
relationship of a _noa_ male and female from _noa-mara_ to
_tippa-malku_. The step is taken by the mothers with the concurrence of
the girl's maternal uncles, and is in fact betrothal. Apparently no
further ceremony is necessary to constitute a marriage. At any rate
nothing is said as to that.
In connection with this form of marriage there are two points of
importance to be noted. The first is that whereas a man may have as many
_tippa-malku_ wives as he can get, a woman cannot have more than one
_tippa-malku_ husband, at any rate not at the same time. After the
husband's death she may again enter into the _tippa-malku_ relation. The
second point is that the _tippa-malku_ relation must precede the
_pirrauru_ relation, of which I shall speak in a moment, and cannot
succeed it[157].
There are unfortunately many points in Dr Howitt's narrative which
demand elucidation. He says, for example, that _noa_ individuals become
"_tippa-malku_ for the time being[158]." This suggests, probably
erroneously, that the _tippa-malku_ relation is merely temporary; but I
am unable to say whether it in reality means that the _tippa-malku_
relation is terminated by the capture of the woman, or that divorce is
practised and may terminate the relationship at the will of the man only
or of both parties.
Another point on which we have no information is the position of the
unmarried girls and widows. Free love is permitted, the only
limitation[159] given by Dr Howitt being that the man (who must of
course have passed through the Mindari ceremony) must not be
_tippa-malku_ to the girl, but must be _noa-mara_. It would be
interesting to know whether girls in the _tippa-malku_ relation before
actual marriage are at liberty to have sexual relations with any men of
the right status or only with unmarried men, or whether the privilege is
restricted to those who are not yet _tippa-malku_ to any one, and how
far the same restriction applies to the men.
Any man who has been duly initiated, whether he is married to a
_tippa-malku_ wife or not, and any woman who has a _tippa-malku_
husband[160], can enter or be put into a relation termed _pirrauru_ with
one or more persons of the opposite sex. The effect of the
ceremony--termed _kandri_--is to give to the _pirrauru_ spouses the
position of subsidiary husbands and wives, whose rights take precedence
of the _tippa-malku_ rights at tribal gatherings, but at other times can
only be exercised in the absence of the _tippa-malku_ spouse, or, when
the male is unmarried, with the permission of the _tippa-malku_ husband
of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
The _pirrauru_ relation is, for the woman, a modification of a
previously existing _tippa-malku_ marriage; that being so, it cannot be
quoted as evidence of a more pristine state of things in which she was
by birth the legal and actual spouse of all men of a certain tribal
status.
The _pirrauru_ relation falls under two heads of the classification I
have given above, according as the man has or has not a _tippa-malku_
wife. In the first case, it is, taken in combination with the
_tippa-malku_ marriage, a case of bi-lateral adelphic dissimilar (M. and
F.) polygamy. In the latter it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal)
polyandry, adelphic being taken here, be it noted, in the sense of
tribal, and possibly, but not necessarily, own brother.
Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes
contradictory. We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a _pirrauru_
is always a brother's wife or a wife's sister (they are usually the
same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their
wives[161]. But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can
also become _pirraurus_. It appears further that a woman may ask for a
_pirrauru_, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear. It
is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the
arrangement. Further we find that important men have many _pirrauru_
wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention.
Then again we are told that when two new _pirrauru_ pairs are allotted
to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted. Are we to understand
from this that the allocation of new _pirraurus_ is a rare event or that
the _pirrauru_ relationship is a very temporary affair? Or does
re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over? If the latter,
the terminology is very unfortunate. Gason's statement is perfectly
clear: once a _pirrauru_, always a _pirrauru_[162]. Again does it imply
that the wishes[163] of the already existing _pirraurus_ are consulted
in the matter or not? If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy
between _pirraurus_, especially when one of them (the male) is
unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one
another. Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother's wife
as his _pirrauru_, giving presents to his brother. Does this imply that
the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse
it, or that it is purchased? Again we read "a man is privileged to
obtain a number of wives from his _noas_ in common with the other men of
his group, while a woman's wish can only be carried out with the consent
of her _tippa-malku_ husband." This latter statement clearly implies
that a man can obtain a _pirrauru_ without the consent of the
_tippa-malku_ husband, but this contradicts what has already been told
us about the exchange by brothers of their wives. Exchange is clearly
not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the
matter, it is rather a transfer. These are by no means all the unsettled
questions on which light is needed. What, for example, is the position
of a _pirrauru_ wife whose _tippa-malku_ husband dies? Does she pass to
a new _tippa-malku_ husband? If so, must he be an ex-_pirrauru_? Does
she continue in the _pirrauru_ relation to her former _pirraurus_,
regardless of her new husband's wishes? Can the _pirrauru_ relationship
be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?
With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves
fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special
ceremony is necessary to make the _pirrauru_ relation legal; this is
performed by the head or heads of the men's totems, and need not be
described here.
With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the
_tippa-malku_ spouse always takes precedence of the _pirrauru_ spouse.
Where two men are _pirrauru_ to the same woman, the _tippa-malku_
husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share
his rights and duties with the younger. It is the duty of the _pirrauru_
husband to protect a woman during the absence of her _tippa-malku_
husband.
A woman cannot refuse to take a _pirrauru_ who has been regularly
allotted to her. In her _tippa-malku_ husband's absence the _pirrauru_
husband takes his place as a matter of right. He cannot however take her
away from the _tippa-malku_ husband without his consent except at
certain ceremonial times[164]. One other fact may be noted. An
influential man hires out his _pirraurus_ to those who have none.
Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well
to mention the analogous customs of the only two tribes outside the
Dieri nation where the same relation is asserted to exist, and certain
cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all probability, as on the same
level as the _pirrauru_ custom. In the Kurnandaburi, according to an
informant of Dr Howitt's, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers
and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united,
apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe
assembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other times[165].
Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with
his sister-in-law (wife's sister or brother's wife), although they are
in the relation of _Kodi-molli_ and practise a modified avoidance. This
he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage. It is not however clear
that it is more than what we have called a liaison. Our authority does
not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet
that any ceremony initiates the relations[166]. In the absence of these
details we cannot regard his view as probable. It may however be noted
that the widow in this tribe passes to the brother.
The only other case of "group marriage" which Dr Howitt gives[167] is in
the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland. Here however, so far from being
group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic
polyandry. A man's unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties,
the child is said to term them its father. It may however be pointed out
that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would
do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any
other man besides the primary husband.
It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we
have is neither precise nor free from contradiction. A most essential
point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the
_pirrauru_ relationship. Among the Dieri the men may be of different
totems. Is this the case among the Wakelbura? Was it always the case
among the Dieri?
Before we leave Dr Howitt's work it is necessary to refer again to the
Kurnai. The most important point in connection with the Kurnai, so far
as the present work is concerned, is that, contradictory to Bulmer's
statement[168] that unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives,
and sometimes even married men, Dr Howitt mentions[169] as a singular
fact that he recalls one instance of a wife being lent in that tribe.
Dr Howitt however holds that there are traces of group marriage in the
tribe, and refers to the fact that the term _maian_[170] is applied to a
wife by her husband and by his brother, whose "official wife[171]" she
is thus declared to be, and that a brother takes his deceased brother's
widow. He regards this rather unfortunately named custom of the levirate
as having its root in group marriage. Now _maian_ is applied, not only
by a husband to a wife, but by a wife to her husband's sister, and by a
sister to her brother's wife. If therefore the use of the term proves
anything, it proves, not group marriage, as Dr Howitt understands it,
but promiscuity, the prior existence of the undivided commune, and this,
as we have seen, Dr Howitt declines to accept on the strength of the
philological argument.
We are therefore reduced to the levirate as a proof of the former
existence of group marriage. But there is nothing whatever to show that
it is not a case of inheritance of property. For the Australians, as for
many other savage peoples, the married state is the only thinkable one
for the adult, and that being so it is natural for the widow to remarry.
She has however been purchased by the exchange of a woman in the
relation of sister to the deceased, and if the widow were allowed to
pass to another group, the property thus acquired would be alienated.
Moreover the marriage regulations require the woman to marry only a
tribal brother of the deceased. It is therefore in every way natural for
a brother to succeed to a brother. No arguments for the prior existence
of group marriage can be founded on the levirate, any more than an
argument for primitive communism can be founded on other laws of
inheritance. At most the _maian_ relationship is evidence of adelphic
polygyny[172].
For the Urabunna we depend on the information gained by Spencer and
Gillen on their first expedition. Here the circle from which a man takes
his wife is much more restricted than among the Dieri. Not only is he
bound to choose a woman of the other moiety of the tribe, but he is
restricted to a certain totem[173] in that moiety, and to the daughters
of his mother's elder brothers (tribal) in that totem. Hence although
the _kami_ relationship of the Dieri is unknown among the Urabunna, the
choice among the latter is more limited.
The marriageable group is termed _nupa_ by both men and women; in
addition to the _nupa_ relationship and the unnamed individual marriage,
into which a man enters with one or more of his _nupa_, there is the
_piraungaru_ relationship, corresponding to the _pirrauru_ of the Dieri.
In each case the elder brothers of the woman decide who are to have the
primary and who the secondary right to the female. In the case of the
_piraungaru_ however the matter requires confirmation by the old men of
the tribe. The circumstances under which the _piraungaru_ claims take
the first rank are not stated by Messrs Spencer and Gillen; the
statement that a man lends his _piraungaru_ need not, of course, refer
to times at which he himself cannot claim the right of access[174].
We may now turn to a discussion of the bearing of the facts just cited
on the question of "group marriage." The first point is naturally that
of nomenclature, and we at once recognise that among the Dieri the
relations of the _pirrauru_ are not marriage, either on the definition
suggested by Dr Westermarck or on that given in Chapter XI of the
present work. If two _tippa-malku_ pairs are reciprocally in _pirrauru_,
the only relations between them, unless the _tippa-malku_ husbands
absent themselves or are complaisant, are, strictly speaking, those of
temporary regulated polygamy or promiscuity, and rather a restriction
than an extension of similar customs in other tribes, as I shall show
below.
A second point of a similar nature is that the parties to a _pirrauru_
union are in no sense a group[175]. They are not united by any bond,
local, totemistic, tribal, or otherwise. The theoretical "group
marriage"--the union of all the _noa_--does, in a sense, refer to a
group, though this term properly refers rather to a body of people
distinguished by residence or some other _local_ differentia from other
persons or groups. But no distinction of this kind can in any sense be
affirmed of the _pirrauru_ spouses; it cannot be said of them that they
are in any way distinguished from the remainder of their tribe, phratry,
class or totem-kin. From this it follows that the term class-marriage
cannot be applied to the relation between the _pirrauru_, nor yet class
promiscuity; the _pirrauru_, though members of a certain class, do not
include all members of that class.
Turning now to the custom itself, let us examine how far it presents any
marks of being a survival of a previous state of class promiscuity.
_Pirrauru_ relations are regarded by Dr Howitt and others as survivals
from a previous stage of "group," by which we must, presumably,
understand class or status marriage, or promiscuity. So far as they are
evidence of this, the _pirrauru_ customs are certainly important. If
however it cannot be shown that they probably point to some form of
promiscuity, they have but little importance except as a freak or
exceptional development of polyandry and polygyny.
Let us recall the distinguishing features of the _pirrauru_ union. They
are (1) consent of the husband (?); (2) recognition by the totem-kin
through its head-man; (3) temporary character[176]; (4) priority of the
_tippa-malku_ union in the case of the woman; (5) purchase of _pirrauru_
rights by (_a_) the brother who becomes a widower, and (_b_) visitors or
others without _pirraurus_ of their own, the rights being in the latter
case for a very short period and not dependent on recognition by the
totem-kin, so far as Dr Howitt's narrative is a guide. Now unless "group
marriage" was very different from what it is commonly represented to be,
the essence of it was that all the men of one class had sexual rights
over the women of another class. How far does this picture coincide with
the features of the _pirrauru_, which is regarded as a survival of it?
In the first place _pirrauru_ is created by a ceremony, which is
performed, not by the head, nor even in the Wakelbura tribe, by a member
of the supposed intermarried classes of the earlier period; but by the
heads of the totem-kins of the individual men concerned. Now it is quite
unthinkable that the right of class promiscuity, to use the correct
term, should ever have been exercised subject to any such restriction;
even were it otherwise the performance of the ceremony would more
naturally fall into the hands of tribal, phratriac, or class authorities
than of the heads of totem-kins. Then too if _pirrauru_ is a survival of
group marriage we should expect the ceremony to be performed for the
_tippa-malku_ union and not for the _pirrauru_.
Again if _tippa-malku_ is later and _pirrauru_ earlier, what is the
meaning of the regulation that the woman must first be united in
_tippa-malku_ marriage before she can enter into the _pirrauru_
relationship? On the "group marriage" theory this fact demands to be
explained, no less than the different position of men and women in this
respect. We have seen that freedom in sexual matters is accorded to both
bachelors and spinsters. It is therefore from no sense of the value of
chastity, from no jealousy of the future _tippa-malku_ husband's rights,
that the female is excluded from the _pirrauru_ relation until she has a
husband.
Again, if _pirrauru_ is a relic of former rights, now restricted to a
few of the group which formerly exercised them, why is the husband's
consent needed before the _pirrauru_ relation is set up, and why is the
_pirrauru_ relation, once established, not permanent (assuming that my
reading of Dr Howitt is right)?
Once more, if _pirrauru_ is a right, how comes it that a brother has to
purchase the right, when he becomes a widower[177]? What too is the
meaning of the transference of _pirrauru_ women to strangers in return
for gifts?
All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival
theory, and we may add to them the fact that the _tippa-malku_ husband,
so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains
his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother's
brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are
not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the
introduction of individual marriage. When we consider that the _jus
primae noctis_ is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the
position of the _tippa-malku_ husband and the method in which he obtains
his wife are exceedingly instructive.
Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what
other way the facts can be explained. The unfortunate lack of detail to
which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any
counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from
the facts already at our disposal. We have seen that in the Wakelbura
tribe, so far from the condition being one of "group marriage," it is
one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry. Now it is by no means easy to see
how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which,
according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity. On the
other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found
in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other
regions, the result of a scarcity of women[178], or, what is the same
thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the
independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28
or 30.
With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is
required to purchase his _pirrauru_ rights, that the young man without
_pirrauru_ wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one
of his _pirrauru_ spouses, and that the _tippa-malku_ marriage always
precedes the _pirrauru_ relation in the female. It may indeed be urged
against the view that the purchase of a temporary _pirrauru_ is in fact
not a case of _pirrauru_ at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of
hospitality among savage nations. This is no doubt the case and we might
merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of sexual
rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia. Looked at from another
point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive. So
far as Dr Howitt's statements go, the husband of the _pirrauru_ who is
thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter. The _pirrauru_
husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she
were a slave. On the theory of group marriage the _tippa-malku_ husband
has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the _pirrauru_
husband. In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the
transaction. It is true that in the case we are considering the
_pirrauru_ husband seems to have exceptional privileges, for we have
seen that under ordinary circumstances the _tippa-malku_ husband has
exclusive rights at ordinary times. But we must probably understand the
passage to mean that the lending of _pirraurus_ takes place at tribal
meetings[179] or on other occasions when the right of the husband is in
abeyance. In either case, the facts tell far more strongly in favour of
the view suggested here than in favour of group marriage.
There is another factor to be considered. Abductions and elopements are
merely ordinary amenities of married life among the aborigines of
Australia. We have seen that it is the duty of the _pirrauru_ husband to
protect the wife during the absence of the _tippa-malku_ husband.
Clearly this is a sort of insurance against the too bold suitor or the
too fickle wife, unless indeed the _pirrauru_ himself is the offender, a
point on which Dr Howitt has nothing to say, though Mr Siebert's
evidence may be fairly interpreted to mean that such occurrences are
not known.
We shall see below in connection with the question of the _jus primae
noctis_ that special privileges are sometimes accorded to men of the
husband's totem or class in return for assistance in capturing the wife.
Now assuming that a wife is abducted or elopes, it is, I think, on the
same persons that the duty of aiding the injured husband would fall.
Whether this is so or not, the men of his own totem are those with whom
a man's relations are, in most tribes, the closest. We have seen that
the heads of the totem-kins play an important part in assigning
_pirraurus_. Now although it is actually the practice for men of
different totems to exchange wives, it by no means follows that it was
always the case. The element of adelphic polyandry, for example, may
well have upset the original relations and brought about a practice of
exchange between men of different totems. At any rate the theory here
suggested affords an explanation of the part played by the totem
headmen, and on the theory of group marriage their share in the
transaction remains absolutely mysterious.
In connection with these possible explanations of the _pirrauru_ custom,
it is important to observe that there are duties in regard to food owed
by the _pirrauru_ wife to her spouse, when her husband is absent. Now it
is hardly conceivable that in a state of "group marriage" any such
practice should have obtained. A woman would doubtless have collected
food for the man with whom she was actually cohabiting; but in the case
of the _pirrauru_ relation, the absence of the _tippa-malku_ wife of her
_pirrauru_ spouse must coincide with the absence of her own
_tippa-malku_ husband before this position is reached. So long as only
one _tippa-malku_ partner is absent, the _pirrauru_ spouse is under the
obligation of lightening the labours of the woman whose place she
sometimes occupies, and this is very far from what we should expect in
the "group marriage" stage.
On the whole therefore I conclude that the _pirrauru_ relation affords
absolutely no evidence of a prior stage of group marriage. So far from
the quantity of evidence for group marriage having been increased by Dr
Howitt's recent book, it has undergone a diminution. Gason had
stated[180] that tribal brothers had the right of access in the absence
of the husband without first being made _pirrauru_. This, if correct,
would have been much nearer group marriage than the actual facts; the
statement however appears to be incorrect, if we may judge by the fact
that Dr Howitt has silently dropped it.
Of the _piraungaru_ relation but little can be said, mainly for the
reason that our information is so scanty. We do not learn, for example,
if it is temporary or permanent, if the consent of the woman is needed,
if she ever asks her husband for a certain _piraungaru_, or if she
applies rather to her elder brothers. We do not know what becomes of the
_piraungaru_ when the primary spouse dies, whether the brother can claim
a right to his brother's wife as _piraungaru_ on giving presents,
whether married and unmarried alike enter into the relationship, whether
a woman can become _piraungaru_ before she has a special husband,
whether relations of free love are barred between a man and his
prospective wife and permitted with other _nupa_ women, and a host of
other questions. We do not even learn when access is permitted to a
_piraungaru_ spouse. We have, it is clear, far too few data to be able
to estimate the value of the dictum of Messrs Spencer and Gillen that
"individual marriage does not exist either in name or in practice in the
Urabunna tribe." If their views are based only on the facts they have
given us, they have clearly overlooked a number of essential points; if,
on the other hand, they took other facts into consideration, we may
reasonably ask to be put in possession of the whole case.
FOOTNOTES:
[152] _Aust. Ass._ IV, 689.
[153] _Ib._ p. 717.
[154] _Ausland_, 1891, p. 843.
[155] _Zts. Vgl. Rechtsw._ XII, 268.
[156] The statement, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 55, that a man and woman
become _noa_ by betrothal is clearly erroneous.
[157] _Nat. Tribes_, p. 181. This was not brought out by Dr Howitt's
paper of 1890 in _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, and is denied in _Folklore_
XVII, 174 sq. by Dr Howitt himself; see my criticism, _ib._ 294 sq.
[158] p. 179.
[159] p. 187. Subject to the girl having passed the _wilpadrina_
ceremony. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.
[160] But see p. 129, n. 2.
[161] This is in contradiction with the statement (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._
XX, 56) that the various couples are not consulted. We also learn (_loc.
cit._ p. 62) that the exercise of marital rights by own tribal brothers
is independent of their _pirrauru_ relation. The order of precedence is
(1) _tippa-malku_, (2) _pirrauru_, (3) brothers.
[162] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 57.
[163] Howitt says (p. 182) that each of a pair of _pirrauru_ watch each
other carefully to prevent more _pirrauru_ relations arising.
[164] In the Urabunna tribe a woman is lent irrespective of _piraungaru_
to all _nupa_, _Nor. Tr._ p. 63. It is therefore a matter of no moment
even if the consent of the primary husband is never refused at
non-ceremonial times.
[165] It appears, however (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 62), to be only on
ceremonial (Muni) occasions that anything like general intercourse
occurs, termed Wira-jinka, then it is promiscuous. The Dippa-malli
relation is not permanent (_Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61), and the
_mebaia_ husband receives a present. If the Dippa-malli "group" is not
permanent, it does not appear why Dr Howitt speaks of a "group" at all.
[166] In the absence of these there is nothing to distinguish the
practice from the adultery which prevails among the Dieri (p. 187), in
which Dr Howitt does _not_ see a survival of group marriage or
promiscuity.
[167] He mentions the _pira_ marriage of the Yandairunga in _Journ.
Anthr. Inst._ XX, 60, but drops it in _Native Tribes_. It is unfortunate
that we never learn why Dr Howitt omits to mention facts which he has
previously published. Are we to infer that the previous statements are
erroneous in every case? If so, _pirrauru_ must be a temporary
relationship.
[168] Curr, III.
[169] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 61, n. 2.
[170] Dr Howitt's argument from the use of _maian_ raises a difficulty.
Twenty-five years ago he stated (Brough Smyth, II, 323) that among the
Brabrolung a wife was termed _wrūkŭt_, and this seems to be the ordinary
term.
[171] Titular _maian_ is Dr Howitt's phrase.
[172] Dr Howitt's statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably passes
to the brother is contradicted by passages on pp. 227 and 248.
[173] Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but cf. his
attitude on p. 188.
[174] But cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 58 n.; this may, however, have
been regarded as a ceremonial occasion, though there is no other
evidence of such being the case.
[175] Properly speaking group marriage should mean that all persons in a
local group live in polygamy, a state not far removed indeed from
promiscuity, the boundary between which and polygamy I cannot undertake
to discuss here, or else that the whole of one group is united in
marriage to those of the opposite sex in another group.
[176] This is uncertain, as I have already intimated.
[177] This tells strongly in favour of my theory. The unmarried youth
gets his _pirrauru_ free, for he will reciprocate the attention later.
The man who has lost his wife and can make no return purchases the
right.
[178] Cf. Curr, III, 546.
[179] Cf. _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 73.
[180] _Journ. Anthr. Inst._ XX, 56.