Part 16 (1/2)

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 relations.h.i.+p.

[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 _wrukut_, and this seems to be the ordinary term.

[171] t.i.tular _maian_ is Dr Howitt's phrase.

[172] Dr Howitt's statement on p. 281 that the widow invariably pa.s.ses to the brother is contradicted by pa.s.sages on pp. 227 and 248.

[173] Dr Howitt (p. 176) does not admit this to be correct, but cf. his att.i.tude 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 s.e.x 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.

CHAPTER XIV.

TEMPORARY UNIONS.

Wife lending. Initiation ceremonies. _Jus primae noctis._ Punishment for adultery. _Ariltha_ of central tribes. Group marriage unproven.