he
hypothesis of group marriage what differentiates this case from those in
which they have no doubt of the validity of the philological argument.

Now if Dr Howitt's doubts as to the interpretation to be put upon the
Kurnai terms of relationship are correct, we may reasonably, in the
absence of proof that they originated in a different way from the
Malayan terms, ask ourselves upon what basis the case for promiscuity
rests. Beyond a few customs, and it will be shown below that it is
unnecessary to regard them as survivals of a period when marriage was
unknown, the proof is purely philological, and on examination the
philological proof is found to be wanting.

Dr Howitt, in his recent book, rests the case for the undivided commune
(i.e. promiscuity) on the Australian terms of relationship which he
discusses, viz. those of the Dieri and the Kurnai. He will not admit
that the Kurnai terms point to the undivided commune; we are therefore
left with the Dieri terms. But the Dieri organisation, so far from being
that of an undivided commune, is the two-phratry arrangement by which a
man is by no means free to marry any woman in his tribe, but is limited
to one-half of the women; further, tribal customs limit his choice still
further and compel him to marry his mother's mother's brother's
daughter's daughter (these terms do not refer to blood but so-called
"tribal" relationship, i.e. it is a woman with a certain tribal status
whom he has to marry). Where then does Dr Howitt find his proof of
promiscuity?

We have, it is true, a certain number of tribal legends, according to
which the phratry organisation was instituted to prevent the marriage
of too near kin. But, quite apart from the fact that tribal legends are
not evidence, the legends merely point to a period when marriage was
unregulated, when a man was free to marry any woman, not when he was _de
facto_ or _de jure_ the husband of every woman. Even if it be proved
beyond question that marriage was once unregulated, it does not follow
that promiscuity prevailed.

The existence of the undivided commune is a proof of promiscuity only
for those who discover proofs of group marriage in the divided commune,
in other words in the terms of relationship and the customs of the
ordinary two-phratry tribe of the present day. We may therefore let the
decision of the question of the validity of terms of relationship as a
proof of extensive connubial activities rest upon the discus