FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142  
143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   >>  
g 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
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142  
143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   >>  



Top keywords:

marriage

 

promiscuity

 

present

 

Pirrauru

 

customs

 

points

 

Spencer

 
Urabunna
 

Obscure

 

Piraungaru


Australia
 

Gillen

 

purposes

 

patrilineal

 
criticise
 
Omahas
 

Westermarck

 

things

 

remarked

 

spoken


preceded

 

pretended

 

assert

 

adelphic

 
polygyny
 

statements

 

illegitimate

 
transformation
 

meaning

 

peculiar


concerned

 

perceive

 

transition

 

relationship

 

portion

 

distinguished

 

polygamy

 

grades

 
phratries
 

organisations


limited

 

regulations

 

existing

 

multitude

 

number

 

persons

 

groups

 

writers

 
understand
 

survivals