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
|