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 _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.

It has been mentioned above that the _pirrauru_ custom, so far from being an extension of the recognised practice of Australian tribes, is in some respects a limitation of it. We may now proceed to ill.u.s.trate this. Even among the Dieri the tribal festival on the occasion of an inter-tribal marriage is marked by free intercourse between the s.e.xes without regard to existing s.e.xual unions[181] (? either _tippa-malku_ or _pirrauru_). In the same way the Wiimbaio tribal gatherings were accompanied by regulated promiscuity, the cla.s.s rules being the only limitation. At others wives could be lent or temporarily exchanged by the husbands[182]. The Geawe-gal held festivals at which wives were lent to young men, subject to cla.s.s laws[183]. In other cases the exchange was limited to brothers or men of the same totem[184]. Among the Kamilaroi a wife was lent to friendly visitors but only with her consent. In all these cases we see a state of things similar to or not unlike the relations of the Dieri _pirrauru_ spouses, and it should be noted that it is at tribal gatherings that the latter can claim to exercise their rights. From this it appears that the Dieri custom amounts to an ear-marking of certain women for the use of certain men, and is consequently a limitation of the common custom; in consideration of the fact that the _pirrauru_ men protect them in the absence of their husbands, they are permitted at the same time to exercise marital rights, provided their own primary spouses are absent.

Among the Wiimbaio, when sickness was believed to be coming down the Murray[185], and among the Kurnai, when the _Aurora australis_ was seen[186], an exchange of wives was ordered by the old men to avert the threatened evil[187]. This is explained by Dr Howitt as a reversion to the ancient custom of group marriage. It is however not quite clear on what grounds it is necessary to treat it as a survival at all. If a day of prayer and fasting is ordered in order to avert national calamities, it does not follow that the nation in question was in the habit of perpetual prayer and fasting at some previous stage of its existence.

Moreover, if the magical rite was formerly the universal practice we may well ask what induced the tribes which believe in its efficacy to adopt a new form of marriage. _Ex hypothesi_, it is pleasing to Mungan, or good against disease; knowing this, they have not hesitated to abolish group marriage, but apparently without incurring Mungan's wrath, or bringing any epidemic upon them.

Among the Narrinyeri[188], the old men have a right of access to the newly initiated girls, but apparently Dr Howitt does not regard this as a survival. On the other hand the _narumbe_ (initiated youths), who may not at this period take wives, had unrestricted rights over the younger women, those "of his own cla.s.s and totem not excepted," and this Dr Howitt regards as a survival from the days of the undivided commune, though if it is so it is hard to see why they should have rights only over the younger women. The practice does not appear to differ from the free love found among the Dieri except in the absence of cla.s.s restrictions and its limitation to the period after initiation which is among many other peoples a period of s.e.xual licence.

Another group of customs, also interpreted by Dr Howitt as a survival of group marriage and an "expiation for individual marriage," calls for some discussion. It is unnecessary to refer here to the explanation of the _jus primae noctis_ suggested by Mr Crawley. It may be that the matter can also to some extent be explained as payment for services, in the same way as the _pirrauru_ relation shows some signs of being a _quid pro quo_.

In certain tribes access to the bride is permitted to men of the group of the husband. Among the Kuinmurbura they are the men who have aided the husband to carry off the woman[189]; and the same is the case with the Kurnandaburi and Kamilaroi tribes[190]. It is very significant that among the Narrinyeri the right of access only accrues in case of elopement and precisely to those men who actually give a.s.sistance in the abduction, a fact hard to explain on the theory of expiation[191]. Among the Mukjarawaint the right seems to belong to those of the same totem, but apparently the young men only[192]; but here too their position as accessories is quite clear, as indeed it must be in any tribe where the right accrues to men of the same totem. By all the rules of savage justice a punishment may be inflicted in these cases either on the offender himself or on the men of his totem. It is therefore not strange that they require from the abductor some return for the danger to which he exposes them, especially if they actually take part in the abduction.

An aberrant form of the custom is found among the Kurnai, among whom the _jus primae noctis_ falls to men initiated at the same _jeraeil_ as the bridegroom.

Among the Kurnandaburi there was a period of unrestricted licence after the exercise of the _jus primae noctis_, even the father of the bride being allowed access to her. This did not of course violate totem or phratry regulations. Dr Howitt does not comment on the case, but it would have been interesting to hear whether both these customs are to be regarded as survivals and if so what caused the duplication[193].

In estimating the value of the custom of _jus primae noctis_ as evidence of a prior state of group marriage, a custom of the Yuin should not be overlooked. If a man elopes with another man's betrothed he is punished by having to fight the girl's father, brothers, and mother's brother; the girl was sometimes punished by being beaten; all the men who pursued her had a right of access provided they were of the right totem and locality. If however the eloping couple were not caught they were not liable to punishment after a child was born. There is no mention of any _jus primae noctis_ where the marriage was the result of betrothal. In this case therefore the right of access is a punishment, so far as the girl is concerned; it is earned by taking part in the pursuit, a fact which confirms the suggested explanation of the right of access at marriage.

It should not be overlooked that this form of punishment is found among some tribes as the penalty for adultery[194], when it certainly cannot be interpreted as an expiation for individual marriage. This was the case among the Wotjoballuk, the Kamilaroi, and the Euahlayi.

We may now turn to the customs of the central and northern tribes visited by Messrs Spencer and Gillen. Except in the case of three of the north-eastern tribes the right of access accrues in connection with the _ariltha_ ceremony. It may be said at once that there is among these tribes no trace of access as payment for services; for on the rare occasions when a wife is captured she is allotted to an individual and becomes his property at once, according to a statement in the first work of Spencer and Gillen[195]. In the same work, it is true, this statement is contradicted by the a.s.sertion that on such occasions only the men of the right cla.s.s are allowed to have access[196]. But this statement does not seem to be based on any facts within the knowledge of the writers, for they make a definite statement to the contrary with regard to the Arunta customs, and it was with the Arunta that they were specially concerned, and in the later volume no further details are given, as they should have been, if the custom was found among any of the tribes visited on the second expedition.

The a.s.sociation of the right of access with the initiation ceremony is paralleled, as we have already seen, among other tribes. It hardly seems necessary to argue a state of primitive promiscuity from a custom of licence at the period of p.u.b.erty, which does not in fact differ, except in degree, from the licence normally enjoyed by the unmarried, and is readily explicable on other grounds than those suggested by Spencer and Gillen. If we are not prepared to regard this licence at p.u.b.erty, which may equally well have subsisted side by side with marriage or group promiscuity, as a mere expression of the newly attained s.e.xual rights, we have as an alternative the magical theory of Mr Crawley. I do not propose to dwell on this but will pa.s.s at once to discuss some points which seem to have escaped the notice of Spencer and Gillen when they proposed their hypothesis of promiscuity.

The essential point in connection with these ceremonies is the fact that access is not limited, as in the case of the Dieri, to men who might lawfully marry the woman. The right is restricted to men of six cla.s.ses out of the eight, including all four of the other moiety and the two of her own half of her own moiety. Now whatever else may be deduced from this, one thing is clear, and that is that the custom in its present form, at any rate, took its rise before the eight cla.s.ses were introduced but after the four cla.s.ses were already in existence and _a fortiori_ after the phratries were known. Consequently no argument for promiscuity can be founded on the right of access at initiation. It cannot be a survival from a time when no marriage regulations were known, for the simple reason that the custom itself bears unmistakeable traces of regulations of a comparatively advanced type. It may of course be argued that these limitations are of late origin. How far this is so and why such limitations should have been introduced it is impossible to say; but it is impossible to base an argument for primitive promiscuity on a state of things which is admittedly not primitive unless we have good _prima facie_ grounds for regarding the custom as a survival. There is nothing in the present case to show that it is not a magical rite.

At other times access is permitted in accordance with cla.s.s regulations, the husband's consent being necessary, if indeed he does not actually take the preliminary steps himself. We have seen that a similar state of things exists in other tribes. It does not seem necessary to look for the explanation further than the ordinary customs of savage hospitality, the desire to do a favour to men who may be useful. It is difficult to see why Spencer and Gillen regard the fact that women are lent in this way only to their _unawa_ as a proof of the former existence of group marriage. Clearly if intercourse is permitted only between certain persons before marriage and only certain persons are allowed to marry, we can hardly be surprised to find that these latter are restricted in the choice of men to whom they may lend their wives after marriage. The surprising thing would be if it were otherwise.

In addition, as in the tribes we have already considered, irregular access is practised for magical purposes in connection with the performance of ceremonies and the sending out of messengers. It has already been pointed out that we have no grounds for regarding such practices as survivals; for if we put on sackcloth and ashes as a penance for our misdeeds, it does not follow that this was ever the prevailing costume. It is even less possible to interpret the ritual lending of wives to messengers as a survival, for, _ex hypothesi_, the messengers were not of the group which "group-married," and messengers of any sort point to a stage when inter-tribal relations had made considerable advance and the tribes in question are hardly likely to have been still in the stage of the "undivided commune."

The survey of Australian customs and terms of relationship leads us to the conclusion that the former, so far from proving the present or even former existence of group marriage in that continent, do not even render it probable; on the latter no argument of any sort can be founded which a.s.sumes them to refer to consanguinity, kinship or affinity. It is therefore not rash to say that the case for group marriage, so far as Australia is concerned, falls to the ground. Even were it otherwise, even were group marriage proved for Australia or for any other part of the world, we should still be far from having established promiscuity and group marriage as a stage in the general history of mankind. For that at least a scheme of development is needed. Even were the arguments in favour of the group marriage hypothesis much stronger, its supporters might reasonably be asked to give us something more than a.s.sertion and rea.s.sertion without any attempt to show in detail the process of evolution. To take an example from another sphere, it may safely be said that the general theory of evolution would find few supporters if it were not possible to trace some existing species and genera back to some generalised type in the past. At present the position of a supporter of the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage is a.n.a.logous to that of an evolutionist who can only point to a few more or less useless peculiarities in the anatomy of man without being able to show resemblances between them and the corresponding portions of fossil or actually existing anthropoids. He calls them "vestiges[197]" and insists that _h.o.m.o_ is descended from a generalised anthropoid. The mere a.s.sertion of the vestigial character of such bones or organs would hardly carry conviction unless they could be shown to exist in some anthropoid in a more fully developed state. Similarly the arguments for promiscuity and group marriage suffer from incurable weakness, and would so suffer, even were the basis far more reliable than I have shown to be the case, unless and until it has been shown by what process and for what reasons man took each upward step. So far only one writer has attempted, and that nearly thirty years ago, to trace the course of human development on the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity, and his scheme is a house of cards.

The student of sociology is at a disadvantage compared with the zoologist in not being able to unearth his fossils for comparison with living forms. He must therefore trace the relationship between living forms, and, in seeking to discover the earlier stages of human progress, rely in part on the sociology of the higher mammals, in part on the possibility of showing a logical scheme of human development. When he examines the living forms he is of course unable to say whether actually existing savage inst.i.tutions are in the main line of human progress or merely bye-paths embryological or teratological. It may be possible to show that group marriage exists somewhere on the earth at the present time. Even if this is so, the theory of primitive promiscuity and group marriage as stages in the general history of mankind remain mere baseless guesses until we have a systematic account both of the causes which led to the various steps, and of the processes by which the various stages were reached.

FOOTNOTES:

[181] Howitt, p. 205.

[182] p. 214.

[183] p. 217.

[184] pp. 224, 260.

[185] p. 195.

[186] pp. 170, 277.

[187] Also among the Kurnandaburi, the Wonkamira, etc. _Journ. Anthr.