Kinship Organisations and Group Marriage in Australia Part 15

In connection with this form of marriage there are two points of importance to be noted. The first is that whereas a man may have as many _tippa-malku_ wives as he can get, a woman cannot have more than one _tippa-malku_ husband, at any rate not at the same time. After the husband's death she may again enter into the _tippa-malku_ relation. The second point is that the _tippa-malku_ relation must precede the _pirrauru_ relation, of which I shall speak in a moment, and cannot succeed it[157].

There are unfortunately many points in Dr Howitt's narrative which demand elucidation. He says, for example, that _noa_ individuals become "_tippa-malku_ for the time being[158]." This suggests, probably erroneously, that the _tippa-malku_ relation is merely temporary; but I am unable to say whether it in reality means that the _tippa-malku_ relation is terminated by the capture of the woman, or that divorce is practised and may terminate the relationship at the will of the man only or of both parties.

Another point on which we have no information is the position of the unmarried girls and widows. Free love is permitted, the only limitation[159] given by Dr Howitt being that the man (who must of course have pa.s.sed through the Mindari ceremony) must not be _tippa-malku_ to the girl, but must be _noa-mara_. It would be interesting to know whether girls in the _tippa-malku_ relation before actual marriage are at liberty to have s.e.xual relations with any men of the right status or only with unmarried men, or whether the privilege is restricted to those who are not yet _tippa-malku_ to any one, and how far the same restriction applies to the men.

Any man who has been duly initiated, whether he is married to a _tippa-malku_ wife or not, and any woman who has a _tippa-malku_ husband[160], can enter or be put into a relation termed _pirrauru_ with one or more persons of the opposite s.e.x. The effect of the ceremony--termed _kandri_--is to give to the _pirrauru_ spouses the position of subsidiary husbands and wives, whose rights take precedence of the _tippa-malku_ rights at tribal gatherings, but at other times can only be exercised in the absence of the _tippa-malku_ spouse, or, when the male is unmarried, with the permission of the _tippa-malku_ husband of the _pirrauru_ spouse.

The _pirrauru_ relation is, for the woman, a modification of a previously existing _tippa-malku_ marriage; that being so, it cannot be quoted as evidence of a more pristine state of things in which she was by birth the legal and actual spouse of all men of a certain tribal status.

The _pirrauru_ relation falls under two heads of the cla.s.sification I have given above, according as the man has or has not a _tippa-malku_ wife. In the first case, it is, taken in combination with the _tippa-malku_ marriage, a case of bi-lateral adelphic dissimilar (M. and F.) polygamy. In the latter it is dissimilar adelphic (tribal) polyandry, adelphic being taken here, be it noted, in the sense of tribal, and possibly, but not necessarily, own brother.

Here too our information is unfortunately fragmentary and sometimes contradictory. We learn from Dr Howitt, for example, that a _pirrauru_ is always a brother's wife or a wife's sister (they are usually the same), and the relation arises through the exchange by brothers of their wives[161]. But on the next page we learn that the unmarried (men) can also become _pirraurus_. It appears further that a woman may ask for a _pirrauru_, but whether he must be a married man or not is not clear. It is only stated that she has to get her husband to consent to the arrangement. Further we find that important men have many _pirrauru_ wives, but it does not appear how far they reciprocate the attention.

Then again we are told that when two new _pirrauru_ pairs are allotted to each other, all the other pairs are re-allotted. Are we to understand from this that the allocation of new _pirraurus_ is a rare event or that the _pirrauru_ relationship is a very temporary affair? Or does re-allotted simply mean that the names are called over? If the latter, the terminology is very unfortunate. Gason's statement is perfectly clear: once a _pirrauru_, always a _pirrauru_[162]. Again does it imply that the wishes[163] of the already existing _pirraurus_ are consulted in the matter or not? If, as is stated, there is a good deal of jealousy between _pirraurus_, especially when one of them (the male) is unmarried, it is difficult to make the two statements fit in with one another. Once more, it is said that a widower takes his brother's wife as his _pirrauru_, giving presents to his brother. Does this imply that the consent of the husband is not necessary, or that he cannot refuse it, or that it is purchased? Again we read "a man is privileged to obtain a number of wives from his _noas_ in common with the other men of his group, while a woman's wish can only be carried out with the consent of her _tippa-malku_ husband." This latter statement clearly implies that a man can obtain a _pirrauru_ without the consent of the _tippa-malku_ husband, but this contradicts what has already been told us about the exchange by brothers of their wives. Exchange is clearly not the right term to apply; if one or perhaps both have no voice in the matter, it is rather a transfer. These are by no means all the unsettled questions on which light is needed. What, for example, is the position of a _pirrauru_ wife whose _tippa-malku_ husband dies? Does she pa.s.s to a new _tippa-malku_ husband? If so, must he be an ex-_pirrauru_? Does she continue in the _pirrauru_ relation to her former _pirraurus_, regardless of her new husband's wishes? Can the _pirrauru_ relationship be dissolved at the wish of either or both parties and by what means?

With so many obscurities in the narrative we must esteem ourselves fortunate that we are not left without the information that a special ceremony is necessary to make the _pirrauru_ relation legal; this is performed by the head or heads of the men's totems, and need not be described here.

With regard to precedence it should be noted that at ordinary times the _tippa-malku_ spouse always takes precedence of the _pirrauru_ spouse.

Where two men are _pirrauru_ to the same woman, the _tippa-malku_ husband being absent, the elder man may take the precedence or may share his rights and duties with the younger. It is the duty of the _pirrauru_ husband to protect a woman during the absence of her _tippa-malku_ husband.

A woman cannot refuse to take a _pirrauru_ who has been regularly allotted to her. In her _tippa-malku_ husband's absence the _pirrauru_ husband takes his place as a matter of right. He cannot however take her away from the _tippa-malku_ husband without his consent except at certain ceremonial times[164]. One other fact may be noted. An influential man hires out his _pirraurus_ to those who have none.

Before we proceed to discuss the import of these facts it will be well to mention the a.n.a.logous customs of the only two tribes outside the Dieri nation where the same relation is a.s.serted to exist, and certain cases regarded by Dr Howitt, wrongly in all probability, as on the same level as the _pirrauru_ custom. In the Kurnandaburi, according to an informant of Dr Howitt's, a group of men who are own or tribal brothers and a group of women who are own or tribal sisters, are united, apparently without any ceremony, in group marriage, whenever the tribe a.s.sembles or this Dippa-malli group meets at other times[165].

Dr Howitt adds that in this tribe the husband often has an intrigue with his sister-in-law (wife's sister or brother's wife), although they are in the relation of _Kodi-molli_ and practise a modified avoidance. This he attempts to equate with Dieri group marriage. It is not however clear that it is more than what we have called a liaison. Our authority does not state that it is recognised as lawful by public opinion, nor yet that any ceremony initiates the relations[166]. In the absence of these details we cannot regard his view as probable. It may however be noted that the widow in this tribe pa.s.ses to the brother.

The only other case of "group marriage" which Dr Howitt gives[167] is in the Wakelbura tribe of C. Queensland. Here however, so far from being group marriage, it is, according to his own statement, simply adelphic polyandry. A man's unmarried brothers have marital rights and duties, the child is said to term them its father. It may however be pointed out that this hardly bears on the question of group marriage, for it would do so even if no marital relations existed between its mother and any other man besides the primary husband.

It will be seen that our information is very fragmentary, and what we have is neither precise nor free from contradiction. A most essential point, for example, is the connection of the totem-kin with the _pirrauru_ relationship. Among the Dieri the men may be of different totems. Is this the case among the Wakelbura? Was it always the case among the Dieri?

Before we leave Dr Howitt's work it is necessary to refer again to the Kurnai. The most important point in connection with the Kurnai, so far as the present work is concerned, is that, contradictory to Bulmer's statement[168] that unmarried men have access to their brothers' wives, and sometimes even married men, Dr Howitt mentions[169] as a singular fact that he recalls one instance of a wife being lent in that tribe.

Dr Howitt however holds that there are traces of group marriage in the tribe, and refers to the fact that the term _maian_[170] is applied to a wife by her husband and by his brother, whose "official wife[171]" she is thus declared to be, and that a brother takes his deceased brother's widow. He regards this rather unfortunately named custom of the levirate as having its root in group marriage. Now _maian_ is applied, not only by a husband to a wife, but by a wife to her husband's sister, and by a sister to her brother's wife. If therefore the use of the term proves anything, it proves, not group marriage, as Dr Howitt understands it, but promiscuity, the prior existence of the undivided commune, and this, as we have seen, Dr Howitt declines to accept on the strength of the philological argument.

We are therefore reduced to the levirate as a proof of the former existence of group marriage. But there is nothing whatever to show that it is not a case of inheritance of property. For the Australians, as for many other savage peoples, the married state is the only thinkable one for the adult, and that being so it is natural for the widow to remarry.

She has however been purchased by the exchange of a woman in the relation of sister to the deceased, and if the widow were allowed to pa.s.s to another group, the property thus acquired would be alienated.

Moreover the marriage regulations require the woman to marry only a tribal brother of the deceased. It is therefore in every way natural for a brother to succeed to a brother. No arguments for the prior existence of group marriage can be founded on the levirate, any more than an argument for primitive communism can be founded on other laws of inheritance. At most the _maian_ relationship is evidence of adelphic polygyny[172].

For the Urabunna we depend on the information gained by Spencer and Gillen on their first expedition. Here the circle from which a man takes his wife is much more restricted than among the Dieri. Not only is he bound to choose a woman of the other moiety of the tribe, but he is restricted to a certain totem[173] in that moiety, and to the daughters of his mother's elder brothers (tribal) in that totem. Hence although the _kami_ relationship of the Dieri is unknown among the Urabunna, the choice among the latter is more limited.

The marriageable group is termed _nupa_ by both men and women; in addition to the _nupa_ relationship and the unnamed individual marriage, into which a man enters with one or more of his _nupa_, there is the _piraungaru_ relationship, corresponding to the _pirrauru_ of the Dieri.

In each case the elder brothers of the woman decide who are to have the primary and who the secondary right to the female. In the case of the _piraungaru_ however the matter requires confirmation by the old men of the tribe. The circ.u.mstances under which the _piraungaru_ claims take the first rank are not stated by Messrs Spencer and Gillen; the statement that a man lends his _piraungaru_ need not, of course, refer to times at which he himself cannot claim the right of access[174].

We may now turn to a discussion of the bearing of the facts just cited on the question of "group marriage." The first point is naturally that of nomenclature, and we at once recognise that among the Dieri the relations of the _pirrauru_ are not marriage, either on the definition suggested by Dr Westermarck or on that given in Chapter XI of the present work. If two _tippa-malku_ pairs are reciprocally in _pirrauru_, the only relations between them, unless the _tippa-malku_ husbands absent themselves or are complaisant, are, strictly speaking, those of temporary regulated polygamy or promiscuity, and rather a restriction than an extension of similar customs in other tribes, as I shall show below.

A second point of a similar nature is that the parties to a _pirrauru_ union are in no sense a group[175]. They are not united by any bond, local, totemistic, tribal, or otherwise. The theoretical "group marriage"--the union of all the _noa_--does, in a sense, refer to a group, though this term properly refers rather to a body of people distinguished by residence or some other _local_ differentia from other persons or groups. But no distinction of this kind can in any sense be affirmed of the _pirrauru_ spouses; it cannot be said of them that they are in any way distinguished from the remainder of their tribe, phratry, cla.s.s or totem-kin. From this it follows that the term cla.s.s-marriage cannot be applied to the relation between the _pirrauru_, nor yet cla.s.s promiscuity; the _pirrauru_, though members of a certain cla.s.s, do not include all members of that cla.s.s.

Turning now to the custom itself, let us examine how far it presents any marks of being a survival of a previous state of cla.s.s promiscuity.

_Pirrauru_ relations are regarded by Dr Howitt and others as survivals from a previous stage of "group," by which we must, presumably, understand cla.s.s or status marriage, or promiscuity. So far as they are evidence of this, the _pirrauru_ customs are certainly important. If however it cannot be shown that they probably point to some form of promiscuity, they have but little importance except as a freak or exceptional development of polyandry and polygyny.

Let us recall the distinguishing features of the _pirrauru_ union. They are (1) consent of the husband (?); (2) recognition by the totem-kin through its head-man; (3) temporary character[176]; (4) priority of the _tippa-malku_ union in the case of the woman; (5) purchase of _pirrauru_ rights by (_a_) the brother who becomes a widower, and (_b_) visitors or others without _pirraurus_ of their own, the rights being in the latter case for a very short period and not dependent on recognition by the totem-kin, so far as Dr Howitt's narrative is a guide. Now unless "group marriage" was very different from what it is commonly represented to be, the essence of it was that all the men of one cla.s.s had s.e.xual rights over the women of another cla.s.s. How far does this picture coincide with the features of the _pirrauru_, which is regarded as a survival of it?

In the first place _pirrauru_ is created by a ceremony, which is performed, not by the head, nor even in the Wakelbura tribe, by a member of the supposed intermarried cla.s.ses of the earlier period; but by the heads of the totem-kins of the individual men concerned. Now it is quite unthinkable that the right of cla.s.s promiscuity, to use the correct term, should ever have been exercised subject to any such restriction; even were it otherwise the performance of the ceremony would more naturally fall into the hands of tribal, phratriac, or cla.s.s authorities than of the heads of totem-kins. Then too if _pirrauru_ is a survival of group marriage we should expect the ceremony to be performed for the _tippa-malku_ union and not for the _pirrauru_.

Again if _tippa-malku_ is later and _pirrauru_ earlier, what is the meaning of the regulation that the woman must first be united in _tippa-malku_ marriage before she can enter into the _pirrauru_ relationship? On the "group marriage" theory this fact demands to be explained, no less than the different position of men and women in this respect. We have seen that freedom in s.e.xual matters is accorded to both bachelors and spinsters. It is therefore from no sense of the value of chast.i.ty, from no jealousy of the future _tippa-malku_ husband's rights, that the female is excluded from the _pirrauru_ relation until she has a husband.

Again, if _pirrauru_ is a relic of former rights, now restricted to a few of the group which formerly exercised them, why is the husband's consent needed before the _pirrauru_ relation is set up, and why is the _pirrauru_ relation, once established, not permanent (a.s.suming that my reading of Dr Howitt is right)?

Once more, if _pirrauru_ is a right, how comes it that a brother has to purchase the right, when he becomes a widower[177]? What too is the meaning of the transference of _pirrauru_ women to strangers in return for gifts?

All these points seem to me to weigh heavily against the survival theory, and we may add to them the fact that the _tippa-malku_ husband, so far from having to gain the consent of his fellows before he obtains his wife, gets her by arrangement with her mother and her mother's brothers, all of whom belong to the other moiety, and consequently are not among those whose supposed group rights are infringed by the introduction of individual marriage. When we consider that the _jus primae noctis_ is explained as an expiation for individual marriage the position of the _tippa-malku_ husband and the method in which he obtains his wife are exceedingly instructive.

Supporters of the theory of group marriage will naturally ask in what other way the facts can be explained. The unfortunate lack of detail to which I have alluded does not make it easier to make any counter-suggestion; but the explanation may, I think, be inferred from the facts already at our disposal. We have seen that in the Wakelbura tribe, so far from the condition being one of "group marriage," it is one of dissimilar adelphic polyandry. Now it is by no means easy to see how this could arise from the Dieri custom, the essence of which, according to one of the statements I have quoted, is reciprocity. On the other hand we can readily see how polyandry of this type, which is found in other parts of the world also, may be in Australia, as in other regions, the result of a scarcity of women[178], or, what is the same thing, of polygyny on the part of the notables of the tribe and of the independent custom of postponing the age of marriage in the male till 28 or 30.

With this view agree the facts that in some cases the brother is required to purchase his _pirrauru_ rights, that the young man without _pirrauru_ wife can purchase from another man the temporary use of one of his _pirrauru_ spouses, and that the _tippa-malku_ marriage always precedes the _pirrauru_ relation in the female. It may indeed be urged against the view that the purchase of a temporary _pirrauru_ is in fact not a case of _pirrauru_ at all, but simply the ordinary purchase of hospitality among savage nations. This is no doubt the case and we might merely cite this fact in order to show that the purchase of s.e.xual rights is a recognised proceeding in Australia. Looked at from another point of view however the case is seen to be singularly instructive. So far as Dr Howitt's statements go, the husband of the _pirrauru_ who is thus lent does not require to be consulted in the matter. The _pirrauru_ husband, on the other hand, disposes of his spouse exactly as if she were a slave. On the theory of group marriage the _tippa-malku_ husband has no less a right to be consulted in the matter than the _pirrauru_ husband. In point of fact he seems to be entirely neglected in the transaction. It is true that in the case we are considering the _pirrauru_ husband seems to have exceptional privileges, for we have seen that under ordinary circ.u.mstances the _tippa-malku_ husband has exclusive rights at ordinary times. But we must probably understand the pa.s.sage to mean that the lending of _pirraurus_ takes place at tribal meetings[179] or on other occasions when the right of the husband is in abeyance. In either case, the facts tell far more strongly in favour of the view suggested here than in favour of group marriage.

There is another factor to be considered. Abductions and elopements are merely ordinary amenities of married life among the aborigines of Australia. We have seen that it is the duty of the _pirrauru_ husband to protect the wife during the absence of the _tippa-malku_ husband.

Clearly this is a sort of insurance against the too bold suitor or the too fickle wife, unless indeed the _pirrauru_ himself is the offender, a point on which Dr Howitt has nothing to say, though Mr Siebert's evidence may be fairly interpreted to mean that such occurrences are not known.

We shall see below in connection with the question of the _jus primae noctis_ that special privileges are sometimes accorded to men of the husband's totem or cla.s.s in return for a.s.sistance in capturing the wife.

Now a.s.suming that a wife is abducted or elopes, it is, I think, on the same persons that the duty of aiding the injured husband would fall.

Whether this is so or not, the men of his own totem are those with whom a man's relations are, in most tribes, the closest. We have seen that the heads of the totem-kins play an important part in a.s.signing _pirraurus_. Now although it is actually the practice for men of different totems to exchange wives, it by no means follows that it was always the case. The element of adelphic polyandry, for example, may well have upset the original relations and brought about a practice of exchange between men of different totems. At any rate the theory here suggested affords an explanation of the part played by the totem headmen, and on the theory of group marriage their share in the transaction remains absolutely mysterious.

In connection with these possible explanations of the _pirrauru_ custom, it is important to observe that there are duties in regard to food owed by the _pirrauru_ wife to her spouse, when her husband is absent. Now it is hardly conceivable that in a state of "group marriage" any such practice should have obtained. A woman would doubtless have collected food for the man with whom she was actually cohabiting; but in the case of the _pirrauru_ relation, the absence of the _tippa-malku_ wife of her _pirrauru_ spouse must coincide with the absence of her own _tippa-malku_ husband before this position is reached. So long as only one _tippa-malku_ partner is absent, the _pirrauru_ spouse is under the obligation of lightening the labours of the woman whose place she sometimes occupies, and this is very far from what we should expect in the "group marriage" stage.

On the whole therefore I conclude that the _pirrauru_ relation affords absolutely no evidence of a prior stage of group marriage. So far from the quant.i.ty of evidence for group marriage having been increased by Dr Howitt's recent book, it has undergone a diminution. Gason had stated[180] that tribal brothers had the right of access in the absence of the husband without first being made _pirrauru_. This, if correct, would have been much nearer group marriage than the actual facts; the statement however appears to be incorrect, if we may judge by the fact that Dr Howitt has silently dropped it.

Of the _piraungaru_ relation but little can be said, mainly for the reason that our information is so scanty. We do not learn, for example, if it is temporary or permanent, if the consent of the woman is needed, if she ever asks her husband for a certain _piraungaru_, or if she applies rather to her elder brothers. We do not know what becomes of the _piraungaru_ when the primary spouse dies, whether the brother can claim a right to his brother's wife as _piraungaru_ on giving presents, whether married and unmarried alike enter into the relationship, whether a woman can become _piraungaru_ before she has a special husband, whether relations of free love are barred between a man and his prospective wife and permitted with other _nupa_ women, and a host of other questions. We do not even learn when access is permitted to a _piraungaru_ spouse. We have, it is clear, far too few data to be 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. a.s.s._ 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 pa.s.sed 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.